One symbol of Russia has been the Russian bear. Sometimes the image has been positive. The mascot of the 1980 Moscow Olympics was a bear cub called “Misha.” More frequently the Russian bear image has been used to describe Russia as “big and brutal.” The war in Ukraine has certainly reinforced the idea of brutal.

Consider this short list of brutal acts by the Russian military: the massacre in Bucha, airstrikes in various cities and ports, the use of cluster munitions near a preschool where civilians were sheltering, and the rape and impregnation of Ukrainian women as young as eleven.

No wonder commentators are using words like “brutal” and “sadistic” to describe the actions of the Russian military. One commentator went to far as to suggest that Putin will now be considered the most reckless and destructive European leader since Adolf Hitler.

Also of concern is the current morale of Putin and the Russian military. They have been losing on some battlefronts. A humiliated Russia could be a desperate Russia and that may be why we keep hearing threats about using nuclear weapons.

Russia has lost more than 3,000 pieces of large equipment in battle. It will take months (perhaps a year) to replace that equipment. Although some of that equipment can be replaced, the more than 15,000 trained Russian soldiers killed in battle cannot be as easily replaced.

If the situation on the ground gets worse, Putin has less to lose by pursuing a more aggressive option, often described as “escalate to deescalate.” One military expert called it one part of Russia’s nuclear toolbox.

We need to pray that our leaders see the Russian bear for what it is and make thoughtful and careful decisions considering the current circumstances.

Bobby C. Lee is an entrepreneur and was also an early adopter of bitcoin. In his book, he makes the claim that money is a natural right. He acknowledges that it may seem odd to say something like that. After all, it isn’t what John Locke listed as one of the many inalienable rights like life, health, liberty, or possessions.

But if you think about it, money represents the fruit of your labor. You are paid for your work and should be able to use those funds however you wish. And you might think that is already the case with the cash in your pocket. But what about the money you put into the bank or other investments?

He wrote his book before the Canadian truckers had their bank accounts seized and before the US and EU seized funds Russia had in foreign banks. Now the seven questions he often asks are even more relevant. Here are just four of those questions.

When you deposit a check, do you have access to the full amount immediately? Can you withdraw or transfer any amount of money at all times? Can you complete the transfer, payment, or withdrawal without having to pay an exorbitant banking fee? Does the money, including interest accrued, have the same purchasing power today as when you first deposited it into the bank?

If you answered no to any of the questions, it illustrates that you don’t really have total control of your money. The last question also illustrates that your money isn’t a very good store of value since the value of the dollar is declining every year.

Even if you don’t believe that money is a natural right, I hope you can still see why more Americans are looking for a form of money that is permissionless, censorship resistant, and a store of value. The events of the last year make an even more compelling case.

As the threat from a global pandemic is beginning to subside in many parts of the world, the specter of a global food crisis seems likely. A major reason is the war in Ukraine.

For example, 25 percent of all the wheat exports in the world come from Ukraine and Russia. About 20 percent of all the corn exports in the world come from there. Most of the sunflower oil comes from that region along with significant amounts of potash used for fertilizer.

Wheat that was in the fields have been stolen by Russian soldiers. But even if the there was enough wheat left, there is hardly anything making its way out of the country. The two major ports (Mariupol and Odessa) are closed. And there are hundreds of anti-ship mines floating in the Black Sea making it nearly impossible for cargo ships to make it to a port in the region.

Any possibility that other countries might pick up the difference seems unlikely. Some had hoped that India could increase wheat production faded because of the intense heat wave hitting the country and reducing crop yields. Restrictions on wheat exports seems likely. And other countries are also talking about export restrictions because of their concerns about a possible global food crisis.

Meanwhile, the fertilizer shortage has become a topic of concern. Reduced crop yields are likely, and more than one commentator has talked about how manure has become a hot commodity. International agencies are now talking about natural solutions like manure and compost.

The human cost of a global food crisis (malnutrition, starvation) is but one concern. Another is the inevitable political unrest that follows food shortages Remember that the trigger of the Arab Spring was rising grain prices and food shortages.

