Author: Kerby Anderson

Kerby Anderson
A recent op-ed by Allen Mashburn reminds us that, “Societies That Surrender Moral Foundation Historically Self-Destruct.” This is not a new idea. Decades ago, I did a week of radio programs on the “Decline of a Nation.” A decade later, I did another week on “When Nations Die” because of a book that was published with that title. And more recently I even did a week of programs based on a book that compared America to Rome.
The reason for Mashburn’s article was a series events that took place during Pride Month. He “never envisioned a day where transvestites would lecture us on human biology, or sterilizers would pose as health professionals advocating for human rights. It seems that our nation has descended into a state of utter madness, where men can now claim pregnancy and the number of genders rivals the alphabet.”
Those issues are just a few of the many legitimate concerns which point to the well-documented decline and fall of other civilizations. Greece tolerated and even celebrated immoral behavior. And “the decline of the Roman Empire can be attributed to the abandonment of strong familial bonds and moral values in favor of weakness and laxity.” He observes that the similarity between Rome and America is alarming.
Of course, the pattern we recognize in Greece and Rome can be seen in other civilizations in the past. This includes the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Persians, and even the nation of Israel. In Isaiah 5 we read that God pronounced judgement on Israel. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
The only way to reverse this downward moral spiral is for a spiritual revival and spiritual repentance to take place in this country.

Kerby Anderson
Ben & Jerry’s creates flavors of ice cream, but they also create controversy. The latest has been their belief that “it’s high time we recognize that the US exists on stolen land and commit to returning it.” Unilever is the company that now owns Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. So far, it has lost $2 billion in market capitalization.
The first step, according to Ben & Jerry’s, would be to return the Black Hills of South Dakota, including Mount Rushmore, to the Lakota. Rich Lowry says that raises another question. “Once this transfer takes place, will the Lakota turn around and give the Black Hills back to the tribes they took them from?”
He warns that it isn’t wise to get your history lessons from people making ice cream. In his op-ed on “The Myth of Native American Innocence,” he reminds us that the history of North America is complex. Yes, the way this country treated several Indian tribes is a sad, dark chapter of American history. But that should be placed alongside the hatred, greed, and violence of the Indian tribes that engaged in intertribal warfare.
My response to so many of the claims by leftists these days is, “You first.” If you are concerned that your white privilege got you into college, then give up your scholarship and your place at the university. If you believe we should give back stolen land: “You first.”
The Ben and Jerry’s facility and corporate office sits on the land once occupied by the Coosuk Abenaki Nation. The chief of one of the tribes that descended from the Abenaki said his tribe is “always interested in reclaiming the stewardship of our lands.”
If it is time to give back stolen land, then my message to Ben & Jerry’s is, “You first.”

Kerby Anderson
In his video, John Stossel asked people on the street, “If you could spend $30 billion trying to solve the world’s problems, how would you spend it?” As you might imagine, the most common answer was to “fight climate change.”
Bjorn Lomborg (Copenhagen Consensus Center) has much better answers. In the past, we have talked about his several books on the environment and climate change. He says he was not surprised at the answers since we live in a rich world. But when he has put together experts from the UN, NGOs, and the university to address the world’s biggest problems, they give very different answers.
In his new book, Best Things First, Lomborg says that spending $35 billion in the poorest part of the earth could save 4.2 million lives every year. That would include screening for tuberculosis and getting medicine to people who need it. Hundreds of thousands die from malaria. Buying bed nets with insecticides that kill mosquitos would also save lives.
In a speech he gave at the Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar, he showed a graph of deaths from climate. These climate-related deaths (from floods, drought, storms, wildfires, and extreme temperatures) dropped from 500,000 a year in the 1920s to 11,000 today. A major reason for the decline is the fact that we have become wealthier. We have better technology and better predictive capabilities.
His latest writing and speeches are a reminder that we should be thinking smarter about how to spend our scarce economic resources. Thinking smartly also requires a recognition that the earth is not teetering on the edge of an environmental apocalypse. We need to focus on the best things first to make this planet an even better place to live.

