Author: Kerby Anderson

Kerby Anderson
More than a decade ago when I was teaching a class on creation, I heard about some Christians who believed in a flat earth. I was aware that some people were online promoting a flat earth theory but assumed they might just be evolutionists trying to mock Christians.
Apparently, there is a percentage of Christians who believe in a flat earth, deny that men walked on the moon, and even deny the Holocaust ever occurred. One flat earth documentary denies the existence of other planets and denies that stars are far away. As you would imagine, it requires a lot of mental gymnastics to reject the established facts of science and history.
Long before we had pictures of the earth from space, we had evidence of the earth’s curvature. This included the shadow of the earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse and the observation from people who would watch ships sail off in the distance and then slowly sink below the horizon.
 Of course, we have so many more pieces of evidence. I have had an astronaut who walked on the moon in my Sunday School class. I have had another who held the record (until recently) of spending the greatest number of days in the International Space Station. And all of us have pictures and videos of the earth from space.
 Nevertheless, some Christians take Bible passages out of context, like Job 38. Or they quote from a non-biblical source like the book of Enoch. A recent Albert Mohler podcast had a question from someone who asked if a man who believed in a flat earth should be disqualified from being an elder in the church.
Dr. Danny Faulkner (Answers in Genesis) has written about the flat earth phenomenon, and apparently has a book coming out on the subject. That may be a good resource to share with a flat earther, though I fear it won’t make much of a difference.

Kerby Anderson
Earlier this month the Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve cut the short-term interest rate target by 50 basis points. The financial world was waiting to see what Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell would announce. Even after it happened, commentators were contrasting the words of Powell with his actions and suggesting he was more worried than he sounds.
Guests that I have had on my radio program like to make interesting comments about the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve, they might say, isn’t a federal agency and has doubtful reserves. Another might say that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is the most powerful person in America. What should we think about all of this?
The Federal Reserve has a dual mandate to keep inflation low (at 2%) and to also keep unemployment low. It engages in what is called “monetary policy” in an attempt to achieve those two goals. This central bank was established in late December 1913. If you want to read how it was created, you might want to read the book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, which is now in its fifth edition.
As I have talked about in previous commentaries, the Federal Reserve has had to “print” money to finance the massive government spending during these last few decades. In one interview, Jerome Powell explained they “have the ability to create money digitally, and we do that by buying Treasury Bills or bonds or other government guaranteed securities.” He also added in another interview that the Federal Reserve has become the most important factor in the global economy.
Last year, the Wall Street Journal wrote that Jerome Powell has become the most powerful economic voice in America. Perhaps now you can see why so many people pay attention to what Jerome Powell says and what the Federal Reserve does.

Kerby Anderson
School shootings have been in the news for two reasons. Earlier this month, we were able to see the full text of the shooter at Covenant School. The next day, the news was about a shooter at a high school in Georgia.
The Covenant School shooter’s diary is a reminder of the sad and disturbed thoughts running through those who take out their anger on other students. This trans-identifying 28-year-old who killed six people had been in psychological counseling for many years. She manifested all kinds of self-hatred and had eating disorders.
Let me quote from one expert in the article, “The Rise in School Shootings Reflects Both ‘Mental Health and Spiritual Crisis’.” Dr. Jennifer Bauwens observes, “We’re both having a mental health and a spiritual crisis, and there’s just not one factor that contributes to this problem.” After looking at the diary, she concluded that, “this young woman was very oppressed and had a lot of spiritual ideas.” She also added “You do see sort of a typical profile of someone who is identifying as transgender, where there’s all this other host of mental health issues.”
She believes that young people, who are dealing with emotional issues and feel alienated from society, are attracted to some of these radical ideologies. This becomes an excuse since “all my problems are this issue.” That doesn’t mean ”that everyone who identifies as transgender is going to carry out something horrific like this (a school shooting).”
In previous commentaries, I have documented the mental health crisis affecting the younger generations. Social, psychological, and spiritual issues are in play and must be addressed. This is the challenge for schools and the church to make a difference in the lives of these troubled young people.

