In the 21st century, warfare doesn’t always happen on the battlefield. Cyberwarfare is becoming an important tool for many countries. That is why we have been seeing warnings about cyberattacks against the West and the US.

With US sanctions being used against Russia, Professor Ryan Wright (University of Virginia) predicts that “it is only a matter of time until the US is targeted more directly. This may mean attacks on your personal device through ransomware but also attacks on the infrastructure such as your internet access or even the power grid.”

We have seen such attacks in the past on the SolarWinds on the Colonial Pipeline. These were state-sponsored actors using increasingly sophisticated cyberwarfare. Russia might try to disrupt financial systems and crucial infrastructure such as the power grid or oil production to put pressure on the US to relent on sanctions.

Dr. Amy Zegart (Hoover Institution at Stanford) is the author of Spies, Lies, and Algorithms. In a recent conversation she noted this paradox: “In cyberspace, the most powerful countries, including the United States, are simultaneously the most vulnerable countries because we are so digitally connected. And that’s especially true of democracies because our freedom of speech enables the possibility of deception at scale. And, of course, the good neighborhoods and the bad neighborhoods in cyberspace are all connected, as we find out when our information is stolen or hacked.”

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been taking place more than 5,000 miles away. While the military battlefield is far away, a cyberattack could be as close as your computer and cell phone. And I’m not sure we are ready for those attacks.

In a recent essay, Lathan Watts talks about the value of free expression. He begins with a discussion of religious liberty since he is a lawyer with First Liberty Institute. He quickly explains that freedom of expression involves much more than religious free speech.

His organization has seen these situations. A baker can lose her business because of her religious convictions about marriage. A football coach can be fired for kneeling in silent prayer at the end of a football game. A flight attendant can be fired for providing requested employee feedback.

He concludes that, “Each time a person of faith is forced into silence or the untenable choice between piety and prosperity for a ‘thought crime’ or merely seeking to live peacefully according to their beliefs which of late are at odds with cultural orthodoxy, defenders of religious liberty caution against a slippery slope towards tyranny.”

Why are we seeing such censorship? He believes that sometimes it is due to blissful ignorance or naivete. Other times it is arrogance from people who are supremely confident that their views are right and will never be in the minority. But they need to remember that they could suffer the same fate at those they persecute.

How should we respond when we are confronted by ideas with which we disagree? He argues that “the proper response is introspection.” The writer of Proverbs reminds us that, “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.” A civil discourse can help us understand others and may provide insight we do not have. It can help us refine and improve our positions. Perhaps we might even change them.

This is the price we pay for liberty. And we are better people for being willing to engage the world of ideas. If we want freedom of expression, then we should be willing to grant that same freedom to others.

Why did Vladimir Putin decide to invade Ukraine? There are many reasons. One that is often ignored is the Afghanistan humiliation. The American military don’t want to mention it. They are responsible for much of it. The establishment press doesn’t really talk about it. That is old news and the focus in always on the present.

In an ideal world, the American military is supposed to act as a deterrent. Dictators and terrorists should think twice before challenging the US military. In the best of all worlds, we would welcome the fact that the military is such a deterrent, that we never have to use it.

The botched withdrawal from Afghanistan changed all that. We left behind what some estimate to be $80 billion in military arms and other equipment. We left behind Bagram Airbase after having spent $96 million on the two long runways. And don’t forget the $1 billion embassy in Kabul. The US packed up and flew out of the country leaving behind many who deserved to travel with us.

An effective military should frighten our enemies and encourage our allies. But does anyone seriously think leaders in other countries will trust us in the future? They may place their trust in us and yet fear with will merely “cut and run” whenever the next president thinks it is appropriate.

But how much trust do the American people have in the US military? I remember a time not so long ago when Americans often listed the military as one of the most trusted institutions. The latest polls can’t find a majority (only 45%) who have great confidence in the military. Generals and admirals seem more intent in rooting out racism or white supremacy in their ranks rather than focusing on protecting freedom here and abroad.

Our military is no longer a deterrent. Our enemies don’t fear us. Our friends don’t trust us.

College students have been convinced they face danger everywhere. A comment becomes a microaggression. A name on a university building is a link to the country’s racist past. But the greatest threat is a student without a mask.

A recent column talks about how danger has become “the woke weapon on campus.” University restrictions due to the pandemic have essentially become institutionalized. Now that some of the restrictions are being lifted in many parts of the country, administrators, faculty, and students might have to learn to adapt.

A few years ago, I interviewed Jonathan Haight, one of the authors of the book, The Closing of the American Mind. He and his co-author devoted a section of their book to the idea of “safetyism.” A generation that was protected from physical dangers with bike helmets and other devices, came to believe the world was dangerous and required parents and teachers to protect them. Then came the pandemic, lockdowns, and mandates.

Protection from dangers allows those in control to have even more power. In the past, there have been speech codes and the justification for disinviting any speaker that might offend student sensibilities. The pandemic provided an excuse to control even more behavior on campus. Returning to normal will be difficult.

The column tells the story of trying to revive a Harvard tradition, but them learning that it will be strictly controlled by the Harvard Committee on Student Life. In Massachusetts, 95 percent of all eligible ages have had at least one dose, while 98 percent of students are vaccinated. Harvard students are more protected than the general population of Massachusetts. But the danger of Covid is amplified and distorted.

Returning to normal on campus will be difficult for two reasons. First, administrators aren’t ready to relinquish control. Second, students are still willing to comply because they fear any danger on campus.

