Viewpoints with Kerby Anderson

Penna Dexter
Headlines about the fact that the fertility rate is falling worldwide have government leaders worried. As workforces shrink, economic growth slows, and companies and government entities fail to sufficiently fund pensions, demographers are scrambling to offer explanations – and solutions.
The fertility rate has to do with the number of babies a woman has over her lifetime. It is believed that, for the first time, fertility has dropped below global replacement.
There are many reasons: Longer lifespans with more children surviving into adulthood, women’s higher education levels, women’s greater participation in the workforce, economic uncertainty beginning with the 2008 financial crisis.
The Wall Street Journal points to another factor:  a “’second demographic transition,’ a society-wide reorientation toward individualism that puts less emphasis on marriage and parenthood, and makes fewer or no children more acceptable.”
Melissa Kearney, an economist at the University of Maryland, told The Wall Street Journal that raising children is no more expensive now than in the past. She says parents simply have different “perspectives” and “perceived constraints.” Professor Kearney, the author of a recent book, The Two-Parent Privilege, points out that highly educated parents spend more time with their children than in the past and therefore may want fewer of them. She says, “The intensity of parenting is a constraint.”
Another scholar with the same last name — spelled differently — is the American Enterprise Institute’s Timothy Carney. His book is Family Unfriendly: How Our Culture Made Raising Kids Much Harder Than It Needs to Be. He and his wife have five children.
Tim Carney’s recent Washington Post op-ed recommends families have at least four children. He writes: “There’s nothing high-quality about the intensive parenting that is typical in today’s middle and upper-middle classes.” He recommends letting kids “off the leash,” ditching the daily after-school “race,” in favor of “independent play” because it’s fun, less exhausting, and helps children learn to cope with stressors (like when little brother smashes your record-breaking Lego tower).

Kerby Anderson
What does AI think about artificial intelligence and this new wave of technology? Mustafa Suleyman is the author of the new book The Coming Wave. He had the idea of having an AI computer write the prologue to his book. Here is what the AI computer wrote:
“In the annals of human history, there are moments that stand out as turning points, where the fate of humanity hangs in the balance. The discovery of fire, the invention of the wheel, the harnessing of electricity—all of these were moments that transformed human civilization, altering the course of history forever.”
The AI computer went on to argue that “we stand at the brink of another such moment as we face the rise of a coming wave of technology that includes both advanced AI and biotechnology.” It discussed the potential benefits of these technologies. “With AI, we could unlock the secrets of the universe, cure diseases that have long eluded us…. With biotechnology, we could engineer life to tackle diseases and transform agriculture, creating a world that is healthier and more sustainable.”
But the AI computer also mentioned the potential dangers of these technologies. “With AI, we could create systems that are beyond our control and find ourselves at the mercy of algorithms we don’t understand. With biotechnology, we could manipulate the very building blocks of life, potentially creating unintended consequences for both individuals and entire ecosystems.”
This is a good summary of these powerful new technologies. Perhaps you can also see why I encourage Christian students to consider a career in science and technology. We need Christian values shaping the future of this new wave of technology.

Kerby Anderson
Americans are rightly concerned about what is happening at our border. But skeptics ask whether the US can control the border. Todd Benson, in a recent PragerU video, provides some answers. He has spent the last twenty years of his life dealing with the issue of immigration, both as a reporter and as an intelligence officer in the Texas government.
From 2021 to 2024, 8 million people have entered the country illegally, and that does not count the 2 million “gotaways.” He calls this the “greatest mass movement across national borders in US history, and maybe the greatest in human history.” And it is worth mentioning these people are coming from 150 different countries.
Why are they coming? He says it gets down to risk versus reward. If the reward is greater than the risk of deportation, migrants will come. Under the Trump administration, the risks were higher. The president extended the border wall, instituted a “remain in Mexico” policy, and empowered border and immigration agents to detain, deport, and expel illegal immigrants.
The current administration reversed all those policies. He laments that now “border agents became like Walmart greeters; deportation officers were chained to their desks; most anyone who showed up was guaranteed entry.”
The odds changed significantly, and word got out to other countries. We now have a “mass movement of people toward a single goal: to get across the border.” Once they get here, then we have the responsibility to feed, house, and care for millions of people from other countries we didn’t invite to this country.
How can we reverse this trend? The answer is simple: reverse the risk/reward calculus. He reminds us that we did it in 2017 to 2021. We can do it again.