Kerby Anderson
Why do we still have lingering inflation? President Biden took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to explain and defend his economic record. He claimed that “as supply chains continue to unsnarl, company profit margins fall from historically high levels, and rents continue to moderate, inflation should decline further, creating more breathing room for working families.”
The president appears to believe that rising prices create inflation. Instead, the reverse is true. Dollar depreciation is why prices are rising. Alexander William Salter explains that and evaluates the three parts of the president’s explanation.
First, the president argued that supply chains are causing inflation. That might have been partially true during the lockdowns and the supply chain bottlenecks. But what goes up must come down. The COVID-induced bottlenecks have largely passed, but prices are still high.
Next, the president blames corporate profits. That he focuses on what has become known as “greedflation” is not surprising. Blaming the rich and corporations is a frequent mantra for Democrats during an election year. Mr. Salter points to research by economics professor Josh Hendrickson that shows reduced profit margins. That is just the opposite of what the president argues.
What about the president’s comments about rent? Rent is an important part of consumer spending. But from 2020 to 2022, rent rarely rose faster than inflation. You would expect it to be rising faster if it was pulling inflation up.
These three issues are not the major factor for inflation. The increased money supply is the reason. Both the monetary base and the money supply rose dramatically in the last few years. Also, the government ran massive deficits during those years. That’s why we still have inflation today.

Kerby Anderson
The Pottery Barn rule is an expression that was used by Colin Powell when cautioning President Bush about invading Iraq. He said, “You break it, you own it.” Of course, the “you break it, you own it” rule has been used to warn others about a political action they may later come to regret.
Several commentators have proposed a corollary expression: “You chant it, you own it.” Bring a tape recorder to any protest or even to a parade. You will probably hear lots of extreme statements and chants. This has especially been true of the many environmental protests, along with the many race protests after the death of George Floyd.
In the past, we have been told to ignore the shouting and hyperbole. Protestors may call for us to “defund the police,” but they didn’t really mean that governments were supposed to defund the police. Then we saw certain cities and states do just that.
Environmental activists chant: “No more coal, no more oil, keep your carbon in the soil.” But we were told they really didn’t mean we should decarbonize the country. Then we found out they were serious.
Last month was Pride Month. The pride parade marchers in New York City chanted: “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.” News commentators tried to assure us that “it’s all just words” and that such chants have been used for years in pride parades.
 Frankly, that is a very poor excuse. If you want people to take you seriously, then don’t say things you don’t mean. I can’t imagine a news commentator brushing off chants and slogans used at an alt-right event. But we are supposed to ignore all the provocative things said by leftist groups.
I have a better suggestion: “If you chant it, you own it.”

Kerby Anderson
Now that most of the 2022 midterm elections have been certified, it’s worth looking at some important electoral trends. They will give us some idea of what may take place in the 2024 elections. Lest you think this is premature, consider that next month the first presidential debate will take place.
The most surprising trend is the number of close elections. In previous commentaries, I’ve talked about close elections. But the latest results are worth discussing. The bipartisan portal Ballotpedia reports that 103 legislative races around the country were decided by under 100 votes.
This research result underscores the reality of the phrase “every vote counts.” If you don’t think so, just ask the person who lost their race by less than 100 votes. As one commentator put it, these races were decided by the number of people you could find inside a Walmart any weekend.
Rarely is there a close race for governor or congress. But close elections do occur in state legislative races, where 98 seats were decided by such a narrow margin. And that narrow margin also could determine which party has majority control of the legislature. Many of the other close races occurred in rural districts with small populations.
Two implications come from these results from the 2022 midterm elections. First, there is great value in a political party developing sophisticated “get out the vote” strategies. When a tiny minority can determine the outcome of an election, there is great motivation to get people to the polls. Second, it illustrates the importance of you going to vote and bringing like-minded people with you to the polls.
Each election, we remind people that “every vote counts.” This latest research proves that is true.

Kerby Anderson
In previous commentaries, I have talked about the dollar’s loss of value. We often provide a chart that was generated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It shows that the dollar has lost 95 percent of its purchasing power.
In a recent keynote speech in Prague, Michael Saylor (MicroStrategy) put together a presentation with numerous graphs. They show even more accurately the decline of the dollar as well as the decline of other currencies around the world. His YouTube presentation makes a powerful statement.
For example, he has one slide that shows that the US dollar loses 99 percent of its value when compared to gold (1923-2023). Gold is not scarce. More of it is pulled from the ground each year. He then shows another graph of something even more scarce. The US dollar loses 99.8 percent of its value compared to the 50 most valuable companies in the S&P (1923-2023).
This is worse for other countries because foreign currencies are collapsing against the dollar. The Argentine Peso (ARS) loses 99.9 percent versus the dollar (2001-2023) in the last twenty years. His chart shows that the Turkish Lira loses 95 percent versus the dollar, but its latest loss is probably 97 percent. And the Indian Rupee loses 90 percent versus the dollar since 1980.
This puts our current financial circumstances in some perspective. The dollar is like a melting ice cube. The value is declining every year. But imagine what it is like to live in many of these other countries with even more inflation and currency declining in value.
He concludes by showing a chart of asset performance since August 2020. Those percentages show how to preserve your wealth in a world where currency is declining in value.

