Should Congress approve more stimulus money? Former Senator Phil Gramm says no. When he was in Congress, he served as the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and previously was a professor of economics. He co-authored an op-ed arguing that more stimulus would crush the recovery.

He acknowledges that we always face a challenge when a major crisis occurs during an election year. There is lots of political posturing and opportunism. But he also believes we need a reality check. The three stimulus packages will increase federal spending by half and quadruple the deficit. Soon it will trigger the largest monetary expansion since the Civil War.

It is worth questioning what has already been done before Congress approves any more spending. The massive involvement of the federal government requires the government to borrow more than ever, “consuming the very oxygen that a powerful recovery will need” from the private sector.

The authors do not mention two issues I have discussed on radio. First, federal money isn’t always going to those who need it most. Americans are getting $1200 checks even if they have not lost their jobs. Major companies that have not shut down are eligible for the Paycheck Protection Program.

Second, Congress approved benefits that may have unintended consequences. Senators, like Ben Sasse, tried to amend the legislation so that it would cap unemployment benefits at 100 percent of people’s salary before they were laid off. The senators along with members of the administration feared the bill would incentivize people to not return to work.

Perhaps the biggest concern is that this crisis is being used to vastly expand government spending and expand the size and scope of government. If the trend continues, we will have an even larger and intrusive government even in the post-pandemic America of the future.

Ramadan begins today. It is a holy month of fasting for Muslims. But you may have also noticed that Ramadan seems to be a time of increased attacks on infidels. Every year the death toll runs into the hundreds. I fear this year the statistics will also be grim.

At first this seems like a contradiction. Ramadan occurs during the ninth lunar month in the Islamic calendar. It is time when Muslims fast from their first prayer of the day (at dawn) to their fourth prayer (after sunset). They also refrain from other activities and focus their minds on fervent prayer. Ramadan is a holy month, so why all the violence?

One of my regular guests on radio is Dr. Jim Denison. He explains that Muslims believe they will receive greater rewards during this month on the Islamic calendar. Muhammad himself actually preached a sermon on Ramadan in which he said, “Whoever performs an obligatory deed in [this month] shall receive the reward of performing seventy obligations at any other time.”

One Taliban spokesman therefore proclaimed, “Our fight is Jihad and an obligatory worship. And every obligatory act of worship has 70 times more reward in Ramadan.” I guess it’s not surprising that jihadists use this month to maximize their rewards.

Each attack is different. A gunman stormed a casino in Manila. Attackers killed more than two-dozen Coptic Christians traveling on a bus in Egypt. A bombing in Baghdad killed a dozen and injured nearly 100. A suicide vehicle in Kabul destroyed parts of the German embassy and killed many. And attackers in London drove over pedestrians and then stabbed others after leaving the vehicle.

Ramadan begins today. Let us pray that it will end without the usual violence that has been part of it in the past.

How many Americans have died of the coronavirus? You would think the answer to that question would be fairly simple. After all, we have the bodies in morgues and funeral homes that we can count. That is true. But how many of those people died of the virus becomes a more difficult question to answer.

Most media reports argue that we have a significant undercount, even in this country. It isn’t because government officials are trying to hide anything. It is due to the widespread lack of testing, especially in the early weeks of the outbreak. Also, people dying at home usually aren’t tested. And even some who die at a hospital or nursing home may not be tested because medical examiners are overburdened in many of the nation’s hot spots.

In order to counter this disparity, New York City last week decided to add 3,700 people to its death tolls. They “presumed” they died from the virus. That addition increased the US death toll by 17 percent. And it is worth mentioning that Ohio also has included people in their death toll who they have “suspected” of having the virus.

Is it possible that instead of an undercount, we might have an overcount? Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed this concern as merely a “conspiracy theory.” But Dr. Deborah Birx explained is a recent press briefing that people are counted as victims of the pandemic if they tested positive for the coronavirus, even if something else caused their death.

This raises an important distinction between dying from the virus versus dying with the virus. And I’m not just playing with prepositions. If you died of cancer or a heart attack but also tested positive for COVID-19, you are listed as a victim of the pandemic.

As you can see, getting an accurate number of coronavirus deaths isn’t so easy.

Three dozen states have voter ID laws, but one of those states (Virginia) just struck down the requirement to show identification before voting. The governor signed the bill arguing that “voting is a fundamental right.” That is true and all the more reason to make sure voter fraud does not take place.

Meanwhile, Michelle Obama announced a nationwide push to have every state vote by mail and allow people to register online. Progressives have tried to eliminate voter ID laws and promote liberal policies toward voting for years. But they have had limited success, until now. Concerns about the virus pandemic, they believe, might provide sufficient justification for altering our election laws.