Kerby Anderson
Scott Galloway is a professor of marketing at the New York University Stern School of Business and author of the book The Algebra of Wealth. In a recent TED Talk, he describes many of the concerns I have raised in previous commentaries. The first step in solving a problem is properly identifying it.
He begins by reminding us that as we go down the generations, “the last two generations are making less money on an inflation adjusted basis.” He argues that the social contract in America has broken because “for the first time in the US’s history a 30-year-old is no longer doing as well as his or her parents were at 30.” Most young Americans do not feel good about America. That attitude creates rage and can explain the incendiary movements like the BLM riots and pro-Hamas protests.
He also shows graphs that parallel the research by his colleague, Jonathan Haidt. Rates of self-harm increase. Rates of depression also increase. He recalls that when he was in high school, teenagers died because of drunk driving. Today teenagers are killing themselves.
Many of these disturbing trends were surfacing 30 years ago when I wrote Signs of Warning, Signs of Hope. The builder generation (born before the end of WWII) sent Dad off to work and Mom stayed home with the kids and most went to church. The boomer generation (1946-1964) had two parents working, had a more difficult time buying a home, and may or may not have gone to church. The latest generations have both husband and wife working, aren’t sure they want to have kids, may never afford a home, and don’t go to church.
The economic and spiritual trends that started decades ago account for so many of the societal concerns surfacing today. It’s time to admit we have a broken economy and broken society that needs revival.

Kerby Anderson
I’ve played basketball and programmed computers. But I never thought putting the two together would be a problem. An AI-computer got the facts of a recent NBA playoff all wrong and generated a fictitious story.
Klay Thompson plays for the Golden State Warriors. Although he is an excellent shooter, he went an abysmal 0-10 from the 3-point line when they played the Sacramento Kings.
Here is the story the AI computer created: “In a bizarre turn of events, NBA star Klay Thompson has been accused of vandalizing multiple houses with bricks in Sacramento…. The incidents have left the community shaken, but no injuries were reported. The motive behind the alleged vandalism remains unclear.”
The AI computer apparently pulled some online comments about Thompson “throwing up bricks” and generated this fictitious story. It illustrates what could happen when AI is unsupervised and out of control.
The story accuses Klay Thompson of doing something he did not do, claims houses were vandalized, and does not know his motive. It also assumes no injuries took place because they weren’t reported. Remember, none of this happened. It was created in the mind (or circuitry) of the AI computer.
Most people who have reported this fictitious story find it funny. I find it scary. The AI computer obviously didn’t know basketball slang (throwing up bricks). But it created a whole story out of a misunderstanding. Let me remind you that whole reputations have been ruined because of a misunderstanding. For that matter, wars have started from a misunderstanding.
This may be a silly story, but it does illustrate that AI isn’t as reliable as we have been led to believe.

Kerby Anderson
Two weeks ago, the president of the University of Florida, Ben Sasse, wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. I wish other university presidents would read what he wrote and apply these same lessons to their college.
He tells “parents and future employers: We’re not perfect, but the adults are still in charge.” The school’s response to protests and encampments is driven by three basic truths.
First, “universities must distinguish between speech and action.” Speech isn’t violence. Throwing fists, storming buildings, vandalizing property is violence. Universities are supposedly in the business of discovering knowledge and passing it on. “The heckler gets no veto. The best arguments deserve the best counterarguments.”
Second, “universities must say what they mean and then do what they say.” Administrators at many of these colleges are issuing empty threats. He reminds us how ineffective that is with a 2-year-old. It doesn’t work any better with a 20-year-old. “Moving classes online is a retreat that penalizes students and rewards protesters.”
He made it clear to protesters that: “We will always defend your rights to free speech and free assembly—but if you cross the line on clearly prohibited activities, you will be thrown off campus and suspended.” He reminds them that they are a university, not a daycare.
Third, “universities need to recommit themselves to real education.” He laments that professors and their schools have adopted a rigid and dogmatic view of identity politics. As I have mentioned in a previous commentary, many of the students chanting “from the river to the sea” do not even know the name of the river or the sea.
Ben Sasse concludes that it is time for universities to do their jobs again. The first start is to read his op-ed, and then have college presidents apply it to their school.