As I have been out speaking, one question surfaces with some regularity. People wonder if what happened to the truckers in Canada could happen to citizens in the US. I always acknowledge that anything can happen in this country if we aren’t working to defend our liberties, but there is an important difference between these two countries.

We share a great number of similarities in our language and even in our legal and political structure. Although there is a border between Canada and the US, it is relatively easy to move across the border. One country feels much like the other country.

The difference can be seen in how the two countries treat political rights and liberties. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants their citizen various rights. The US Declaration and Constitution acknowledges the existence of these rights. It may seem like a small difference, but it makes all the difference in the world.

To put it simply, if government gives you rights, then the government can take them away. All it takes is an emergency for the government to suspend them, temporarily or even permanently.

Our Constitution doesn’t grant you rights. It acknowledges that those rights exist, and government cannot infringe upon them. The Declaration makes it clear that these rights come from God because they are endowed by that Creator. They can’t be set aside as easily as they were in Canada.

But perhaps you are thinking that we did see many of our rights set aside during the pandemic. That is true. We let it happen. But we still do have a constitutional government with several judges in our federal court system willing to protect those rights.

Unfortunately, there are many liberals in government today that are willing to turn our country’s governmental system into one that looks more like Canada’s system. That is why we need to evaluate the candidates running for office this year.

Jeffrey Tucker reminds us in an essay that talking about economic warfare last year would be quickly labelled a conspiracy theory. Events in Canada changed that.

One crowdfunding platform raised $9 million but then was shut down. Another platform also raised millions until it was hit with denial-of-service attacks and hacked. Then the Canadian Broadcasting Service decided to follow up with donors, which became a ploy for critics to doxx and threaten anyone who donated to the cause.

The Canadian Minister of Finance threatened participants and donors with freezing their accounts. She also explained that banks could do this “without a court order.” Meanwhile, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police sent letters to crypto exchanges demanding they report any assets that might be flowing to truckers or other protesters.

David Sacks argues that a “social credit system” has arrived in Canada. We have seen this in action in China but did not expect to see it in Canada. The prime minister invoked the Emergencies Act giving him virtually unlimited power. Then he used a second law passed during the country’s war on terror to go after Canadian citizens who should never have been designated as terrorists.

You might have expected a backlash from Canadian citizens, but most just shrugged at these actions. The prime minister and the government finally did back down for two reasons.

The economic reason was a limited bank run. A threat of freezing accounts caused many Canadians to start removing money from banking systems. There were also stories of investment funds from Hong Kong being moved.

The political reason was an upcoming vote in the Canadian Senate to rebuke the prime minister. There were also reports of internal documents discovered that caught cabinet officers talking about the political benefit of invoking the Emergencies Act.

All of this is but a stark reminder of how quickly our freedoms can be lost.

Over the last 15 years of doing this commentary, I occasionally use the famous quote from G. K. Chesterton; “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up.” A corollary might be don’t defund a program or institution merely because you haven’t used it in some time.

We live in a dangerous world. But it is easy to forget that if you live in a safe neighborhood and haven’t seen a war break out on Europe in more than seven decades. There are criminals, terrorists, and dictators that threaten us. It is easy to forget, until Vladimir Putin sends his Russian troops into Ukraine.

He scoffs at the civilized Western world. He uses his power and military might while giving little attention to diplomacy. In fact, many leaders idolize his quest for power and prestige. Perhaps that explains why Donald Trump continues to say flattering and disturbing things about Putin (as well as other dictators in China and North Korea).

NATO, the US military, law enforcement, and even the wall on our southern border are examples of Chesterton’s fence. We haven’t needed NATO for some time. Democratic leaders in Congress want to reduce the size of the military, which we don’t seem to be using very much. Why not defund the police? And isn’t it time to tear down the wall that President Trump was building?

Most people know the famous scene in A Few Good Men – “You can’t handle the truth.” But the next line from Colonel Nathan Jessup is relevant here: “Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.”

Walls and people with guns (military, law enforcement) are what keep us safe and free. Vladimir Putin reminds us of that. The rising crime rate in our cities and the current flood of illegal immigrants also reminds us of that.

Ask a politician or government official a serious question, and you are likely to get deflection that includes changing the subject. Sometimes you get what commentators describe as a “word salad.” That’s what NBC News anchor Lester Holt received from President Biden when he asked about inflation. The conversation wandered off to something about computer chips and supply chains.

The latest polls show that Americans believe inflation to be the most urgent issue. But you wouldn’t think the administration feels the need to talk about it. The other day, the president went to the Midwest to talk about how the infrastructure bill passed last year will create jobs. Most Americans are more concerned with how to pay for gas and groceries than whether the latest big-spending plan is going to create more jobs.

Unfortunately, inflation caught many people off guard. A year ago in February, the presidents of the Atlanta branch and the Boston branch of the Federal Reserve announced that they would be surprised to see a spike in inflation.

Fortunately, some economists were concerned. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers warned a year ago that the American Rescue Plan would “set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.” Of course, he was mocked for saying that and the legislation passed.

Steven Rattner, former Obama “car czar,” explains that “supply chains have not been cut off, just stretched. And supply issues are by no means the root cause of inflation. Blaming inflation on supply chains is like complaining about your sweater keeping you too warm after you’ve added several logs to the fireplace.”

Yes, there is some common sense being expressed, but notice it is coming from “former” government officials. Unfortunately, those in power apparently want to ignore or deflect any serious discussion and action on inflation.