This is a time for American agriculture and the American government to step up and address a looming global food crisis.

This year has already been a banner year for major Supreme Court cases that will be decided and announced in the next few weeks. Add to that the number of important pieces of legislation passed by state legislatures. The airwaves and public forums will be filled with sophistic reasoning. The arguments might seem plausible but are unsound.

Consider the standard argument that men shouldn’t make decisions about abortions. We didn’t hear that argument when seven men on the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe v. Wade back in 1973. We didn’t hear it when four of the five justices were men who ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. That’s only a problem when the court might rule the other way.

We don’t apply such a standard to other social issues. We don’t lament that judges or legislatures passing laws on drugs haven’t used drugs. We don’t complain that anyone ruling on capital punishment should have had a member of their family murdered. In fact, we believe just the opposite. We assume that the best people to rule fairly on issues are those who don’t have personal interest and can be more objective.

Another argument is that national policy shouldn’t be made by five justices. There is some merit to that argument. Why should a few Supreme Court justices always be the last resort on controversial issues? But remember that just five justices decided in Obergefell v. Hodges that laws against same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. For the last seven years, we have been warned that the 5-4 decision is settled law and cannot be changed.

We may not like the fact that a simple majority of justices can decide cases or a simple majority of legislators can make laws, but that’s the system we have. And it’s one more reminder that elections do have consequences.

The latest research shows that Christian parents are sending mixed signals to their kids about living the Christian life. More than a decade ago, Probe Ministries surveyed born-again millennials and found that if parents had an inconsistent biblical view, their children would also have an inconsistent view. The only major exception to that would be for kids who got involved with a campus Christian ministry and grew in their faith.

The latest research by George Barna illustrates this same finding in even more detail. His research at Arizona Christian University’s Cultural Research Center found that “a mere 5 percent of parents have beliefs that are in harmony with a biblical worldview, more often than not, those same parents do not follow through with consistent biblical behavior.”

Put another way, most parents are not even talking the talk, but the few that do are not walking the walk. This is sending mixed signals to their children who quickly can pick up contradictions between what parents say they believe and how they behave.

Among pre-teen parents who attend Catholic, mainline Protestant, or traditionally black churches, merely 3 percent were found to have a consistent biblical set of beliefs. Surveys of parents attending Pentecostal, non-denominational or independent Protestant churches show only 9 percent of the parents of pre-teens had a biblical worldview.

George Barna concludes that, “It’s not surprising that young people in our nation are confused regarding gender and sexuality, the value of human life, and even why and how to nurture positive personal relationships.” Churches, he says, must be facilitating clarity rather than confusion.

Parents need a better understanding of biblical viewpoints and biblical behavior. And they shouldn’t feel guilty about imposing their views on children but should “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4).

In a provocative commentary, Madeleine Kearns reminds us that “Cancel Culture Harms Us All.” She calls it “the persecution of one’s political opponents in the place of debate and the complete condemnation of those who make mistakes.”

She has found that there are two common arguments against cancel culture. One argument is that cancel culture isn’t real and is “only an exaggerated right-wing talking point.” The other argument contradicts the first argument: people who are canceled deserved to be.

Throughout her commentary, she provides examples of women who have been cancelled in their professions or on campus. Many of them are radical feminists that you would never expect to be cancelled, but their feminist statements often contradict transgender ideologies. Thus, they are labeled transphobic and cancelled.

She also explains that: “Advocates of cancel culture conflate feeling offended with having their rights violated. Really, it is they who violate the rights of others through thuggish and totalitarian means.” She says that these tactics often merely come down this: “I don’t like this person’s views, so I will shout and tell lies about them until they shut up.”

This is another concern with cancel culture. She also provides examples of people who didn’t say anything wrong but were intentionally misrepresented by posting short soundbites or statements that were devoid of any context. “Cancel-culture activists are not interested in explanation, investigations, or even the truth. They act in bad faith and are obsessed with power and narratives. That’s why they rarely bother to find out what a person has actually said or done before whipping up a social-media mob.”