Penna Dexter
Radical transgender directives just keep coming from the executive branch of the federal government. The latest decree, official guidance for employers from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, concerns restroom and pronoun use.
The guidance states that “the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity” could bring a workplace under harassment charges. So could misgendering: “repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s known gender identity.”
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employers with more than 15 employees from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Now — without a vote in Congress — the EEOC is including sexual orientation and gender identity in the list of protected categories.
The EEOC’s mandate is to combat racism and sexism in the workplace. It is not to force employers to pretend a person can change his or her gender identity.
Last July, the United States Senate narrowly confirmed Kalpana Kotagal to serve on the EEOC. Leading up to the vote, Senator Ted Cruz voiced his concern about what he described as her “record of support for radical transgender ideology.” Ms. Kotagal was confirmed as the third Democrat on the 5-member commission. This guidance is the fruit.
When the EEOC proposed this update last fall, 20 state attorneys general expressed their opposition, arguing that the proposed guidance would threaten the First Amendment rights of employers, employees, and, in some cases, customers.
Reed Rubenstein, director of oversight at America First Legal, pointed out that “Most large corporations promote gender ideology and punish workers who dissent, but it is likely that the EEOC will focus on small and privately owned family businesses, many of which lack the resources to fight back effectively.” Christian employers: be warned.
The Heritage Foundation’s Jay Richards told The Daily Signal, “normal people” must understand. He warns, “We’re dealing with a totalitarian ideology that wants to destroy the present order.” 

Kerby Anderson
Is Christianity as bad as atheists say that it is? For decades we have heard the charges from the so-called New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. But those ideas are starting to surface in other discussions. As one of my radio guests noted, non-Christians used to ask if Christianity is true, but now many ask whether Christianity is good.
Secular professors often will talk about Christianity in a negative way, focusing only on the Crusades, the Inquisition, or the Salem Witch Trials. But we never seem to hear about any of the positive contributions of Christianity. Fortunately, Jerry Newcombe has provided such lists in his books and commentaries.
For example, if you are educated, you should probably thank Christianity. “Education for the masses was a gift of Christianity to the world,” he explains. Education in America was established so that citizens could read the Bible for themselves and not be deluded. Nearly all the colleges in America’s early history were founded on Christian principles.
If you have ever been in a hospital, you should also thank Christianity. “St. Basil of Caesarea, who lived in the fourth century, is credited with creating the first hospital in the history of the world.” And let’s not forget the advances in science. As Norm Geisler and I explain in our book on Origin Science, most of the pioneers in the field of science had a Christian worldview, and others were theists who believed in God.
Most of the social movements in the 19th and 20th centuries sprung from Christian convictions. The abolition movement, child labor law movement, suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement are just a few examples.
Christianity shouldn’t be blamed for what is bad in the world. We should be grateful for the many blessings it provides each of us.