Kerby Anderson
As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, there has been a significant difference of opinion between the media and average Americans about the economy. The media (and members of the Biden administration) point to certain positive economic indicators and believe Americans should be excited about our current economy.
Earlier this month, the Census Bureau produced its report on household income, poverty, and health coverage. They discovered that real median household income remains lower than in 2019 and has barely grown since 2020. The Wall Street Journal editorial explains “Why Americans Are Sour on the Economy.” The editors even provided a chart that shows contrast between the first three years of the Trump and Biden presidencies.
During the Trump years, incomes climbed for Asians by $14,600, for whites by $8,910, for Hispanics by $6,960, and for blacks by $4,540. By contrast, income gains during the Biden years were modest. Incomes for Asians rose only $1,500, for whites only $850, for Hispanics only $700, and for blacks $2,650. The editors add that because COVID reduced incomes in 2020, this comparison, if anything, flatters the Biden record.
If you look at the last year, you see an even more dismal record. Real median earnings for full-time workers last year declined 1.6 percent. The decline was even worse for high-school grads (3.3%). What that means is that inflation outpaced wages for most low-wage workers.
I think you can see why so many Americans are sour on our current economy.

Kerby Anderson
In his latest book, The Eclipse of God, Erwin Lutzer exposes our nation’s disastrous efforts to redefine God in its own image. Because of this, confusion about God has even crept into the church. He was on my radio program recently to warn us of the danger.
He began by explaining the title. Just as the moon obscures the sun’s light during an eclipse, today’s radical secularism has obscured the light of God. He wrote this book with three objectives. First, to better understand the intellectual roots of this present darkness. Second, to rejoice that God is sovereign and stands ready to give us the blessing of His presence, no matter our predicament. Third, to remind us that only a repentant and submissive church can shine the light of the gospel with confidence and strength.
Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed, “God is dead.” But who killed God? Erwin Lutzer identifies three gravediggers who prepared a coffin for God: Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, and Sigmund Freud. And once God was gone, we became our own God which is discussed in the chapter “Nearer My God to Me: Worshipping at the Shrine of Self-Made Deities.”
The second part of his book establishes what we need to do in “Returning to the God of Our Fathers.” This includes returning to the God of Truth, not “Truthiness.” We must also be returning to the God of Moral Absolutes, Not Our Personal Preferences. And it involves returning to God as Lawgiver, Not a Vacillating Ruler.
His book is a timely and practical manual intended to deepen our love for the God of the Bible. It will empower you to live and speak as a light for Him in a culture of darkness.

Kerby Anderson
When was the last time you had a meaningful conversation? That is a question Sean McDowell and Tim Muehlhoff ask in their new book, End the Stalemate: Move Past Cancel Culture to Meaningful Conversations.
We live in a cancel culture. But that doesn’t mean we must either conform or remain silent. Nearly a third of people report they have stopped talking to a friend or family member due to a disagreement. And nearly two-thirds of people say they stay quiet about their beliefs due to the fear of offending others. We can bring light to the darkness. We can be a beacon of sanity that promotes meaningful conversations.
Sean was on my radio program to talk about the book. The first five chapters helped in “setting the stage.” How did we get to this place? He explained that it has been a “perfect storm” of factors: (1) people are hurting, (2) there is a clash of worldviews, (3) opinions are openly expressed on social media, and (4) there is a communication breakdown. That is why we are angry and divided.
The authors then provide six chapters with “practical tips for engaging others.” We learn how to engage explosive issues. We can also create connection and emotional awareness. There are helpful suggestions on how to engage in perspective-taking, how to structure a conversation, and how to speak the truth in love, from a biblical understanding.
There is also a helpful section on presenting the other side using strawman and steelman arguments. A strawman argument comes from paraphrasing an argument in the weakest possible way. A steelman argument is to consider the best and strongest argument. If we wish to have a meaningful dialogue, we shouldn’t minimize the other person’s opinion and perspective.
We need to apply the lessons in this book so we can end this stalemate.

Kerby Anderson
Dr. Casey Luskin (Discovery Institute) was in my studio recently to talk about evolution’s failed predictions. I was able to find an article he wrote in the past about “Design vs. Descent: A Context of Predictions,” which you might want to read to get a fuller explanation.
He begins with a quote from the famous philosopher of science Karl Popper, who wrote that all scientific theories must be falsifiable. Certainly, a scientific theory that is taught in the public schools should have empirical evidence and thus be falsifiable.
Casey Luskin discussed four lines of evidence. Here are two of them.
One line of evidence is biochemical complexity. A prediction of descent would be that there would be few machine-like biologically complex structures in the cell. A prediction from design would be that we should find machine-like irreducibly complex structures that cannot be easily explained by a gradual evolutionary process. He described such irreducibly complex structures and then argued that the best theory to explain the data is design.
Another line of evidence is biochemical functionality. The prediction of descent would be that the genetic code in living creatures would contain a significant amount of genetic baggage. This would be “junk DNA” that is left over from failed genetic adaptations. The prediction of design would be that the genetic code is not full of functionless “junk DNA.”
As we have increased our knowledge of genetics, we have discovered that the so-called “junk DNA” has an important function within the cell. He argues that this functioning DNA would be expected or explained under a design paradigm.
If we look at the predictions and the scientific data, we discover that design is a better explaining theory than descent.