Kerby Anderson
When you make an investment, it is important to know if there is any counterparty risk. Any business involves a cooperation of many entities and individuals. How likely is it that one of them may default on their financial obligations?
Here’s a scary question: what if the counterparty is your bank or the government? That may be less likely here in the US, but is becoming a reality ever since the 2013 banking crisis in Cyprus created the concept of the bail-in.
A recent article in Fortune describes that as a form of financial relief for banks that are in danger of collapsing or going bankrupt. “The relief comes from canceling some or all of the bank’s debt by reducing the value of bank shares, bonds, and uninsured deposits.” In case you are wondering, this has been made possible in Europe under a new framework and in the US under 2010 the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
But even if the bank isn’t failing, the government still has the power to freeze a bank account or any other financial account. The best example comes from Canada. Last February, the Canadian government began freezing the accounts and canceling credit cards of anyone involved in the trucker protests.
One commentator explained what it takes to freeze an asset. Stocks-press a button. Bonds-press a button. Mutual funds-press a button. Cash in the bank-press a button. Of course, that is just a short list.
Decades ago, someone said that you only think you own your house, until you don’t pay your taxes. We could add that you only think you own your stocks, bonds, or cash until the government says you don’t. Citizens in other countries are learning this. Let’s hope we don’t ever see that here in America.

Kerby Anderson
Americans are starting to realize how much privacy they are losing. It isn’t just the government through surveillance that is invading our privacy. Major corporations are collecting information on us, even when we aren’t sharing it online. Here is a classic example of that.
Twenty years ago, the Target Corporation was able to conclude that a shopper was pregnant and even estimate her due date. The story was written up in the New York Times and has become a classic example of targeted marketing. The article had the arresting title, “How Companies Learn Your Secrets.”
A data scientist at Target began to analyze the massive database Target stores were amassing from the purchases of their customers. He began to mine the data and discovered a few interesting things about Target customers.
He discovered, for example, that pregnant women are more likely to buy unscented lotion, and that they start doing this at the beginning of their second trimester. This correlation between pregnancy and changes in shopping behavior was one of about two-dozen data points he and the other analysts were able to identify.
When they combined all these correlations together, they were able to establish a “pregnancy prediction” score. This score told them two things. First, the female consumer was pregnant. Second, it also gave them a good estimate of her due date.
The value to Target was considerable. They were able to send coupons to the woman during different times in her pregnancy so that they would arrive when she was most likely to need them. The timing of the coupons brought more pregnant women into Target stores to use them.
This marketing success story illustrates how big data and sophisticated data analysis can invade your privacy without you providing any information. Whether you click on a link online or buy a product in the store, someone is watching.

Kerby Anderson
Why is it that the left so frequently promotes censorship? Dennis Prager provides some insights in his article, “Why the Left Has to Suppress Free Speech.”
He begins by stating a fact from history. The left always suppresses speech, going all the way back to Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. He explains that there is an important difference between liberals and the left. Liberals and conservatives believe in free speech. The left does not.
Think of some of our major institutions. The left controls universities and allows no dissent. The left controls nearly every news medium. There is little or no dissent in the mainstream media. The left controls Hollywood. No dissent is allowed there. In these and other venues, we see the cancel culture at work.
Prager argues that the left fears debate and dissent because it is a threat to their ideas. He observes that “no matter how big the balloon — the Democratic Party, The New York Times, Yale University — all it takes is a mere pin to burst it.” He has seen how one articulate conservative on a college campus can undo years of left-wing indoctrination.
I have seen this as well because I have participated in or moderated several forums with Christian ministries in which lectures or debates take place. Students are often surprised to hear good reasons to believe in the Bible and a Christian perspective. They discover that their professors and the media have presented a caricature of Christianity and presented history and information in a very biased way.
Nearly a century ago, one Supreme Court justice argued that the best way to counter “falsehoods and fallacies” was “more speech, not enforced silence.” Those were wise words then and are wise words now.