Kerby Anderson
Is crime on the rise? Most Americans think so. A Gallup survey last year found that nearly all (92%) Republicans and a majority (58%) of Democrats thought crime was increasing. A recent Rasmussen survey found most (61%) likely voters say violent crime in the US is getting worse.
But the media cites statistics arguing that crime is decreasing. That is why John Lott took the time to investigate the difference in perception about crime statistics. He concludes that Americans aren’t mistaken.
This country has two measures of crime. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting programs count the number of crimes reported to the police each year. The Bureau of Justice Statistics produces a National Crime Victimization Survey and asks Americans whether they have been victims of a crime. The two measures differ significantly.
One reason for the divergence is due to the fact that many police departments (especially in cities like New York and Los Angeles) don’t report crime data to the FBI. But there is another reason for the difference: many Americans are less likely to report a crime.
Arrest rates are plummeting. Why report a crime to the police if you don’t believe the criminal will be caught and punished? Arrest rates for property crimes, for example, have dropped sharply. FBI data for 2022 shows that only 12 percent of reported property crimes in all cities resulted in an arrest. In cities of more than one million people, that percentage drops to 4.5 percent. Arrest rates for violent crime also dropped significantly. And for cities with more than a million people, only 8.4 percent of violent crimes resulted in an arrest.
Crime is not decreasing. Only the reporting of crime is decreasing.

Kerby Anderson
The Federal government has a spending problem. Yesterday, I talked about the problem and discussed two ideas Stephen Moore proposes to shrink the federal budget. The two ideas mentioned yesterday were to use presidential impoundment authority and to require a super-majority vote to raise taxes. Here are two other ideas he proposes.
The first suggestion is what he calls the millionaire subsidy elimination act. This was proposed many years ago by the late economist Walter Williams. The argument is simple: no individual with an income over $1 million should be eligible for federal aid payment, and no business entity with more than $1 billion in revenues should be eligible for federal corporate welfare subsidies. Why should Warren Buffett or Bill Gates receive Social Security? Why should financially successful corporations receive federal benefits?
Second is the budget stamps solution. This was proposed by an economist in the Reagan Administration. Under this plan, the government would issue a special blue currency called “budget stamps.” This would be given to all recipients of federal spending. Recipients of federal assistance this year would receive $6 trillion in budget stamps.
The value would fluctuate based on how much money was collected in taxes that year. If tax collections were estimated to be 90 percent of spending, the budget stamp would be worth 90 cents, not a dollar. This would provide a significant incentive to Congress to balance the budget.
These last two days we have talked about four ways to shrink the federal budget. We need to do something to bring fiscal sanity to our government.

Kerby Anderson
The Federal government has a spending problem. That is best illustrated by the fact that the deficit this fiscal year will be $2 trillion. The accumulated national debt from George Washington to President Reagan was $1 trillion. This year we will accumulate twice as much debt in one year as was accumulated in the first 200 years of this country.
Stephen Moore reminds us that Congress just passed a bipartisan agreement to spend an additional $95 billion on foreign aid. Not one penny of that was being paid for by offsetting spending cuts. He has four ideas on how to shrink the budget.
The first suggestion is presidential impoundment authority. Just because Congress authorizes spending shouldn’t mean that the president always must spend it. The president, just like a CEO, should have the power to suspend spending on programs. Presidents from Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln to Franklin Delano Roosevelt have used that authority. He also mentions Richard Nixon, but he was prevented from doing this effectively because the Supreme Court ruled against him. That will probably have to be revisited.
The second suggestion is to require a super-majority vote to raise taxes. It is unlikely Congress will ever pass a balanced budget amendment. But it might pass a law requiring bipartisan support for raising taxes. The current president wants to increase taxes without any spending cuts. Clearly, we don’t have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. By the way, raising more taxes to balance the budget never has worked. Once more revenue comes to the government, politicians find more ways to spend it.
Tomorrow we will look at two more ways to shrink the federal budget. We need to do something to bring fiscal sanity to our government.