Kerby Anderson
How close are some elections? Let’s look at last year’s 2023 off-year elections. Twenty-six elections ended in ties, and another seven were decided by one vote. According to the Public Interest Legal Foundation, there have been 625 elections that ended in tie votes, and 162 elections that were decided by one vote in just the last 22 years.
In the past, I have told the story of Penny Pullen in Illinois who lost a primary vote. But there were some irregularities. Judge Francis Barth concluded that the election was a tie and ordered a coin toss, and she lost the election. Later she found out that many members of her church hadn’t bothered to vote in the primary election and could have made a crucial difference.
We have also had many close presidential elections. George W. Bush won the 2000 Presidential election by the slimmest of margins. His election essentially was decided by 537 votes in Florida. He won re-election in the 2004 Presidential election again by very slim margins. He won the 20 electoral votes from the state of Ohio with 50.8 percent of the vote.
The last presidential election was closer than most people know. Joe Biden won three key states by the slimmest of margins (by 0.6 percentage points or less). If you flip fewer than 43,000 votes across those three states, the electoral college would have been tied 269 to 269. In case you are wondering, the outcome would be decided by each House delegation. Since the Republicans controlled more states, Donald Trump would be re-elected.
The presidential election may be this close again, and it is certain that many other elections will be very close. Anyone who wonders if his or her vote will make a difference needs to look at how close elections have been.

Kerby Anderson
A recent column in the Washington Post observes that “Western government until recently generally did not regard social media and the vision of free speech they promoted as being fundamentally at odds with democracy.” The author concludes that now these governments do, which is why Elon Musk and Pavel Durov are facing “the revenge of the regulators.” He also warns these men “will have to think more carefully” about “whose soil they’re on when they step off the plane.”
Matt Taibbi exposes what is happening now that “Liberalism Removes Its Mask.” He laments that former Labor Secretary Robert Reich published a guide in The Guardian on how to “rein in” Elon Musk and even suggests that “regulators around the world threaten Musk with arrest.”
Matt Taibbi also points to two articles in the New York Times. The first wondered if “The First Amendment is Out of Control.” The more recent article acknowledged and then asked, “The Constitution is Sacred. Is it Also Dangerous?’
We also might mention the comments by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. She complained that the First Amendment was “hamstringing the government.” Of course, that is the purpose of that amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.
I believe what is happening is exposing leftism within liberalism. In previous commentaries, I have made a distinction between liberalism and the left. Liberals and conservatives believe is free speech. Leftists do not.
I discovered this many decades ago while speaking on college campuses. Liberal professors were willing to engage in debate and discussion. Radical leftists worked to shut down debate and wanted to stop any discussion.
Liberal pundits and politicians loved to talk about free speech on social media platforms, until they saw comments they didn’t like. Now the mask if off.

Kerby Anderson
Peter St. Onge asks, “How did American voters get so dumb?” If you have ever watched the answers given by people on the street to historical or political questions, you know that many American voters are not well educated about our history or form of government. Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking” and Jessie Watters’ “Watters’ World” provide many laughs but also cause us to shake our heads.
When he was a professor, Peter St. Onge ran every inaugural address through a Flesch-Kincaid text analysis to measure the grade level. Most of the inaugural addresses during the 20th century were written at the 13th and 14th grade level. Barack Obama’s inaugural was 8th grade level. Donald Trump’s inaugural was 9th grade level. Joe Biden’s inaugural was 7th grade level.
George Washington’s inaugural began with: “Among the vicissitudes incident to life.” Andrew Jackson’s inaugural began with: “Undertaking the arduous duties that I have been appointed.” Joe Biden’s inaugural began with: “This is America’s day.”
Back to his original question: How did we get so dumb? His answer: the public schools. He reminds us that the modern government school came from 1800’s Prussia that suffered from worker riots and peasant revolts. The goal was indoctrination, not education.
Parents and taxpayers have every right to ask: What are we teaching in the schools? Graduates who we see interviewed on the street corner don’t seem to have a clue about this nation’s history or about the structure of government.
Most of them could not pass the citizenship test we give to people who come here from other countries and desire to become U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, they will vote in November even though they don’t know enough to make an informed vote.