Kerby Anderson
I believe it is important for Christians to understand the liberal mind. That is why I have written a booklet on “A Biblical View on the Liberal Mind.” Once you examine the assumptions of liberals and leftists you can see how their views are very different from a biblical perspective.
If you do not have a proper view of truth and the world, you will probably also find yourself dissatisfied with life. That is the conclusion of Michael McKenna at the Washington Times. He reminds us that academics have found that Americans who identify as politically liberal are less happy. “The quantity and durability of that data are not really in question.”
There is a reason for this. “It appears — and stop me if any of this sounds familiar — that happiness is at least partially about how connected a person is to other humans, particularly through the mechanisms of family, faith and community.”
Research by the Institute for Family Studies and the Wheatly Institution found that “happiness is directly related to greater family satisfaction and higher levels of religious attendance.” Another study concluded that liberals have become less happy over the last few decades.
Now you may be thinking, that is sad for liberals but what difference does it make? Michael McKenna connects the dots. He has found that “personal attitudes and beliefs tend to bleed into the body politic and ultimately find their way into government policies that affect us all.”
I think that explains why liberals, and especially leftists, have been in the process of deconstructing so much of American society. We have seen such revolutionary fervor before in places like France in 1789 and Russia in 1917.
That is why we should pay attention to liberal dissatisfaction in society.

Kerby Anderson
Three years ago, a presenter at an international conference compared the printing of currency to alchemy. Although I didn’t hear the message, I read enough about it to see the connection.
If you are not familiar with the term, it points to alchemists who tried to turn cheap “base” metals into gold. The idea goes all the way back to Aristotle, who believed that all matter combined the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water. He guessed that these elements could be changed by the action of heat and cold, or dampness and dryness.
Why did alchemists want to create more gold? Gold has been a store of value for thousands of years and has been used as money in so many civilizations. The science of the alchemists was flawed, but so was their economics. If they had been able to create gold, they would have ruined its value because it would no longer be scarce and would decline in value.
The story of gold and alchemy is an apt illustration of what central banks and governments have been doing for centuries. Instead of creating gold, they have been creating currency out of thin air. Although we talk about cranking up the printing presses and printing more dollars, the reality is that the Federal Reserve or the US Treasury merely changes numbers on computers.
You know the result: inflation and a devalued dollar. In previous commentaries, I have posted a picture of the declining value of the dollar since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. A dollar back then purchased what today would be considered $26 of goods and services.
Now that Congress has suspended the debt ceiling, expect the devaluation of the dollar to continue. Alchemists tried all sorts of experiments to create gold. The modern-day alchemists create currency instantaneously with no cost.

Kerby Anderson
The latest information from the World Economic Forum shows that the Davos crowd wants you to give up your car. Tucked inside a briefing paper is a plan to reduce the number of cars around the world by 75 percent.
The title of the paper is: “The Urban Mobility Scorecard Tool: Benchmarking the Transition to Sustainable Urban Mobility.” It begins with the prediction that more than two-thirds of the world’s population will be urban by 2050. The paper argues that the only way to achieve the climate goals of the Paris Agreement is to push for “electrification, public transport, and shared mobility.”
That means fewer cars. The goal is to reduce the number of vehicles from 2.1 billion to 0.5 billion in less than 30 years. This would be one way to slash emissions from passenger vehicles. I have another suggestion on how to slash emissions. We can restrict participants at World Economic Forum events from flying in private jets that have a significant carbon footprint.
Let me ask you a question. Do you like owning a car? It gives you much greater mobility than mass transportation. In fact, you may live in an area that has inadequate mass transportation.
The push toward more electric cars assumes that states are producing enough additional electricity for those electric cars. How is your state doing these days in producing enough electricity to cool your home? Do you think it will be able to produce enough additional electricity to power more electric cars on the road?
Reducing the number of cars will require massive central planning. I’m not sure too many Americas are ready for politicians and bureaucrats to control their lives in this way.