The argument against voter ID is difficult to make in a society that requires identification for just about everything. You need an ID to buy a cell phone. You need an ID to open a bank account. You need an ID to rent or buy a house and to apply for a mortgage. You need an ID to rent a car or even drive a car. You need an ID to get on an airplane. You need an ID to apply for food stamps and to apply for Medicaid and Social Security.

Having the entire nation vote by mail means that all those votes are cast without any election official overseeing the process. We don’t if there was undue influence or intimidation. We also know that voter registration rolls are often inaccurate and out of date. Someone could vote in place of someone who died, and we might never know it. Absentee voting by mail is helpful for some and can be allowed for certain circumstances. But having all Americans vote by mail is a temptation for voter fraud and would endanger the security and integrity of the election process.

The pandemic cannot be an excuse for changing elections in America.

Whenever you see a news report or hear a comment from a medical expert during this virus pandemic, it is important to use some discernment and apply some logic. Since so much of what is reported is from medical experts, it is easy to be intimidated since few of us have a medical degree. But you don’t have to know much about science or medicine to see the flaws in what is reported.

A good example from a month ago were the statements about masks. On the one hand, we were told that we should NOT wear a mask. On the other hand, we were told that medical professionals needed masks to protect themselves. Did that mean the masks only work if you get a paycheck from a clinic or hospital? The general public began to see through the double message being put out by politicians and health care experts.

Now medical professionals are writing articles trying to explain the different infection rates and death rates. They frequently point to different dates when states went into lockdown as the explanation. Yet a state like Nebraska, that never went into lockdown, has a very low death rate (less than 1 per 100,000).

Dennis Prager cites an article in the Los Angeles Times that quotes a UC Berkeley biostatistician. He argued that California has a lower death rate than New York, because California issued a lockdown order earlier than New York.

Prager then explains that the article undermines its entire thesis in the next paragraph by stating that Florida didn’t impose a stay-at-home order until April 1. The Los Angeles Times authors never thought to look up Florida’s death rate which is one of the lowest in the country. And it worth mentioning that Florida has a largest percentage of elderly people in the country.

You don’t have to know much about medicine to see the logical flaws in the statements by politicians and the reporting by the media.

Scott Gottlieb (former FDA Administrator) concluded that this coronavirus would have been more deadly than the Spanish Flu it if appeared in 1918. That’s a reasonable conclusion based on what we know about this virus and what was not medically available back then.

We currently have a debate about the severity and extent of COVID-19. Some skeptics believe the dangers have been exaggerated. Some of the models predicted more infections and more deaths than have occurred. Health care professionals lament that many Americans don’t seem to take the warnings seriously. These debates will go on for months.

One thing we probably can all accept is that this virus would have taxed the medical capacities of 1918. The world was at war, and medical facilities were nothing like what we have today. For example, a patient with COVID-19 today who needs intensive care still has a good chance of survival. We are seeing patients being rolled out of hospitals after facing significant respiratory issues.

Gottlieb observes that “anyone who gets admitted to a prolonged ICU stay with COVID-19 who ends up getting intubated or ends up getting prolonged care—that’s probably someone who would have died from the Spanish flu.” He therefore concluded that “COVID-19 not only looks like the Spanish flu in terms of its distribution across the age range but looks far more fearsome.”

At the very least, his observation should make you feel grateful that you not only live in the 21st century but that you live in the US. It has been popular among many politicians to criticize America’s health care system and to attack Big Pharma. Yet, these observations from the former FDA commissioner is a reminder of the benefits we enjoy in this country at this time.

In one of those ZOOM get-togethers that have become a social lifeline lately, participants were asked to reveal their worst and best experiences during life in the coronavirus lockdown.

My worst is an underlying angst and sleeplessness I can’t shake as I watch businesses and workers idled and try to swallow the passage of trillions of dollars in relief and stimulus.

I could go on about this. And I did, starting our time together on a real downer.

My fellow participants rescued the meeting as they began describing the good things they’re experiencing as a result of the current limitations.

People spoke of how they’re finding more time for reflection on their relationship with the Lord. Some see themselves dropping pretenses of control. We find it uncomfortable, even painful — but good — to learn to trust God more. Others said they appreciate relaxed dinners with spouses and family members, and opportunities to do some long-postponed purging and organizing at home. Many of us agreed we’re reaching out more to people who are important to us — often calling rather than emailing or texting.

