Author: Kerby Anderson

Kerby Anderson
Homelessness not only affects big cities but can be found in small towns as well. Scott Morefield tells a story about Bristol, Tennessee and Bristol, Virginia that illustrates the impact that public policy can have on a social problem like homelessness.
First, let’s explain the geography. Bristol is really two cities with two governments that are right next to each other. They are divided by a state line that runs down the main street. This division provides a perfect test for the impact of laws and policies.
One past example of the differences came during the pandemic and lockdowns. The Democratic Virginia state mandates were much different than the Tennessee policies. It created a “weird time when half of the main street was essentially shuttered while the other half prospered.”
More recently, Tennessee passed a law that made camping on public property a felony. As you might expect, the homeless problem gravitated toward the Virginia side. The kitchen director at the local shelter said he heard numerous people at the evening meal, say “I’m going to get this meal and then I’m going to go over to Virginia, so I don’t have to worry about getting thrown in jail and have a felony on my record.”
The principle is simple. Remove the incentives and create disincentives for homeless people, and they will go elsewhere. In this case, they migrated to the other side of town. It wasn’t long before Bristol, Virginia passed a camping ban, though it was merely a misdemeanor offense.
Three months ago, I talked about the book by Michael Shellenberger with the arresting title: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities. He documents various reasons why the homeless problem has become worse. But one of the most important reasons is lax enforcement. The two cities of Bristol illustrate how policies do affect homeless behavior.

Kerby Anderson

Television host Mike Rowe has been an advocate for blue-collar workers who have kept this country running. He explains that opportunities have never been better for anyone willing to work and willing to learn a skill in demand.
Unfortunately, we have seven million men (ages 25-54) who not only are not working but are not looking for work. Economist Nicholas Eberstadt refers to that in a recent Washington Post op-ed as the “flight from work.” The U.S. currently has 11 million unfilled jobs. Businesses in every sector nationwide are desperate for workers, including positions that do not require high school diplomas.
Mike Rowe has provided more than a thousand scholarships to young people through his mikeroweWORKS foundation. They get trained for skills that are in demand (welders, steam fitters, pipe fitters, mechanics). None require a four-year degree. He says there has never been a greater need for skilled workers like right now. “If you are inclined to think that way and work that way,” he explains, “the world is your oyster.” Unfortunately, if you are not and are a man, “you are probably sitting home spending 2,000 hours sitting in front of a screen.”
A recent Fox News Poll asked this open-ended question: “What message would you send to government?” A majority (52%) said “lend me a hand.” The only other time a majority said that was during the pandemic. But we are two years past the pandemic and lockdowns.
Mike Rowe argues that two things could be true at the same time. First, there are people who need a hand who are well intended and willing to work. Second, many others have been given a hand and have done nothing with what they have been given.
I’m always willing to give someone a “hand up” to better themselves. But I think it is time to question whether we should be giving a “hand out” to millions who won’t work.

Kerby Anderson
Sean McDowell observes that “In a culture that glamorizes sex, chases fame, and shames those who don’t fall in line, it takes a rebel to be a Christian.” That is why the title of his new book is, A Rebel’s Manifesto.
His book for young Christians focuses on the challenges of the culture, relationships, sexuality, ethics, and cultural engagement. He published much of this in a previous book Ethix: Being Bold in a Whatever World. When I did a radio interview with him, we talked about the fact that he needed to both update chapters and add new chapters. The section on relationships was added because of current problems with loneliness, bullying, and suicide. And a chapter on transgender ideology also needed to be added.
We talked about the fact that Sean McDowell will often role-play as an atheist and take questions from Christian students. After he finishes, he asks them to describe how they treated the “atheist” guest. They often use words like rude, aggressive, and disrespectful. He then concludes that if this is how they treated a fellow Christian role-playing as an atheist, perhaps they have a lot to learn about better loving their neighbors.
We also spent some time talking about the influence of smartphones and social media. He lists five ways smartphones influence you. It affects how we access truth and affects us emotionally and spiritually. It also affects our identities and relationships.
This is a book you should give to your children or grandchildren. But I would also encourage you to give a copy to your youth leader. At the end of each chapter are questions that could be used to guide a small group discussion with young people. These are issues they confront, and they need the sound, biblical perspective this book provides.

