The latest news out of China has been a cause for concern and perhaps a wake-up call to consider what the communist leaders are planning. China tested a hypersonic nuclear-capable missile. Hypersonic vehicles travel at Mach 5 or faster. They are not defensive weapons and fly in the low atmosphere, enabling them to evade defense systems.

One source said, “We have no idea how they did this.” One report said that the test revealed that China “was far more advanced than US officials realized. The test has raised new questions about why the US often underestimated China’s military modernization.”

Yes, that is a good question. This country has more than a dozen intelligence agencies. They all seem surprised by this latest revelation. That raises the question of why are we spending so much money on agencies that were surprised by the collapse of Afghanistan and surprised by the military advances in China?

Hypersonic missiles are uniquely suited to defeat our missile defense systems. We can’t counter them, especially since we would have enough problem even tracking them.

An MIT professor hastened to add that just because China tested this missile capability doesn’t mean they plan to deploy it. But I would recommend that professor stick to science and technology, because the history of communist governments is they will likely use advanced weaponry either directly on countries or as a means of intimidating other governments.

By the way, this latest news follows the discovery of hundreds of new missile silos in the Chinese desert, likely dug for nuclear missiles. This isn’t the behavior of a nation merely trying to improve its defense capabilities against other nations. Each of these disturbing revelations should be a wake-up call to our leaders.

Attorney General Merrick Garland may have tipped over a string of dominos when he issued his memorandum concerning protesting parents at school board meetings. That is the argument Roger Kimball makes in a recent article.

He says the Attorney General wants to “mobilize the entire police power of the state against parents” because they “have suddenly woken to the wokeness haunting their schools.” Parents don’t like what is happening and rightfully believe they should have a voice. “They pay for the schools. The school board (in theory) works for them.”

Instead, the National School Board Association called them “domestic terrorists” and accused them of “hate crimes.” At this point, let’s state the obvious. A true threat or act of intimidation should be dealt with by local law enforcement. On the other hand, parents who say they will defeat a school board member in the next election should not be conflated with physical threats or intimidation.

The Attorney General wants to forge a “partnership among federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement.” This isn’t constitutional and perhaps a conflict of interest given the fact that his son-in-law is a president of a company that sells to schools some of the controversial material parents are protesting.

Roger Kimball’s article details how much of this was coordinated behind the scenes. And one letter suggested that the Patriot Act should be cited as justification for dealing with protesting parents. In case you forgot, the Patriot Act was enacted twenty years ago to protect innocent Americans from terrorists. It was not implemented to go after angry and frustrated parents at a school board meeting.

One concerned mother talked about “the domino effect.” She observed that “when one parent speaks out, another parent feels like it safer for them to speak out.” The sound you are hearing is the sound of dominos falling.

One question I am frequently asked is: Why isn’t the government prosecuting voter fraud? My quick answer is that state and local governments are charging people with voter fraud, but often the media isn’t reporting it.

News outlets may not think it is an important story. Or they may fear that reporting the prosecutions would stimulate more questions about the security of our vote. Not reporting investigations into voter fraud make it easier for critics of voter integrity laws to maintain that these legislative revisions are merely trying to find a solution for a non-existent problem.

Just in the last week, I had three different articles land in my inbox that demonstrates that election fraud prosecution is taking place right now. In Michigan, three women were charged with crimes related to voter fraud. One woman, for example, stole a stack of absentee voter applications meant for nursing home residents, filled them out, and forged the residents’ signatures. In Georgia, two workers in Fulton Country lost their jobs due to accusations of voter fraud, which led to a public statement from the Georgia Secretary of State about such embarrassing revelations.

A former judge of elections was charged in the voter fraud scheme in Philadelphia from 2015-2019. This included cash payments along with supporting family, friends, and allies for elective office. Even of greater importance was the statement by prosecutors that fraud occurred “at every level of government, from municipal to state to federal.”

Most of these stories always carry the disclaimer that finding fraud does not prove there was “widespread voter fraud.” But that isn’t the point. The problem isn’t widespread fraud but targeted voter fraud that can occur in certain cities and precincts. We need laws that make it easy to vote and hard to cheat.

It is unfortunately too easy to take for granted America and the freedom we enjoy. Victor Davis Hanson reminds us of what we currently enjoy in his new book, The Dying Citizen. You may not want to attempt to read this 400-page masterpiece, so you can get the general idea by reading his short article that summarizes some of the arguments in the book.

We can begin with the sad fact that only about half of the world’s 7 billion people are citizens of fully consensual governments. Those lucky 50 percent enjoy constitutional freedoms. Most of them are found in the Western world or else in countries that have been “Westernized.”

Hanson argues that constitutional systems easily perish because they ask quite a bit from its citizens: to vote, to be informed, to hold elected officials accountable. That probably explains why only 22 republics and democracies have been in existence for a half-century or more.

By now, you can probably guess the theme of his book and column. If the current trend continues America won’t be in that first category of countries with constitutional freedoms. Political elites tell us that we need to reform the republic and scrap ancient laws, customs, and traditions. Retire the Electoral College, end the Senate filibuster, and pack the Supreme Court. The Constitution, they tell us, is in dire need of radical deletions and alterations.

As a student of history, Hanson observes that “consensual societies usually implode when desperate factions resort to subverting hallowed rules for short-term partisan gain.” Political elites with a utopian vision are willing to do just that. The only question left on the table is whether concerned citizens will resist them.