Kerby Anderson
Today is the 4th of July, and I thought I would take a moment to talk about the origin of the ideas in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson said that many of the ideas in the Declaration came from John Locke. Jefferson also gave credit to the writer Algernon Sidney, who in turn cites most prominently Aristotle, Plato, Roman republican writers, and the Old Testament.
Legal scholar Gary Amos argues that Locke’s Two Treatises on Government is simply Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex in a popularized form. Amos says in his book Defending the Declaration “that the ‘law of nature’ is God’s general revelation of law in creation, which God also supernaturally writes on the hearts of men.”
This foundation helps explain the tempered nature of the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence was a bold document, but not a radical one. The colonists did not break with England for “light and transient causes.” They were mindful that Romans 13 says they should be “in subjection to the governing authorities” which “are established by God.” Yet when they suffered from a “long train of abuses and usurpations,” they argued that “it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government.”
Jefferson also drew from George Mason’s Declaration of Rights (published on June 6, 1776). The first paragraph states that “all men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent natural Rights; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of Acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.”
The Declaration of Independence is more than 200 years old. It was a monumental document at the time. Even today its words ring with truth and inspire new generations.

Kerby Anderson
Tomorrow is the 4th of July, when we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence. For many Americans it is merely a summer holiday that we celebrate with fireworks and parades.
Tomorrow I will talk about the history of the Declaration and its significance to us in America. Today, let’s ask some questions that arise from the foundational principles found in the Declaration of Independence.
A key phrase in the Declaration is the claim that: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” But do we really believe that phrase? Do we believe there are truths in a culture awash in post-modernism? We don’t seem to believe there is anything like absolute truth. Truth for most Americans is personal and relative.
What about the idea that these truths are self-evident? That assumes we believe in natural law at the very least, or perhaps more significantly, that we believe in biblical principles behind our laws. Is that an accurate assessment of what Americans believe in the 21st century? Do we believe that human reason and experience can be our guide as we pass laws and implement them in society?
The Declaration also says that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Do we still believe in the Creator? Do we still believe that rights exist because we are created in God’s image? Or do we believe that government creates rights?
The Declaration rests upon the “Laws of nature and of Nature’s God.” The laws of nature are general revelation in creation and human conscience. The laws of nature’s God are revelation found in the Bible. Do we still believe in revelation?
These are important questions we must ask ourselves, and they illustrate why a biblical perspective is crucial to the future of this republic.

Kerby Anderson
As Pride Month is ending, it is worth revisiting an event that took place on the South Lawn of the White House. President Biden hosted an event for families with LGBTQ kids. That is where the president announced he would appoint a “banned book czar.” This person’s job apparently is to encourage libraries to stock books dealing with sexual issues that I really can’t even discuss in much detail in this commentary.
David Harsanyi had a suggestion for the president. He argues that “if banned books are harmless, Joe Biden should read them to kids.” He even suggests that the president read to these young people on television. He even suggests that Jill Biden might be another person to read these books to impressionable young people.
Of course, he will not do this because the sexual descriptions of what boys and girls do to each other would be offensive. There are vivid descriptions of sexual organs and graphic descriptions of various forms of sex. If you want to follow the link, you can read what is in some of these books.
On my radio program, I reminded my listeners what some concerned parents did years ago at a shareholder meeting for music companies. They read some of the offensive and decadent lyrics of rap artists they represented. More recently, parents and even students have read excerpts from some of these books at school board meetings. In every case, the audience was shocked and music executives and school board members told them to stop.
It is easy to talk about book banning in the abstract. It is quite another to see and hear what is in some of these books. There is a reason parents and even some teachers and administrators don’t want sexually explicit books in the library. That is also the reason you will never hear that the president read these books to students.

Kerby Anderson
As Pride Month is about to end, it is worth considering who really has power in America. Earlier this month, Carl Trueman wrote about the LGBTQ Establishment, saying that Pride Month shows who really has power in America. The last four weeks validate his prediction made June 1st.
He is known for his bestselling book, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution. He has been on my radio program not only to talk about that book but his latest book, which is a shorter version of the first book. He documents the history of the sexual revolution and the philosophy behind it. That, of course, includes the rise of homosexuality and sexual politics.