Kerby Anderson
On one of our radio programs, one of the guests argued that the government had grown so big that it’s unrealistic for anyone to manage it. His comment reminded me of a commentary I did six years ago that compared the government to some of the largest companies in America.
First, let’s look at the federal government. The federal budget six years ago was $4 trillion dollars. Today, the federal budget is $7 trillion. By the way, federal tax revenues are only $5 trillion, which is why we have $2 trillion deficit this year. How many federal employees? That number is 2.4 million (but it you count military, civilian, and contract employees, it is twice that).
No one in history has ever managed such a large organization. The current president has managed a large company, but it pales in comparison to these numbers. And remember that the two other presidents were both U.S. Senators who had never managed a company.
Let’s compare this to the largest U.S. companies. Walmart employs 2.1 million people worldwide, and about 1.6 million of them are in the United States with annual revenue of $680 billion. Amazon employs 1.6 million worldwide with 1.1 million in the U.S. with annual revenue around $637 billion.
I know that is a lot of numbers, so here is the bottom line: if Walmart or Amazon were part of the federal government, they wouldn’t even be the largest federal programs.
During the confirmation hearings, some of the nominees were asked about their experience in running a large bureaucracy. Even some of the nominees who were governors had never managed something as large as a federal department. Perhaps that is a good reason why the Department of Government Efficiency should be looking for ways to cut spending.

Kerby Anderson
The future of TikTok is uncertain. ByteDance was given a 75-day extension to sell TikTok to a non-Chinese owner. But Melissa Henson (Parents Television and Media Council) believes parents should pay attention right now to the dangers on this platform.
She explains, “Social media platforms aren’t innocent. The reality is that predators target children online to sexually exploit or extort them. Social platforms have harmed teens’ mental health and exposed teens to sexual harassment. Children and teens have been targeted by powerful algorithms with eating disorder and other harmful content.”
Parents should be aware that their children are being targeted by a powerful algorithm that is designed to keep them hooked on the platforms. This isn’t merely speculation. There are internal memos and documents that reveal the goal of attracting and keeping young children on the platform.
Children are falling into patterns of addiction, depression, and sexual exploitation. That is why 14 state Attorneys General have filed lawsuits against TikTok. You might want to read the article by Melissa Henson or even follow the link to the lawsuits that have been filed to see how graphic and deviant some of the content is on this social media platform.
At this point you might be tempted to argue that TikTok has some redeeming value. If it was merely junk, it probably wouldn’t exist. My adult daughters sometimes find a good TikTok video and forward it to me. But that doesn’t negate all the negative influences found on this social media platform.
TikTok is a mixture of good and bad or light and darkness. Parents and grandparents need to be aware of the dangers of this social media platform.

Kerby Anderson
Perhaps you have heard the call for leftists to engage in “the long march through institutions.” The phrase was popularized by the radical German activist Herbert Marcuse who was quoting another activist. It came up in my radio interview with Stanley Ridgley on his book, Brutal Minds. In his book, America’s Cultural Revolution, Christopher Rufo not only quotes him, but devotes an entire chapter on Marcuse.
The plan was simple. Instead of encouraging students to protest the university and government, have them march into the institutions and take them over. By taking over faculty lounges, Hollywood studios, and government offices, they could bring about revolutionary change.
Rich Lowry writes about “Trump’s Countermarch Through the Institutions.” He says it is a new way of thinking for conservatives. It is such a strange reversal that many on the left and progressives in Congress don’t quite know what to do.
One example he cites was the Trump executive order that decreed that federal funding would be withdrawn from educational institutions that permit males to compete in females’ sports. “The NCAA instantly changed its policy to say that only athletes who were female at birth can compete against females.”
If this tactic sounds familiar, we saw it used by President Obama. He threatened to cut off federal funds to impose his views on college campus investigations and even school bathroom policies.
The Trump executive order on DEI had a similar effect. Funding was pulled, federal contractors changed their policies, and West Point disbanded its identity-based clubs.
You could say that Trump’s countermarch is a case of what is good for the liberal goose is also good for the conservative gander.