This commentary is a reminder for us to stand up against social media bullies who are using cancel culture to hurt lots of people.

Several educators have been injecting critical race theory into the classroom, but would you believe these ideas are even making their way into math classes? Apparently, it is happening and that is why the state of Florida rejected several dozens of mathematics books that contain “indoctrination concepts.”

When politicians and pundits criticized the move, the Florida governor’s press secretary said these critics needed a “reality check.” She tweeted some math homework from a public school district in Missouri and asked, “How does this help kids learn algebra? No wonder China is winning.”

The math problems are used to answer questions in a “Person Puzzle” about black poet Maya Angelou. The answers help students determine if she was “sexual abused by her mother’s boyfriend, brother or father.” Answers to another question are used to determine if she worked as a “pimp, prostitute and bookie or Drug Dealer or night club Dancer.” The Florida press secretary concluded, “I promise you, in China kids aren’t learning about pimping in math class.”

James Lindsey posted a screenshot of math problems in Pennsylvania that asked students to do calculations based on race. Students were to calculate seven different probabilities for whites and non-whites. These included calculating the probability of a white person living in poverty and then calculating it for a non-white person.

He explains that the math lesson was retooled through social theory examples. It then served as a basis for theory-based discussion that follow the assignment. He then added that this is how Soviets influenced students in their schools.

When we first hear the claim that race is being injected into math classes, we have reason to be skeptical. But once you see some of the screenshots on Twitter, you can see that these ideas are being deliberating injected by educators.

The synthetic drug, fentanyl, is responsible for as many as 100,000 overdose deaths. This is just one more reason why we need better border security.

Fentanyl is produced mostly in China and then flown into Mexico. But there is now significant evidence that China is providing the chemicals to criminal drug networks in Mexico who then mass produce them as prescription pills. And drug cartels also lace the opioid into other drugs like heroin or methamphetamine.

Fentanyl is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine. Putting fentanyl into other drugs increases the possibility that a user might die. Some of the pills look exactly like OxyContin, so it is quite likely that users are unaware of the presence of fentanyl.

The head of US drug enforcement explained that fentanyl is the leading cause of death for men ages 18 to 45. In fact, there are more overdose deaths than car accidents and shootings.

Imagine if a foreign enemy wanted to weaponize fentanyl. Some commentators have suggested this. China is sending chemicals to drug cartels that lace those drugs with the manufactured fentanyl. If you wanted to addict people to a drug, you probably wouldn’t want to kill them. You would want to hook them on the drug. That isn’t what is happening right now. Fentanyl is killing lots of Americans.

Border security is national security. When we have porous borders, drugs, criminals, traffickers, and terrorists can enter our country. Proponents of open borders argue we should be a welcoming country. More than a million people come to this country legally every year. But we don’t need to welcome people who intend us harm, especially when there have been so many fentanyl deaths.

In a podcast last month, White House press secretary Jen Psaki suggested that the Biden administration will decide by August 31 about cancelling student debt. The casual way she said it illustrates how casually the president is thinking about this. But the decision would be consequential.

Charles Cooke says that if the White House were to go ahead and cancel all student debt, “it would represent one of the greatest political mistakes in modern American history. It would enrage most of the country, further damage our separation of powers, help to entrench our two-tier approach to education, create an extraordinary moral hazard, considerably increase the national debt, and exacerbate the inflationary pressures that are already destroying Joe Biden’s presidency.”

Notice that proponents always talk about cancelling student debt. This is how you talk if someone owes you money and you decide to cancel their debt obligation to you. But canceling student debt would not vanish the moment the president signs a document. The debt has already been issued and already spent. A better way to describe it would be to say we are transferring the debt obligation from those who received student loans to other Americans.

By the way, the argument that graduates can’t find jobs is fallacious. The unemployment rate for college graduates is 2 percent and only a bit higher (3%) for students who went to college and didn’t graduate. And it is worth mentioning that the administration has already cancelled more than $100 billion in student debt using regulatory actions and extending the pandemic pause through August.

It’s amazing to me that the administration is still talking about canceling student debt and oblivious to the significant public backlash to such an action.