Kerby Anderson
During this campaign season, will voters settle for generalities, or will they demand specifics? We will find out in seven weeks. Politicians are known for speaking with vague platitudes, but usually they are forced to give more specific answers when asked by voters or the media. Because this commentary is heard nationally, I will focus on the presidential candidates, though I could also use the state and local elections to illustrate my point as well.
Kamala Harris talks in generalities: “In our nation, I think the people are ready to turn the page … one of my highest priorities is to do what we can to support and strengthen the middle class … we need a new way forward.” Every time she uses one of these catch phrases and filler words, I want to ask: How do you plan to do this?
There are some specifics like a proposed 28% tax on long-term capital and a tax on unrealized capital gains for taxpayers with a high net worth. But specifics are rarely mentioned. Instead, phrases about hope, optimism, and a way forward are used frequently.
By contrast, you have speeches and interviews with Donald Trump where he proposes an extension of his previous tax rates and a targeted tax cut. He wants to establish a Government Efficiency Commission. This time he proposes removing 10 regulations for every one regulation.
One of the biggest criticisms at the Democratic Convention was of Project 2025, which is full of specific recommendations. The Trump administration may not implement many of them, and you may not like some of them. But the 900-page document is detailed and specific.
This election will determine if voters settled for generalities or demanded specifics. American voters deserve more than vague platitudes and campaign slogans.

Kerby Anderson
We have idols today, but rarely are they in the form of carved statues and found in religious shrines. A study by Lifeway Research asked Protestant pastors in this county what they felt were modern-day idols.
Two-thirds (67%) of the pastors believe comfort is a desire that Christians have made into an idol. A majority also reported that control or security (56%), money (55%), and approval (51%) are idols that have significant influence on their congregations. They were also asked to choose the potential idol with the most sway over people in their churches. These pastors again pointed to comfort (30%) and control or security (20%) as the most important.
Scott McConnell serves as the executive director of Lifeway Research. “It’s easy to think that those in Christian churches have chosen their God and are faithful to Him.” He also noted that “pastors quickly acknowledge how divided their congregations’ allegiances can be. These gods don’t have a physical shrine, but they compete for the hearts of Christians.”
There were other modern-day idols that were reported by many pastors but not a majority of them. Fewer said that success (49%) and social influence (46%) are idols in their congregations. Even lower on the list were political power (39%) and sex or romantic love (32%).
One interesting statistic was the fact that a smaller percentage (14%) of pastors said none of these idols had an influence in their churches. Differences in age and education were also relevant. Younger pastors, for example, were more likely to say that money is an idol in the church, while more educated pastors pointed to both money and control.
If you are a pastor or a Bible fellowship teacher, you need to look at this survey and consider what teaching you might bring to this issue of modern-day idols.

Kerby Anderson
Many Americans are concerned about the impact that social media and Big Tech are having on society. Therefore, it is not surprising that a number of documentaries have been focusing on problems from this technology.
One of the most important documentaries to come along is “The Social Dilemma.” It features an interesting blend of talking-head interviews with various Big Tech figures, with a fictional dramatization of what happens when children in one family become addicted to social media.
Much of the discussion follows Tristan Harris. He is referred to as “the conscience of Silicon Valley.” In the past, he worked for Google, but left because he was concerned about the direction of technology and decided to establish the Centre for Humane Technology.
Near the end of the program, he raises the issue of the ethical and philosophical foundation rarely discussed. He concludes, “If we don’t agree on what is true or that there is such a thing as truth, we’re toast. This is the problem beneath other problems. Because if we can’t agree on what’s true, then we can’t navigate out of any of our problems.”
It was a great admission and illustrates the foundational problem confronting Big Tech in particular, and society in general. The assumption running through this video is that there is no absolute truth. Truth is relative, or truth is personal. Relative ethics or postmodern ethics is the ethical assumption made when a critic expresses his or her own opinion. There is no appeal to an absolute standard of right and wrong.
The problem isn’t the technology. Tristan Harris describes the technology as “simultaneous utopia and dystopia.” The problem is the lack of an ethical foundation to evaluate it.