Kerby Anderson
Yesterday I talked about some of the political challenges that President Trump, his administration, and Congress face this year. Today, I want to talk about the economic challenges.
As I write this, the U.S. debt clock shows that the country is currently $36.5 trillion in debt. As you probably know, the national debt has increased under Republican and Democratic presidents and increased no matter whether Democrats or Republicans controlled Congress.
But it is also fair to say that the country’s economic circumstances are much worse four years after Trump left office. Federal spending under President Biden and Congress increased dramatically.
Congress passed a $900 billion so-called “Covid-Relief” bill just after Christmas 2020, as Trump was leaving office. At the time, you could make a case that this was more than enough. But by March 2021, President Biden and Congress passed his $1.9 trillion “American Rescue Plan.”
Did the country need a stimulus of that size? Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers explained that the spending amount was much more than was needed to address any of the economic issues and warned that such spending would lead to inflation.
Even that much spending was not enough for Biden and Congress. Later that year, they passed a $1 trillion infrastructure bill. He then proposed a $2.2 trillion “Build Back Better Act.” But by the end of 2021, inflation had reached almost seven percent. Some in Congress were nervous about the price tag so they downsized the bill and President Biden decided to rename it the “Inflation Reduction Act.”
This is what the Trump administration has inherited and explains why the Department of Government Efficiency is looking for ways to cut spending.

Kerby Anderson
During the 2024 presidential campaign, I did several commentaries on the challenges the next president would face in 2025. Donald Trump is now the president, and his administration and Congress face some significant political challenges.
Karl Rove recently listed them as “The Five Trials of Trump 47.” One of those challenges is the need to approve a funding bill for the balance of the 2025 fiscal year or face a shutdown on March 14. The added challenges are getting both the House and Senate to approve budget resolutions, then going to conference committee, and finally taking up the difficult issues associated with budget reconciliation.
In the background is a desire by the president and members of Congress to extend the Trump 2017 tax cuts. This requires some coordination since Senate Republicans prefer two reconciliation measures, while the House Republicans favor one reconciliation.
Another challenge is the need for Congress to raise the debt ceiling. It hit its $36.1 trillion limit the day Donald Trump was sworn into office. We are a month past that limit. So far, the Treasury Department has been using what are called “extraordinary measures” to keep the government working.
Speaker Mike Johnson faces the challenge of trying to move legislation through the House with the narrowest of margins. Representative Matt Gaetz already resigned. Representative Mike Waltz left to become national security advisor, and Representative Elise Stefanik is leaving to become UN ambassador.
These are just a few of the political challenges Trump, his administration, and Congress will face over the next few months. But there are more challenges on the horizon. Tomorrow, I will talk about many of the economic challenges ahead.

Kerby Anderson
Eight months ago, I wrote about the book, The End of Everything: How Wars Descend into Annihilation, written by Victor Davis Hanson. In his book, he provides four historical examples: the city-state of Thebes, ancient Carthage, Byzantine Constantinople, and Aztec Tenochtitlan. The leaders believed their illustrious pasts would be enough to prevent their destruction. Alexander the Great, Roman Scipio, Muslim Mehmet, and the Spanish conquistador Cortés proved them wrong.
The book is a warning to us today, but I also realize that few people will read his book. That is why I would encourage you to watch his five-minute video summary produced by Hillsdale College, just click “Watch More.”
He says his book “is about the existential destruction of the losing side in a war. This is very rare in history. It doesn’t happen very often. But when it does, it should enlighten us how it does, why it does, and can it happen again?”
He explains that he wrote his book “not just as a historical journey to document the rare cases of a targeted nation being completely destroyed, but as a warning that human nature doesn’t change.” We naively assumed that globalization would create a common humanity and bring an end to global conflict. Instead, he “noticed that there were more and more existential threats coming from autocratic regimes.”
He wants us to be aware that what happened in the past could happen in the future. We need to learn from the past and protect ourselves in the future. As I mentioned in a previous commentary, the world needs a strong America so that we can prevent “the end of everything.”

Kerby Anderson
Earlier this month, I talked about the three hardest words for people to say. They are: “I don’t know.” It is especially hard for so-called experts to say those words. Often what we think we know is influenced by our bias. Good science and good research should always work to eliminate as much bias as possible.
Professor Philip Tetlock (University of Pennsylvania) has been systematically tracking the predictions of pundits, politicians, stock market gurus, and sportscasters. One of his more significant studies looked at politics. He evaluated government officials, political science teachers, and economists over a period of twenty years.
I might also mention that nearly all (96%) had postgraduate credentials. He quickly discovered that they thought they knew more than they knew. How accurate were their predictions? He said their predictions were no better than “dart-throwing chimps.”
He has acknowledged that the “monkey-with-a-dartboard comparisons come back to haunt me all the time.” He has developed a computer algorithm for all these failed predictions. But I can make it much simpler. What he has found is that most experts should really say, “I don’t know.”
Does that mean we should ignore any prediction from an expert? No, but it does suggest that we understand that many of these predictions are, at best, informed opinions. We should take them with a grain of salt.
We have been subjected to pundits telling us to “believe the science” when the science isn’t settled, and they lack scientific credentials. We have been told that a particular candidate or political party is a “threat to democracy” when that isn’t true. Some government officials warning about “misinformation” are guilty of spreading misinformation.
It is time to exercise discernment, especially when most experts aren’t any more accurate than “dart-throwing chimps.”

