Viewpoints with Kerby Anderson

Penna Dexter
In 2015 the United States Supreme Court, in Obergefell v. Hodges, struck down the nation’s marriage laws, bringing same sex marriage to every state.
Same sex marriage: That’s what LGBTQ activists said they wanted. But they moved on very quickly. Within a year the quest to mainstream transgenderism was underway. First there were high-profile battles over bathroom policies. Soon biological males were participating in women’s sports. Then the Left was insisting that everyone in the corporate world, in education and in the media respect gender-confused individuals’ preferred pronouns. The trans agenda was quickly being implemented by major institutions of our society. It seems to have happened so quickly.
Journalist Brandon Showalter reports for The Christian Post on the trans phenomenon. He has learned that it didn’t rise as suddenly as it may seem. He told an audience at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention that deconstruction of the gender binary has been a long-running goal of gender and queer theorists.
This new gender ideology has gained strength recently because the medical industry has learned of the tremendous amount of money to be made. Place a teenager on puberty blockers and you have begun the process that leads to cross sex hormones and surgery — often several very expensive surgeries. Once a transition is complete, a person is enslaved to the medical/industrial complex for life.
Mr. Showalter and others point to the totalitarian nature of this agenda. This movement is divisive. It assaults language and our way of communication. It inserts itself between children and their parents. It destroys the minds and bodies of young people.
The human body is good and our spiritual leaders should be saying that. Transgender ideology is an attack on the very image of God. Despite what troubled teens and their parents are being told, no one has ever been born in the wrong body.
We must summon the courage to tell them the truth.

Penna Dexter
In 2015 the United States Supreme Court, in Obergefell v. Hodges, struck down the nation’s marriage laws, bringing same sex marriage to every state.
Same sex marriage: That’s what LGBTQ activists said they wanted. But they moved on very quickly. Within a year the quest to mainstream transgenderism was underway. First there were high-profile battles over bathroom policies. Soon biological males were participating in women’s sports. Then the Left was insisting that everyone in the corporate world, in education and in the media respect gender-confused individuals’ preferred pronouns. The trans agenda was quickly being implemented by major institutions of our society. It seems to have happened so quickly.
Journalist Brandon Showalter reports for The Christian Post on the trans phenomenon. He has learned that it didn’t rise as suddenly as it may seem. He told an audience at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention that deconstruction of the gender binary has been a long-running goal of gender and queer theorists.
This new gender ideology has gained strength recently because the medical industry has learned of the tremendous amount of money to be made. Place a teenager on puberty blockers and you have begun the process that leads to cross sex hormones and surgery — often several very expensive surgeries. Once a transition is complete, a person is enslaved to the medical/industrial complex for life.
Mr. Showalter and others point to the totalitarian nature of this agenda. This movement is divisive. It assaults language and our way of communication. It inserts itself between children and their parents. It destroys the minds and bodies of young people.
The human body is good and our spiritual leaders should be saying that. Transgender ideology is an attack on the very image of God. Despite what troubled teens and their parents are being told, no one has ever been born in the wrong body.
We must summon the courage to tell them the truth.

Kerby Anderson
Is the abortion drug safe? That is a question being debated in federal court pointing back to the decision made by the Food and Drug Administration two decades ago. US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a national injunction on the use of mifepristone. The case then went to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Are the drugs used in a chemical abortion safe? Obviously, they are not safe for the unborn child since the first drug is used to block progesterone and kill the baby, and the second drug causes uterine contractions to expel the dead or dying baby.
But the question before the court is whether the drug is safe for the mother. This is no small issue since the Guttmacher Institute estimates that more than half (54%) of all abortions are done using these drugs in a chemical abortion.
If you have followed the debate surrounding the abortion drug, you have likely heard that it is safer than Tylenol. The FDA reports that there have been just 28 deaths from the abortion drug. By contrast, about 150 Americans died each year from Tylenol (usually because of an overdose).
Dr. Randall O’Bannon (director of Education and Research for National Right to Life) puts these numbers in context. Yes, there are 150 Tylenol deaths, but Americans take 25 billion doses of Tylenol each year. There have only been 5.6 million chemical abortions since FDA approval.
Once he ran the numbers, he concluded that your risk of dying from the abortion drug is about 833 times higher than your risk of dying from Tylenol. And I might mention that the risk of a woman facing a complication and having to go to the emergency room is quite high.
Doesn’t look like the abortion drug is as safe as we have been led to believe.