Kerby Anderson
Arthur Brooks begins his article by asking if you are feeling a little guilty about reading his article. He explains that we might feel that way because it is taking time away from something else you might feel you should be doing. We have deadlines and obligations nipping at our heels.
The title of his article is “How to be Less Busy and More Happy.” As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, Arthur Brooks has been investigating what makes people happy. He has a podcast with the name, “How to Build a Happy Life.”
According to a recent survey by Pew Research Center, a majority (52%) of Americans are usually trying to do more than one thing at a time. The survey also found that nearly two-thirds (60%) said that sometimes they feel too busy to enjoy life. That number approached three-fourths (74%) when asking parents with children under the age of 18, who admit they feel too busy to enjoy life.
The solution to excessive busyness is simple: do less. But he acknowledges that is easier said than done. But don’t give up yet. Researchers have learned that well-being involves a “sweet spot” of busyness. Put another way, too little discretionary time or even too much free time reduces life satisfaction.
He also admits “that for most of us, too much discretionary time is scarier than too little, and we overcorrect to avoid it. If we don’t know how to use it, free time can become idleness, which leads to boredom, and humans hate boredom.”
The trouble for most people is the fact that their lives are far below the sweet spot of discretionary time. That’s why I suggest all of us take a moment to reevaluate our lives and time commitments.

Penna Dexter
When the U.S. Department of Education released its rewrite of Title IX a couple of weeks ago, it took a landmark guarantee of equality in education on the basis of sex and turned it upside down.
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 was designed to protect women’s rights in education. These protections were hard won. They were a pillar of the feminist agenda. After they were enacted, women and girls gained important protections and opportunities.  Female participation in sports — from grammar school through college and beyond — exploded.
Title IX was passed in recognition of the inherent distinction between men and women. But this new rule imposes a radical redefinition of sex to include gender identity. In fact, according to The Washington Stand’s Ben Johnson, “The term ‘gender identity’ appears 289 times in the 1,577-page document.”
Sarah Parshall Perry, Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, has been warning for months that the administration was set to both “undermine constitutional freedoms  — like the freedom of speech — and erase the very  women that Title IX was enacted to protect.”
She explains in The Daily Signal that under the new rule, ”any K-12 school or institution of higher education that receives any federal funding would have to open girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, housing accommodations, sports teams, and any other sex-separated educational program to biological boys who claim to ‘identify’ as girls.”
Ignoring or even questioning these guidelines will result in charges of harassment.
Certain state leaders have taken action against the new rule.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Florida Governor Ron De Santis directed their school districts to ignore the rewrite. Many state attorneys general are suing the administration over the changes.
How do we describe the gutting of such an entrenched law protecting women, such a brazen denial of biological reality?  Gary Bauer uses the term “assault on normalcy.” He’s right. What a radical move six months before an election.

Kerby Anderson
Ira Stoll begins his commentary by mentioning that Jonathan Haidt’s new book, The Anxious Generation, is currently the #1 New York Times bestseller. But he then adds that there may be “another, non-technology possible contributor to the mental health crisis that’s getting less attention but may be just as significant.”
That factor is church attendance. It appears that as church attendance goes down, mental health issues go up. A study in Harvard Public Health estimated “about 40 percent of the increasing suicide rate in the United States from 1999 to 2014 might be attributed to declines in attendance at religious services during this period.” Another study estimated that declining church attendance from 1991 to 2019 accounted for 28 percent of the increase in depression among teenagers.
A major review of 215 studies reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that “weekly religious service attendance is longitudinally associated with lower mortality risk, lower depression, less suicide, better cardiovascular disease survival, better health behaviors, and greater marital stability, happiness, and purpose in life.”
Ira Stoll observes that “plenty of mental-health clinicians I know see in religious-service attendance some of the habits and attitudes that can help to combat depression and anxiety. There’s the supportive community, the face-to-face interaction, the getting out of bed and out of the house, the sense of purpose and meaning, the expressions of gratitude and humility.”
And these are just the social benefits of church attendance. There are also spiritual benefits that come from committing your life to Jesus Christ, spending time in Bible study and prayer. That’s why going to church is so important.