And folks mentioned some sweet opportunities to communicate the gospel and provide help to others.

The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan predicted some positives for the nation in her column last weekend: First, she quoted a social psychologist who says: “hardship generally makes people stronger.” And Ms. Noonan wondered, “Could what we’re enduring leave us less polarized?” Not in Washington — she clarified the question — but “across America.” She wrote, “We need to be easier on each other, turn down the judgement 80%, or 90%.”

I’m rooting for getting the economy opened up sooner rather than later. The spending and the limitations on freedom must be curtailed before they’re baked in. But this era of lockdown is forcing practices like more online education and homeschooling, telemedicine, and commonsense immigration restrictions that could prove worthwhile and remain, becoming a silver lining to this dark cloud.

G.K. Chesterton once observes that, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing; they believe in anything.” Dennis Prager starts off with that quote to illustrate that nature has become a substitute god for many today.

That’s not surprising. Many pagan religions had some form of nature worship. They worshipped the sun god, the moon god, or the goddess of fertility. Today there is a religious foundation to the environmental movement. We need to protect Mother Earth. Back in the 1970s, James Lovelock developed the “Gaia hypothesis” and more recently noted that “environmentalism has become a religion.”

But nature worship has run into some tough times with this virus pandemic. Nature can be beautiful, but nature can also be brutal. Alfred Tennyson describes nature as “red in tooth and claw.” There are no moral laws. It is the survival of the fittest.

How should Christians think about nature. First, nature is part of the fallen world and should not be worshipped. G.K. Chesterton explained, “Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us.”

Second, in Genesis 1:28, God commands us to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion.” Being fruitful (having children) is just the opposite of what environmentalists would allow. One of my professors at Yale was the founder of zero population growth, dedicated to limiting the number of children that could be born.

Moreover, environmentalists and animal rights activists reject the idea that humans should subdue nature and have dominion over the earth. An article by Lynn White in the 1960s even blamed Christians and this passage in Genesis for our environmental problems.

This pandemic is a reminder that nature is not a friend, and nature is not our god. The Christian worldview is the true picture of reality.

Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives want to investigate the US response to the coronavirus pandemic. In Watergate investigative style, they want to know what the president knew and when he knew it. It looks like merely another attempt to criticize the president. But if they are really interested in knowing what we knew back in January, the person they should question is Senator Tom Cotton.

While most of Congress was preoccupied with other matters (like impeachment), the senator was warning the US government of an impending danger. On January 22, the Arkansas senator sent a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services warning that the Chinese Communists were likely censoring key information about the disease.

During the impeachment trial, the US Senate held a classified briefing on the virus. Only 14 senators showed up for the hearing. By January 28, his letter to many cabinet officers was calling for a ban on travel from China to the US while also urging an evacuation of Americans from China. He even missed hours of the impeachment trial because he was meeting with administration officials.

Why did he see the danger that so many others missed? He says that he has been aware of the Chinese government’s dishonesty for years. He also noticed the extreme measures the government was taking in January (putting more than 75 million Chinese in lockdown). People were confined to their apartments. Sometimes the front doors of the buildings were welded shut. People were being arrested if they left their homes.

The words of the Chinese Communist were meant to be reassuring. But their actions told another story. They were doing all they could to stop the spread of the virus. Senator Cotton is not a doctor nor even a health care expert. But he could see what China was doing and did what he could to alert the president and the US government. He deserves our thanks.

We are told by medical experts and politicians that we have to set aside many of our constitutional rights during this lockdown in order to keep people safe. And we are assured that this sacrifice of our freedoms is only temporary. But are we setting a precedent?

Who would have predicted that a virus would become the justification for some governors and mayors to lay siege to our civil liberties? Six months ago, if I told you that political leaders would close down nearly every church service (even on Easter) and close down huge sectors of our society, would you believe it? Even many of the most dedicated preppers would have had difficulty believing it. Yet here we are.

A retired UK Supreme Court Justice explained his concern. “The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it’s not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It’s usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the treat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated.”

The other side of that equation is also disturbing. Not only do citizens willingly give up their freedoms, but governments are traditionally reluctant to give up power that was granted to them during a crisis. Once we give government leaders power, they find it hard to return to the previous status quo.

Some of the worst threats to freedom can be seen in other countries when government leaders implement the most draconian of rules and regulations. America’s dedication to limited government and federalism have provided some protection against such action, so far. But let’s remember that we have had some governors and mayors threaten to permanently close down churches, gun stores, and a number of other establishments. That’s why we need to make sure we aren’t setting a precedent during this pandemic crisis.