He reminds us, “Even accounting firms, surely the most boring of institutions (and I write as the son of an accountant) feel the need to post rainbows in windows, affirm support for LGBTQ politics on their webpages.” He correctly argues that Pride Month is about the ownership of space and time and power. It is “an opportunity to erase from public view those who refuse to acknowledge that power.”
Pride Month “puts the lie to the notion that the LGBTQ community itself somehow represents the marginalized. Not at all. It’s the establishment.” After, the truly marginalized don’t have a month celebrating their existence nor do they have their own flag everyone is supposed to be flying.
Yes, there has been some pushback. But the fact that corporations and even baseball teams are willing to double down on promoting the LGBTQ agenda illustrates who owns the public space. Let’s stop the false claim of marginalization. Marginalized people don’t have their own month and their own flag. That’s the real lesson of Pride Month.

Kerby Anderson
A very important book written by Nancy Pearcey came out this week. The Toxic War on Masculinity is well researched and full of surprises. The first surprise is the claim that there is good news about Christian men.
The standard response from both the secular and Christian media is that biblical teachings about such topics as headship in marriage make Christian men more likely to commit abuse and pose major difficulties in a marriage. The problem with the social science research in the past is that it failed to identify two distinct groups of men: religiously devout vs. nominal evangelicals.
The first group (who attend church regularly) shatter the negative stereotypes. They are more loving to their wives and more emotionally engaged with their children than any other group in America. They are less likely to divorce and the least likely to commit domestic violence.
By contrast, the nominal Christian family men do fit the negative stereotype. They spend less time with their children. Their wives report significantly lower levels of happiness. And they are 20 percent more likely to divorce than secular men. Sociologist Brad Wilcox reports, “The most violent husbands in America are nominal Evangelical Protestants who attend church infrequently or not at all.”
Nancy Pearcey has a few suppositions for this difference. She observes that “nominal men hang around the fringes of the Christian world just enough to learn the language of headship and submission but not enough to learn the biblical meaning of those terms.” She believes they “cherry-pick verses from the Bible and read them through a grid of male superiority and entitlement that they have absorbed from the secular guy code for the Real Man.”
This is just one of the many insights you will discover in her new book on The Toxic War on Masculinity.

Kerby Anderson
Nearly half the state legislatures have passed laws requiring that only females can participate in girls’ and women’s sports. Some of these laws are being challenged in court along with court challenges in states that allow biological males to compete with biological females.
Gregory Brown is an exercise physiologist who documents the biological differences between men and women in sports. Many biological factors influence human performance, but “one of the most important factors that influences adaptations to training and performance in sports is sex, because sex influences every system and every cell in our body.”
A fair comparison between male and female differences in anatomy and physiology give males athletic advantages when compared to gifted and trained females of the same age. It is also true that puberty magnifies those sex-based differences. He lists those increased percentages in his article, and they are significant.
He also addresses the argument that hormone therapy decreases the biological advantages. For example, men have 30-60 percent higher muscle strength than women. Even after “undergoing testosterone suppression” the decrease in strength is less then 9 percent.
Sure, some women are taller than some men. Some women can run faster than some men. But the tallest women are shorter than the tallest men. The fastest men are faster than the fastest women. A blood test or a genetic test cannot determine a transgender identity. Biological sex is still present, and it is logical to assume the inherent male athletic advantages are still present.
This is the science that lawmakers, judges, coaches, and parents must accept. There are clear differences between men and women when competing in sports.

Kerby Anderson
What was the origin of the virus that caused Covid-19? We know the answer. Finally, the government is willing to state the obvious. Michael Shellenberger and others report that “multiple US government officials interviewed” now have identified “the first people infected by the virus.” When a source was asked how certain they were that these three scientists doing “gain of function” research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology are “patients zero,” they were told 100%.
Jim Geraghty reminds us that the first report of the outbreak came in February 3, 2020. That Chinese report was written in part by two of the men mentioned in the US government report. Also, remember what happened when Dr. Li Wenliang tried to warn the international community? He was dragged into a police station and berated for “rumormongering” and for “publishing untrue statements.” A month later he died of the virus.
In previous commentaries, I have expressed my disbelief that so few in the media seemed even curious about the origin of a virus that killed 23 million people worldwide. I realize that those numbers may be inflated, but at least we can agree that millions died and most of the media seem incurious. And the Chinese Communist government got away with lies and suppression in part because there are too many American companies doing business in China.
Noah Rothman calls this the “scandal of the century,” and laments that there are no consequences. The Chinese officials locked down a previously accessible public database, altered its data to hide the origin of the virus, and then took it offline altogether. It appears that the Chinese Communist Party got away with the “scandal of the century”.