Kerby Anderson
The fertility rate in this country hit a record-low last year. The total fertility rate dropped to 1.62 births per woman (we need 2.1 for replacement). But the US decline in fertility is not unique. Nearly every country in the developed world and most countries in the developing world face long-term population decline.
Columnist Don Feder was on my radio program recently to predict that a demographic winter is coming. He talked about countries in Asia that used to be known for their high birthrates. Japan’s economy is slipping into recession, due in part to lower domestic demand because of a falling population. China is set to lose 60 percent of its population by the end of the century.
South Korea has the world’s lowest fertility rate. Almost a quarter of the workforce is 70 and older. There are more Koreans in their 70s than in their 20s.
At the 2023 Natal Conference, Kevin Dolan warned that if birth rates continue to plummet, civilization will end. He predicts we “will pass through a bottleneck tighter than the Black Death.” As a millennial he laments that only 60 percent of his peers will marry and have children. The percentage will likely be even lower for Gen Z.
The one exception to this decline is religious people. Although he is Jewish, he acknowledged that Catholics and Evangelicals do have more children. To that list he also added Orthodox Jews and Mormons. Religious people have children because procreation is an act of faith. I quoted Psalm 127 that reminds us that “children are a heritage from the Lord,” and we can be blessed if we have a quiver full of them.
We are headed for a demographic winter unless we return to a biblical view of procreation and family.

Kerby Anderson
This election year is certain the bring some significant surprises, and one of those is the possibility of a presidential tie. Dr. Merrill Matthews was on my radio program recently to talk about his article in The Hill.
A presidential candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win. Most people believe that much of the electoral map is already determined. That means that President Joe Biden can be expected to win 226 electoral votes, while former president Donald Trump can be expected to win 219.  The remaining 93 electoral votes come from the seven “swing states.”
If Biden won North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona and Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Nevada, both would have 269 electoral votes. Another scenario is if Biden won Wisconsin, Nevada, Georgia and Arizona and Trump won Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Michigan, there would be a 269-vote tie. In either case, the House would determine who serves as president, and the Senate would determine who serves as vice-president.
This outcome is less likely because of the very real possibility of “faithless electors.” Most states require their electors to vote for the state’s winner (though there are two states, which can split their vote). Some states (including some swing states) do not have a law prohibiting faithless electors. In that case, one or two electors could decide who would be the next president.
One final point: a third-party candidate could change some of this calculation as well. Independent Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and prospective Green Party candidate Jill Stein will likely affect the vote, especially in some of these “swing states.”
Perhaps you can now see why I say that we may be in for some significant surprises in the election year.

Kerby Anderson
Perhaps you have heard of the white high school principal in Baltimore who was removed from his position for allegedly making racist and antisemitic comments. I say “allegedly” since he didn’t make any of those comments. The audio was an AI-generated attempt to mimic his voice so that the school’s former black athletic director could get him fired.
As one commentator quipped, “Jessie Smollett must be devastated he didn’t think of this first!” Anyone who wants to perpetrate a fake hate crime or ruin the reputation of someone they hate only needs to use AI to accomplish the task.
The clip was posted to a popular Instagram account in the Baltimore community. This prompted an investigation from school officials and the police department. It was also sent to three teachers. One of them forwarded the email with the phony audio clip to the media and to the NAACP. She also forwarded it to a student who she knew would spread the message around to various social media outlets and throughout the school.
You can imagine the results and the amount of grief that came down on the head of the high school principal. I have likened spreading gossip on social media to opening a down pillow in the wind. You will never get the feathers back into the pillow.
I have written many radio commentaries about fake hate crimes over the last 14 years of doing these commentaries. This is a first, but it will not be the last. As one commentator put it, “hate hoaxers are using AI. It was bound to come to this.”
My message to media is not to be so trusting of an audio or video clip. You need to be more skeptical. At the very least, report your story with a disclaimer that you haven’t checked the veracity of the clip.
My message to you is simple: don’t trust everything you see or hear.