Kerby Anderson
Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center. In a recent column, he asks, “Are Schools Really Politicized?” Most of us know that the answer to that question is yes. But many progressive writers don’t agree.
One of those writers is James Traub who has a book coming out next year on civil education. In an article in New Republic that he wrote previewing his book, he declared: “I Visited Dozens of Civics Classrooms. The Right’s Attacks Are Wrong.”
Who is right? Stanley Kurtz believes left-wing partisanship is a serious problem and has put out model legislation to take partisanship out of civics education. James Traub visited many classrooms and found them to be viewpoint neutral.
Both individuals concede that much of the civic curriculum today is written from a liberal viewpoint. Traub, for example, “acknowledges that the academic literature on teaching, statements from educational administrators, and social-studies standards in blue states are all pervasively leftist.” But then we are to suppose that none of that makes its way into the classroom.
Stanley Kurtz doubts whether “putting a famed reporter in a classroom is the best way to expose politicization. Teachers facing a reporter are bound to be on their best behavior. And highly politicized teachers are unlikely to host such an observer at all.”
By contrast, Stanley Kurtz provides numerous examples of what he describes as K-12 politicization. It may be difficult to detect because many teachers work to hide it from parents and administrators.
There surely are teachers who try to be politically neutral in civics classes. But you aren’t going to find those who are politically biased by sending in a notable author.

Kerby Anderson
President Trump is always full of surprises, but the biggest surprise so far was his bombshell announcement that the U.S. would take over the rebuilding of Gaza. This is not going to happen for many reasons. You can’t just evacuate two million resident Palestinians. First, because nearby countries don’t want them. And second, a forced evacuation would likely be a violation of international law.
The U.S. won’t implement Trump’s suggestion, but the proposed policy provides an important teaching opportunity. This policy rests upon a flawed view of human nature. It is an “outer-inner theory” of human behavior. If I can improve the environment around someone, I can improve their behavior. Build nice public housing, and the crime rate will go down. Rebuild Gaza, and problems in the Middle East will be solved.
By contrast, the gospel is an “inner-outer theory.” You change human behavior from the inside out. And we also understand that changing a person’s environment doesn’t change their sin nature.
The problem is even worse in Gaza because we are dealing with radical Muslims. Andrew McCarthy refers to their view as “sharia supremacist Islam.” This view has been around for 1,400 years. It is also worth mentioning that the people of Gaza voted to have Hamas rule them. They didn’t do that so their leaders could turn Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East.”
Nearly every American president naively believes that Muslims share “our common humanity” and just want a better life for themselves and their children. Most Muslims have a different goal: eradicate Israel from the region and implement sharia law in the land.
You would think we would have learned that “nation building” in the Middle East hasn’t worked. It is very difficult to grow a democracy on Muslim soil.

Kerby Anderson
Progressive activists often talk about the “long march through institutions.” For the last few weeks, we have seen a “fast sprint through institutions” by President Trump, followed by Elon Musk. The flurry of activity by the president and his administration has raised an important question. What are the limits to presidential authority?
Yuval Levin provides “A Rule of Thumb for the Executive Power Debates.” Of course, we can find the limits to executive power in the Constitution, in the Federalist Papers, and in various court decisions. But he breaks Trump’s power down to two contexts: “in relation to the executive branch over which he presides, and in relation to the larger constitutional system in which he plays a part.”
When it comes to the president’s authority over the executive branch, his power is supreme. The Constitution says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Of course, there are some limitations to that power, as illustrated by the confirmation hearings in Congress that have been taking place.
However, when it comes to the government as a whole, “the president’s role is constrained and is in many respects overshadowed by Congress. His core function is to take care that the laws Congress has passed are faithfully executed.”
The Constitution (and subsequent court decisions) deal with both sets of presidential powers. It allows the president to have expansive powers in dealing with his executive branch but constrains those powers when dealing with the whole government.
Although many Supreme Court judges would hold to this same view found in the Constitution, we are seeing some federal judges rule against some of President Trump’s presidential actions. I predict that many of those judges decisions will later be overruled.