Kerby Anderson
One striking difference between Europe and America has been the temptation of many European countries to fall into totalitarianism. Dennis Prager reminds us that after World War I, many of these countries embraced communism, fascism, or Nazism. There is a very good reason why.
The primary beliefs that gave rise to meaning in life were patriotism and the Judeo-Christian religion. The senseless slaughter during the Great War (as it was called) challenged both of those foundations. National identity was seen as the cause of the war. And religion was deemed unnecessary and perhaps a relic of the past. The void that was left was filled with communism in Russia, fascism in Italy, and Nazism in Germany.
In the US, there were communists and many other activists promoting other totalitarian temptations, but they never took root. Americans did not lose their faith in religion (especially in Christianity). Patriotism not only flourished, but Dennis Prager reminds us that the words “under God” were even inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily in American schools.
But the baby-boomers born after World War II began to challenge God and country. These students were indoctrinated in secularism and anti-Americanism. The generations that followed them grew up in a country that was less religious and more likely to criticize America’s government and history.
Today we have a void that is similar to the one found in Europe a century ago. Most likely, the totalitarian temptation today will be a Leftist totalitarianism that promotes Leftist political correctness and bans free speech and religion.
There are many reasons to pray for a spiritual revival, but one of the more important reasons is to prevent this country from falling for the totalitarian temptation.

Kerby Anderson
Professor Paul Kengor has a book on The Devil and Karl Marx that reminds us how much Marx hated God and Christianity. In his book and on my radio program, he cited Marx and many of the biographies that showed how scary he was. His own family and friends were frightened by his demonic fits of rage and his bizarre focus on violence.
Marx wrote, “When our turn comes, we shall make no excuses for the terror. There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified, and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”
In his book and also in a recent column in The American Spectator, Kengor also asks a relevant question: Why not cancel Karl Marx? His writings are filled with racist rants and anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic statements. Paul Kengor documents that Karl Marx was “after all, a bigot. His attitude toward blacks and Jews alone (not to mention women) would stun Stonewall Jackson. Ugly racial-ethnic stereotypes by Marx are littered throughout his writings.”
If you want to find examples, I suggest you read the book or his column in The American Spectator. I simply cannot repeat some of the awful things that Karl Marx said about people of different races and ethnic backgrounds.
On the university campus today, we are told by students and professors to ignore those “dead white European males” that have given us Western Culture. But isn’t Karl Marx one of those dead white European males? Of course, he is, but once again he gets a pass.
Karl Marx should be canceled for his bigotry alone, but even more so for the fact that his writings provided the foundation for totalitarian regimes responsible for more than 100 million deaths in the 20th century.

Kerby Anderson
In previous commentaries, I have quoted Michael Shellenberger and his book, Apocalypse Never, which deals with environmental issues. But his latest book documents the problem of homelessness in one city. The title is: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities. He documents various reasons why the homeless problem has become worse.
Limited housing has been one reason. Expensive housing and warmer climates explain why the homeless can be found in California, Florida, and Hawaii. Not only is the climate warmer, but the real estate costs are very high.
Drugs and substance abuse are other issues. In the past, Michael Shellenberger promoted decriminalization of drugs but has changed his mind. For example, drug overdoses are the number one cause of accidental death.
He also notes this irony. “No state in America has taken more aggressive action to reduce the public’s exposure to chemicals, and to second-hand smoke, than California.” But while cities and the state focus on “the remote dangers of cosmetics, pesticides, and second-hand smoke, they downplay the immediate dangers of hard drugs including fentanyl.”
Mental illness is another reason for homelessness. While about 52 million people suffer from a mental illness, about 13 million adults are seriously mentally ill. A significant percentage of them are now on the streets because of policies that forced their release from psychiatric hospitals. People with serious mental illness are more likely to be homeless, to interact with drug dealers, and to be victimized.
His book reminds us that to deal with the problem of homelessness, we need to look at root causes, not just symptoms.

Kerby Anderson
If you type the words “tablet kids” into a search engine, up will pop all sorts of tablets for young children. If you look far enough, you will see a press report of a medical study that would warn you not to purchase one of those tablets.
The Journal of the American Medical Association on Pediatrics documents such concerns in the article on “Early-Childhood Tablet Use and Outbursts of Anger.” The researchers found that children who spend 75 minutes or more per day on a computer screen at age 3.5 are more likely to experience anger and frustration outbursts a year later. The study also warned that this cycle may continue, as children who are more likely to express anger and frustration at age 4.5 may spend even more time on a tablet a year later.
As you might imagine, the study was greeted by many skeptics with comments like: Tell me something I didn’t know. Any parent or grandparent who has children or grandchildren who are becoming addicted to digital devices has seen this behavior. The value of this study is to document it and predict that it will get worse over time.
There is some value in allowing a young child to look at a computer screen for a few minutes just to get some sanity as you are walking through “the valley of the diapers.” Giving a computer tablet to a young child might distract them for a moment. It might even help avoid a temper tantrum, but the long-term impact on the child is not good. It will perpetuate a cycle where a parent gives a tablet to an angry child, only to later have an even angrier child.
This study warns against allowing young children to become addicted to digital devices. If you allow that to continue, you will likely create an unsocialized, tech-dependent, angry child.