Kerby Anderson
The Pro-Hamas campus protests could only last so long before some people in charge exercised some common sense. One of my cliches on radio is “common sense is breaking out all over.” We are seeing that in the words and actions of people who understand what is happening.
Even at Columbia University, police were called and arrested 108 protesters last month, but not much has happened. The President at the University of Texas at Austin took stronger action and was criticized by the faculty. But presidents and university administrators are starting to realize they cannot continue to function with these protests on campus. Classes have gone online, and graduations have been cancelled.
Bill Maher on his TV show encouraged the protesters to start protesting truly evil groups like: Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. He also wondered why they weren’t protesting North Korea, China, and Myanmar.
On radio, I’ve questioned why there has been no protest about other Muslims being killed. These students never protested when Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad used poison gas against his own people. They have not been in the streets when Muslims in Sudan kill millions in an endless civil war. Boko Haram kidnaps whole villages of women, and yet we had a short protest ten years ago and but nothing since.
Common sense seems to be breaking out in the corporate world. Google recently fired 28 employees who were protesting the company’s cloud-computing contract with Israel. According to the company’s vice president, the employees “took over office spaces, defaced our property and physically impeded the work of other Googlers.” They were all shown the door.
We need more people in charge to exercise common sense. And we need to tell the protesting students they are focused on the wrong cause.

Penna Dexter
Five years ago, in a one-hour radio interview, Jeff Younger told me the story of his battle to save his then-six-year-old son, James. When he was 3, his mother, Jeff’s ex-wife Anne Georgulas, began dressing and treating James as a girl. She began taking him to a transgender-affirming therapist. She obtained a court order enjoining Jeff from dressing James as a boy for school, from teaching him that he is a boy, and from providing religious teachings about sexuality and gender.
James’ mother instructed school authorities that he be treated as a girl. He goes to school, dressed as a girl and obediently answers to his girl name, “Luna.” But, with his dad and twin brother Jude, James is all boy. And, with family friends, he would always play with the boys, as a boy.
As James’s mom, a pediatrician, orchestrated his social transition, his father spent time and money fighting her in Texas courts. In 2019 Jeff lost custody of James and Jude. He did eventually manage to win a court order prohibiting Anne from subjecting James to gender mutilation surgery or hormone treatments.
In late 2022, Anne and the twins moved to California. Jeff maintains that, despite the Texas Supreme Court’s prohibition, Anne initiated the move to take advantage of California’s “trans refuge” laws.
These laws were strengthened in January 2023 when California Senate bill 107 took effect. One provision prohibits the state from enforcing court orders from other states that seek to remove custody from a parent who has moved to California to transition their child.
The question is: will Anne Georgulas now procure puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and surgical castration for James?
Jeff Younger is convinced that California laws now allow her to do exactly that—and she will.
He’s still protesting, but will not even be allowed to testify at a May 30 court hearing in Los Angeles although several pro-trans “experts” will take the stand.
Stay tuned.

Kerby Anderson
Government gets bigger every year, but how government gets bigger isn’t so easy to understand. There seems to be about the same number of federal employees, but the size and scope of government continues to grow. John DiIulio writes about this in his book and scholarly paper at the Brookings Institution.
Government grows larger by using three types of “administrative proxies.” The first are state and local governments. The EPA, for example, has fewer than 20,000 employees. But 90 percent of EPA programs are completely administered by thousands of state government employees, largely funded by Washington.
Second, there are for-profit businesses and contractors that also mask the large size of the government. In the Defense Department, for example, the hundreds of thousands of civilian workers have been supplemented by hundreds of thousands of for-profit contract employees. Today, the government spends more on defense contracts than it does on all official federal bureaucrats.
Third, there are the various tax-exempt or independent sectors, which have more than doubled in the last thirty years. Many of them owe their jobs to federal or intergovernmental grant, contract, or fee funding.
These facts will be important to remember when Congress and the public debate the federal budget. Although the number of federal employees looks about the same as in previous decades, the federal budget is more than three times larger.
The federal workload has been dispersed and makes government look much smaller than it really is. We do have a big government and should not fall for this federal shell game that tries to hide from taxpayers the real size and scope of government.