Kerby Anderson
Mexico has been in the news because of issues ranging from immigration to tariffs. Victor Davis Hanson wonders whether Mexico is a friend or enemy or something else. He raises some good questions that often are ignored when the media talks about our neighbor to the south.
Immigration and border security are the first issue. He argues that “Mexico seems to assume that it has a sovereign right to encourage the flight of millions of its own impoverished citizens illegally into the US and further assumes that it can fast-track millions of Latin Americans through its territory and across our border.”
Drugs are a second issue. He observes that “Mexico either cannot or will not address the billions of dollars of raw fentanyl products shipped in—mostly from China—and then processed for export to the U.S. by its cartels across a nonexistent border.”
He reminds us that some 75,000 Americans on average die of fentanyl each year. This is more deaths in just the last decade than all the Americans killed in action during World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War combined.
Finally, he reports that “Mexico encourages its expatriate illegal aliens to send back some $63 billion per year in remittances. That huge sum constitutes one of Mexico’s largest sources of foreign exchange, surpassing even its tourist and oil revenues.”
You can read his column in its entirety and learn more about the past president of Mexico and the current one. Some of these issues explain why the leadership in Mexico has been unwilling and perhaps unable to deal with the border issues between the US and Mexico.
Perhaps now you can see why President Trump believed he had to resort to other means to get compliance.

Kerby Anderson
America keeps spending more and more money on public education. And all those tax dollars don’t seem to make a difference. Schools keep flunking.
The National Assessment for Educational Progress is often referred to as “America’s Report Card.” But this isn’t a report card you would want to show anyone. The latest report shows that fourth and eighth grade reading scores declined by two points on average since 2022. Even more concerning is the fact that a third (33%) of eighth graders scored below “basic” on the reading exam. That is a record low. Math scores for eighth graders were eight points lower than in 2019.
Also, concerning was evidence that the achievement gap has increased. High math performers in both grades scored better last year while low performers did worse or the same. Test scores for students scoring in the upper percentiles in reading improved since 1992, but they declined for students in the lower percentiles.
The reasons for this decline don’t take an expert. But the Wall Street Journal editors quoted an education expert at Harvard who talked about three problems: “student mental-health problems, less test-based accountability and increasing screen time.”
The head of a teacher’s union suggested that schools need smaller class sizes, good ventilation, and 21st-century technology. The editors responded, “Sorry, children aren’t doing worse because of bad air filters or old computers. They scored better without 21st-century technology.”
Public schools are flunking. That’s why educational choice is a hot topic today in many states so that parents can take their tax dollars to better schools. And that’s why more parents are looking at private schools, Christian schools, and homeschooling.

Kerby Anderson
Tech CEO Chamath Palihapitiya on a recent interview reminded us why the world needs a strong America and what it takes to have a strong America. He began by saying that it was important for “Americans to take a step back and acknowledge this one truth. We are the single most important country in existence in the world.”
He went on to argue that “there are two things that underpin that. We are the single most vibrant economy in the world, and we are the single strongest military in the world. If you can agree to those two things, which I think should be non-controversial,” then we will be the strongest country in the world.
He believes those two key elements are why America is the most important country. It doesn’t matter if we make the best oranges or burritos or make the best shoes. Those products don’t equate to being the most powerful country.
America has “the strongest and most vibrant economy and the strongest and most powerful military.” He then argues that “there is only one thing that gives you both of those two things, which is technological supremacy.”
Next comes his concern. He believes “we are in an existential risk of losing our place in the world.” The reason, he believes is simple. We have had “people from the inside trying to sabotage our economy effectively and trying to sabotage our military capability.” And he adds that we have had too many in leadership who don’t know what they’re doing.
I would add that the last election was about this, at least in part. But much more reform needs to take place. We need people with economic judgment and military judgment.
Earlier this week, my commentaries have touched on the problem with DEI. We need to return to a meritocracy, and we need to put the right people in the right positions to have a strong America.