Candidate Joe Biden assured us that in order to pay for all the government spending he proposed, he would only tax the rich. He promised not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 per year.

Most of us knew that was not true. But if you still have any doubts, you only need look at the latest proposal to have the IRS and banks spy on you. I am talking about the requirement for banks to report any transaction of $600 or more. If the government were only going after wealthy Americans, you would think that the minimum level would be $1,000 or $5,000.

The $600 threshold was certainly a “wake-up call” for middle class Americans. They realize lots of their bank transactions could now come under the scrutiny of the IRS. Few Americans are tax cheats, but most Americans aren’t thrilled about providing such confidential information to the government and wondering what government bureaucrats might do with it.

The justification for this intrusion is to close the tax gap and pay for an additional $3.5 trillion in government spending. But we will never be able to close the gap between taxation and government spending. Consider this thought experiment.

News outlets now estimate the Elon Musk is the richest American, with an estimated wealth of $200 billion. Imagine he knew he was dying and decided to cash in all of his wealth and donate all of the proceeds to the US government to pay down the national debt. His generous contribution would only cover 0.007 percent of that debt. Even if all 600 billionaires did the same, it would hardly reduce the nation debt in any significant way.

These proposed regulations prove to anyone willing to look at them that everyone will pay, not just a few billionaires and millionaires.

How can we resolve the apparent tension between the scientific presentation of evolution and the Bible? Christians attempt to reconcile the two views by saying that evolution is true, and that’s the mechanism God used. Prominent organizations such as Biologos insist that theistic evolution (sometimes called evolutionary creation) is a superior view because of the evidence for evolutionary theory.

Authors of a new book challenge that assumption based on their scientific understanding and their theological concerns. The book, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, is edited by scientists like Stephen C. Meyer, philosophers like J. P. Moreland, and theologians like Wayne Grudem.

Stephen Meyer was on my radio program recently to talk about his articles and contributions by other scientists. He said that he feels that many pastors and theologians believe they are under an obligation to accept an evolutionary worldview. Then they feel they have to interpret Scripture through that evolutionary hermeneutic. But the contributors to this book argue that is hardly necessary given the current status of the evolutionary model.

Meyer believes there is a very large disparity between the public presentation of the evolutionary theory by science popularizers and textbook writers and the actual status of the theory as you find it in the peer-reviewed literature. In fact, some leaders in the field are calling for a new theory of evolution and for a new mechanism for evolutionary change.

The book not only raises scientific questions about evolution but also deals with the philosophical and theological questions that arise once you adopt a view of theistic evolution. Where does the fall and human sinfulness fit into an evolutionary narrative? Is Adam a mythological figure or an historical figure? These are important questions raised in this new book that will challenge you to consider what you believe about origins.

Many members of the millennial generation think they are special. At least that is the conclusion of a study of college students. One newspaper report on the study put it this way: “If you asked a college freshman today who the Greatest Generation is, they might respond by pointing in a mirror.” The study of college students documented young people’s unprecedented level of self-infatuation.

Psychologist Jean Twenge found that over the last four decades of research on college freshman, there has been a dramatic rise in self-confidence. For example, they describe themselves as “above average” in academic ability and in their personal lives. The problem is that there is a stark disconnect between their opinions of themselves and their actual ability.

She has found that students suffer from what she calls “ambition inflation.” As their ambition increases, it reaches levels of unrealistic expectations. She has also found in another study that there has been a 30 percent increase toward narcissism in students since 1979.

The changing culture is part of the reason for this dramatic change. She explains: “Our culture used to encourage modesty and humility and not bragging about yourself.” If someone did that in the past, we called that person “stuck-up” or conceited. Today the culture often rewards such attitudes and behavior.

I would also argue that social media encourages and accentuates this trend. Students posting pictures of themselves on Facebook and Instagram, uploading videos on YouTube, and leaving numerous comments on Twitter receive positive feedback for such behavior. These technologies provide additional vehicles to feed their narcissism.

These studies remind us that this generation needs guidance from pastors and parents so they can apply biblical perspectives on success, humility, and self-image.

Many of the best selling books over the last decade have been written by the New Atheists. Although you may never meet any of these authors, you will certainly interact with skeptics who use their arguments.

One of the best Christian books to help refute many of the arguments by these New Atheists is the book, Is God Just a Human Invention written by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow. They answer eighteen of the most-cited arguments used by the New Atheists against religion and especially against Christianity.

One of those arguments is found in the title of the book that God is merely a human invention. Sigmund Freud wrote that religious beliefs are “illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind.” In other words, we project the existence of God based on a human need. It is wish fulfillment. We wish there would be a God, so we assume that he exists.

As McDowell and Morrow point out in their book, there are many good reasons to reject this idea. One objection is that Freud’s argument begs the question. In other words, it assumes that there is no God and then merely tries to find an explanation for why someone would believe in God anyway.

The projection theory can also cut both ways. If you argue that humans created God out of a need for security, then you could also just as easily argue that atheists believe there is no God because they want to be free and unencumbered by a Creator who might make moral demands on them.

It is not surprising to read how many prominent atheists in the past have acknowledged just that. They wanted their sexual freedom and found that required that they reject the idea of God. Paul teaches in the book of Romans (1:18) that fallen individuals “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”

The Bible also has a good explanation for why most people believe in a God. The writer of Ecclesiastes (3:11) observes that it is God who has “set eternity in the hearts of men.”