Kerby Anderson
Americans have been concerned about immigration, and particularly about the lack of border security. I wondered how the mainstream media would try to deflect the issue.
The New York Times published a report with the headline, “In JD Vance’s Backyard, Conspiracy Theories About Migrants and Voting Abound.” The headline of a Washington Post report proclaims that “Republicans Flood TV with Misleading Ads about Immigration, Border.”
In a recent commentary, Rich Lowry explains “all of this represents is not so much fact-checking by the press as narrative-policing — certain facts and opinions are deemed false, or conspiracy theories based merely on their political inconvenience.”
Are illegal immigrants voting? Even the New York Times article admits that they are voting in local elections in mostly deep-blue areas. Officials argue they should be allowed to vote because they pay taxes.
It doesn’t take much imagination to see how that argument will be used to expand the voting franchise. In fact, the left-wing Center for American Progress argues that “a pathway to citizenship . . .  is the only way to maintain electoral strength in the future.”
The Washington Post article complains that political ads create “a false impression that migrants are flooding unchecked into the United States.” Rich Lowry asks: “A false impression? What would it take to convince the Post that migrants are flooding into the country?”
The article also criticizes another political ad that mentions terrorists and prostitution. Rich Lowry points to the established fact that terrorists have been crossing the border, and women have been sex-trafficked across the border.
Concerns about immigration and border security aren’t conspiracy theories but well-documented facts.

Kerby Anderson
Charles Gasparino, a TV network business correspondent, begins his latest book on the radicalization of corporate America by talking about “The Great Goldman Chick-fil-A Debate.” A handful of young Goldman Sachs associates wanted to order chicken sandwiches from the local Chick-fil-A restaurant. Others felt it would be racist and bigoted to do so. An angry debate broke out.
A business colleague of Charles tipped him off to the story. He was amazed that, as he puts it, “some of Goldman’s best and brightest that night” were convinced eating a “Chick-fil-A sandwich would signal a significant step in America’s de-evolution, sending the nation back to the darker times of the antebellum South.”
He explains why Chick-fil-A might be controversial to some, but still finds the reaction unreasonable. Chick-fil-A is a franchise business that is owned by entrepreneurs from all walks of life. The person working at the local restaurant “could be an Asian or Hispanic immigrant, or some dude from Ghana, not a real or imagined southern redneck.”
When his network contacted Goodman for a comment, they wouldn’t rule out that the Chick-fil-A debate occurred. Someone at Goldman later asked why he thought this this story was worth reporting. His response is simple. Just read his new book, Go Woke, Go Broke: The Inside Story of the Radicalization of Corporate America, to find out.
As you might imagine, he tells the stories of Target, Disney, and Bud Light, He provides detailed discussions about ESG, DEI, and critical race theory. And he also reminds us of the history of the so-called “summer of love.”
Wokeness is destroying corporate America, and his new book explains why.

Kerby Anderson
Political campaigns become intense after Labor Day. You will need wisdom and discernment to evaluate the numerous proposals because much of the mainstream media doesn’t evaluate counter proposals with the same objectivity. Here are two examples.
In June, Donald Trump announced a proposal to end taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers. At the time, CBS News reported, “Former President Donald Trump’s vow to stop taxing tips would cost the federal government up to $250 billion over ten years, according to a nonpartisan watchdog group.”
In August, Kamala Harris made a similar proposal. How did CBS report that announcement? “Vice President Kamala Harris is rolling out a new policy position, saying she’ll fight to end taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers.” As far as I can tell, there was no mention of the cost. There was a discussion of whether he or she came up with the proposal first.
Consider the contrast in how the media covered the idea of a child tax credit. When Senator J.D. Vance proposed a $5,000 child tax credit, it was usually linked with the claim from a tax foundation that it would cost “about $3 trillion over 10 years.” By contrast, when Kamala Harris proposed tax relief (that included up to $6,000 for parents of newborns and $3,600 for an expanded child tax credit) the headlines were about her plans to lower costs for families.
I appreciate the media estimating the costs of these campaign proposals, especially at a time when the federal government is $35 trillion in debt. But a fair way to cover these campaign proposals would be to remind voters of the costs when either candidate announces a policy.