Kerby Anderson
Once President Trump was back in office, he ordered a pause on federal grants so that the incoming cabinet could evaluate what was being pushed through in the last few months of the Biden administration. As you might expect, the reaction from Democrats and the legacy press was over the top.
Fortunately, the editors of The Wall Street Journal decided to address what they called “The Spending Freeze Panic” explaining that the “pause on federal grants wasn’t illegal and didn’t even affect most spending.” They remind us, “It’s well within Mr. Trump’s executive authority to pause disbursement of discretionary funds to ensure they comply with the law and his priorities.”
The editors did add that “the White House didn’t help itself with a lack of clarity on the details.” And they pointed to a follow-up memo from the Trump administration that the pause would not affect financial assistance to individuals (such as food stamps, small business grants, aid to farmers) or even entitlement programs (like Medicaid and children’s nutrition).
There is a good reason for this pause. Yesterday I mentioned Trump’s executive order on DEI programs. There were federal grants heading out the door that required “diversity statements” for government funding, even though the Supreme Court ruled against racial preferences in education. The editors of The Wall Street Journal also remind us of the EPA grant that went for “climate justice” to leftist groups who were calling for the abolition of Israel and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
A spending pause is constitutional. The Impoundment Control Act (which might someday be declared unconstitutional by the current court) would only apply if the president refuses to ever spend funds. The spending freeze panic was “much ado about nothing.”

Kerby Anderson
On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order with the title: “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The goal, of course, was to eliminate DEI requirements and thus end what often has become racially preferential treatment in the federal government.
As we began to discuss it on my radio program, those around the table began to see the overall significance of this action. Essentially, the president’s executive order removed most of the affirmative action and DEI protocols that have been added to the federal government going all the way back to the 1965 executive order by President Lyndon Johnson that first established affirmative action.
Trump’s executive order should also streamline the current government contracting process that has become so cumbersome because of the various DEI compliance requirements. They are not only cumbersome but discriminatory.
At this point in our roundtable discussion, a lawyer with First Liberty Institute talked about how many of their Christian clients are discriminated against because they must agree to DEI requirements inserted in contracts. They could not in good conscience affirm statements about sexuality that are contrary to biblical principles.
Trump’s order also tries to bring some pressure on the private sector. The order directs federal agencies to compile lists of companies, universities, and foundations still using DEI practices. Universities will likely be the first target because of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that struck down racial discrimination in colleges.
Now you might see why we concluded that this executive order might have been the most significant one he signed that first day.

Kerby Anderson
Should parents be allowed to opt their children out of readings of LGBTQ-themed storybooks? This is the question before the Supreme Court. The case comes from Maryland, where a coalition of parents from Montgomery County contend that requiring their children to participate in instruction that violates their religious beliefs violates their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
Activists have been working for decades to promote gay and lesbian views to young children in the public school system. Some of these materials have the obvious goal of indoctrinating students into this ideology. That is why the Becket Fund is representing families of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian faiths in this case.
Eric Baxter (Becket) explained, “Cramming down controversial gender ideology on three-year-olds without their parents’ permission is an affront to our nation’s traditions, parental rights, and basic human decency.” He argued, “The court must make clear: parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality.”
This case, once again, puts the high court in the center of the culture wars. The justices earlier heard oral arguments in a challenge to Tennessee’s ban on transgender surgery for minors.
Critics argue that the Supreme Court should stay out of the culture wars. My response is that they would be more than glad to avoid such cases, if it weren’t for activists trying to inject their gay and transexual ideologies into grade school classrooms.
We can hope and pray that the Supreme Court will prevent these attempts to indoctrinate young minds and allow parents to raise their children without such interference. The justices need to bring some common sense back into the public schools of America.

Kerby Anderson
It didn’t take long before the media launched what John Nolte referred to as the Hoax Machine. He was referring to the way many in the media portrayed Elon Musk’s arm movement as a Nazi salute.
But later in his article, he provided a hoax list that included nearly 40 examples promoted by the mainstream media. Each hoax on the list has a link so you can check it out for yourself.
Many of them were about false claims about Donald Trump. A few examples are the “Very Fine People Hoax” and “Trump Trashes Troops Hoax.” Each of those have been debunked by knowledgeable people who were present at the time. Of course, we cannot forget many others associated with Trump’s first term, like the “Russia Collusion Hoax”
The pandemic brought many hoaxes. A few examples were the “COVID Lab Leak Theory is Racist Hoax” and “COVID Deaths are Overcounted is a Conspiracy Theory Hoax.”
Many hoaxes involved media correspondents rushing to false conclusions or repeating false allegations. A few examples were the “Covington KKKids Hoax” and the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot Hoax.”
And there was the prominent hoax involving Jussie Smollett. Of course, his hoax gained national attention because of who he was and what he claimed happened to him. In previous commentaries, I have listed, on a regular basis, the increasing number of fake hate crimes that misrepresent how Americans treat each other and waste law enforcement’s time and money investigating them.
The lesson here is to be skeptical and discerning when you hear or read something reported in the news or repeated on social media. The story, and the subsequent claims, may merely be another hoax.