Penna Dexter
I’m against every big government program that is proposed. But one massive federal program really helped me.
I am a Baby Boomer. I was born during the unprecedented spike in the US birth rate that took place after World War II. The ‘baby boom’ occurred alongside an economic boom, a sustained period of economic growth and full employment.
 A big-government program played an important role.
The G.I. Bill, enacted in 1944, put higher education, job training, and home ownership within the reach of millions of World War II veterans. By 1951, nearly 8 million veterans had received educational and training benefits. My dad was one of them. He had saved during high school and worked while attending the University of Southern California.
He joined the Army after his second year of college. Two years into his service, the war ended. He was able to finish up at USC on the G.I. Bill.
The G.I. Bill made it so those millions of veterans would not flood the job market immediately after the war. And when these young people — mostly men — finished their educations, their higher wages fueled the growing economy and the prosperity of the middle class. Their knowledge and training enabled the innovation of new products, the proliferation of large corporations, and the modernization of infrastructure. Their growing families necessitated the expansion of the suburbs.
Men in my father’s orbit were upwardly mobile in an expanding economy. It’s not that we were rich. But a middle-class father’s salary could support a family. And people believed that if they worked hard they could climb the ladder of success.
Of course, this wasn’t true for everyone. Nearly one third of the country lived in poverty. President Johnson’s War on Poverty was supposed to fix this and bring about a “Great Society.” It didn’t.
What’s the difference? Family. The G.I Bill encouraged family formation and work. The War on Poverty incentivized dependence and single motherhood.
Families are divinely-inspired mini-governments.

Kerby Anderson
The crime wave in the Golden State has been in the news for many reasons, but two events stand out among the many others. Perhaps you have seen the video of robbery at a Nordstroms. Nearly 50 criminals ran off with an estimated $100,000 worth of merchandise, and this was the third robbery of a Nordstroms.
The other event that comes to mind was the protest from the Oakland branch of the NAACP calling out the “failed leadership” including the movement to “defund the police.” The protesters claimed that their crime wave was due to the district attorney’s failure to “prosecute people who murder and commit life threatening serious crimes.”
Why focus on crime in California? You may not live in the Golden State, but what is happening in California will arrive in your community if you don’t learn vicariously some lessons about criminal justice.
Charles Cooke asks, “Why has this happened? At least in part, it has happened because California decided to let it happen.” Voters passed Proposition 47 which changed felonies into misdemeanors if the amount stolen did not exceed $950. That made theft and shoplifting more profitable for the criminal.
In addition, some in law enforcement don’t want to enforce the law. The Oakland district attorney says she wants to decriminalize kids. Put another way, she wants to be a social worker, not a DA.
I would point out to the protesters and to the citizens of that state that they voted for a policy and put people in office which resulted in the latest crime wave. If you live in California, you have an opportunity to make some necessary changes in the next election. If you live somewhere else in the country, you should learn what not to do. This progressive experiment in criminal justice is not going well, and you don’t need to import it to your state.

Kerby Anderson
The latest tool of those involved in the cancel culture has been the use of “debanking.” This occurs when a prominent individual or organization is informed by their bank that they will no longer be allowed to use banking services.
Nigel Farage faced such a statement from his bank in the UK because he was perceived as a politically exposed person (PEP) due to his previous involvement in Brexit. The bank argued that their decision to close his account was because his bank account fell below is “wealth limit.” Farage admitted that his account was below the limit but said that had never been a problem in the past.
In this country, Dr. Joseph Mercola announced that his business bank accounts along with the accounts of his CEO and CFO and even the bank accounts of his family members were all closed. He has had accounts with the bank for 18 years but was shut down, he believes, because of his previous statements about the Covid vaccine.
The National Committee for Religious Freedom led by former US Ambassador Sam Brownback had its checking account canceled without notice. Although its advisory board includes former US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, former Alliance Defending Freedom President Michael Farris, and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, the group was told they must disclose a list of donors and a list of candidates they intended to support if they wanted to the bank to reopen their account.
Perhaps you are noticing a pattern. These banks aren’t closing the accounts of progressive individuals or politically liberal groups. They aren’t prying into the rosters of any other advocacy groups.
That is why some members of Congress are ready to investigate these latest examples of debanking. They pose a threat to free speech and religious liberty.