Kerby Anderson
Is the abortion drug safe? That is a question being debated in federal court pointing back to the decision made by the Food and Drug Administration two decades ago. US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a national injunction on the use of mifepristone. The case then went to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Are the drugs used in a chemical abortion safe? Obviously, they are not safe for the unborn child since the first drug is used to block progesterone and kill the baby, and the second drug causes uterine contractions to expel the dead or dying baby.
But the question before the court is whether the drug is safe for the mother. This is no small issue since the Guttmacher Institute estimates that more than half (54%) of all abortions are done using these drugs in a chemical abortion.
If you have followed the debate surrounding the abortion drug, you have likely heard that it is safer than Tylenol. The FDA reports that there have been just 28 deaths from the abortion drug. By contrast, about 150 Americans died each year from Tylenol (usually because of an overdose).
Dr. Randall O’Bannon (director of Education and Research for National Right to Life) puts these numbers in context. Yes, there are 150 Tylenol deaths, but Americans take 25 billion doses of Tylenol each year. There have only been 5.6 million chemical abortions since FDA approval.
Once he ran the numbers, he concluded that your risk of dying from the abortion drug is about 833 times higher than your risk of dying from Tylenol. And I might mention that the risk of a woman facing a complication and having to go to the emergency room is quite high.
Doesn’t look like the abortion drug is as safe as we have been led to believe.

Kerby Anderson
Theft in stores and businesses has increased significantly. This includes everything from shoplifting to smash-and-grab to organized retail crime. The stores may initially pay the price, but they pass on the cost to us as customers in the form of higher prices to cover their losses. The local community also pays a price when stores close because of higher crime rates.
The CEO of Target Corp. has put a number on what is called “inventory shrinkage,” which is mostly theft from stores. Their cost this year was $500 million. When you lose a half billion dollars to theft, you must start making tough decisions. That is why Target (along with many other companies) have started closing stores in high-crime areas.
The Wall Street Journal editors make an important point. Leftists in some of these cities complain about the loss of these stores that create what is called a “commercial desert.” They blame the companies, when they should be complaining about the progressive policies of the politicians in these cities that have allowed crime to skyrocket. The editors remind us that “the first duty of government is to provide for public safety.”
And it is worth mentioning that these losses aren’t just from individual acts of shoplifting. Stores face a growing threat from organized retail crime. “Gangs plan their raids on retail stores, warehouses and trucks or rail hubs.” They aren’t stealing for personal consumption but to sell stolen goods for a profit over the Internet.
In this next election, voters must replace leftist district attorneys with candidates who will enforce the law. This runaway theft affects all of us and creates a culture of disorder and a culture of disdain for the law.

Kerby Anderson
Theft in stores and businesses has increased significantly. This includes everything from shoplifting to smash-and-grab to organized retail crime. The stores may initially pay the price, but they pass on the cost to us as customers in the form of higher prices to cover their losses. The local community also pays a price when stores close because of higher crime rates.
The CEO of Target Corp. has put a number on what is called “inventory shrinkage,” which is mostly theft from stores. Their cost this year was $500 million. When you lose a half billion dollars to theft, you must start making tough decisions. That is why Target (along with many other companies) have started closing stores in high-crime areas.
The Wall Street Journal editors make an important point. Leftists in some of these cities complain about the loss of these stores that create what is called a “commercial desert.” They blame the companies, when they should be complaining about the progressive policies of the politicians in these cities that have allowed crime to skyrocket. The editors remind us that “the first duty of government is to provide for public safety.”
And it is worth mentioning that these losses aren’t just from individual acts of shoplifting. Stores face a growing threat from organized retail crime. “Gangs plan their raids on retail stores, warehouses and trucks or rail hubs.” They aren’t stealing for personal consumption but to sell stolen goods for a profit over the Internet.
In this next election, voters must replace leftist district attorneys with candidates who will enforce the law. This runaway theft affects all of us and creates a culture of disorder and a culture of disdain for the law.

Kerby Anderson
Mark Lewis has a good question for anyone who seems unconcerned about the influx of millions of migrants who have arrived illegally. He asks, “What Are All These Illegals Going to Do?” He is talking about approximately 30 million who are here and will never be sent back to their country of origin.
Now that they are here, what will they do? He cites four possibilities. First, they can pick crops. Many are already doing that and have been doing that for years. They shouldn’t be here, but they are here now even though they may be taking jobs from other Americans.
Second, they could take other menial jobs, but those may not pay very well and so they may end up on welfare or homeless or even involved in crime. Most of the people here illegally don’t have too many skills or much education. Robots and automation are eliminating many of the jobs that used to exist for Americans or foreigners with few job skills.
The last two categories should disturb all of us. He acknowledges that “some illegals will sell drugs.” That shouldn’t be a surprise since some of the migrants crossing our border have connections to the drug cartels. Even if they don’t have those connections, the lure of quick profits from the drug trade will entice many into the drug trade.
Finally, he says the millions here illegally are a revolution waiting to happen. “The illegals are going to discover that Joe Biden’s America is not what it was advertised to be.  Most of them will exist in squalor and deep poverty, with no easy avenue of escape.”
This is an important question you should ask your family, friends, and coworkers. You should especially ask the candidates who will soon be asking for your vote and financial support. What are these illegals going to do? The few possible answers should concern all of us.

Kerby Anderson
Mark Lewis has a good question for anyone who seems unconcerned about the influx of millions of migrants who have arrived illegally. He asks, “What Are All These Illegals Going to Do?” He is talking about approximately 30 million who are here and will never be sent back to their country of origin.
Now that they are here, what will they do? He cites four possibilities. First, they can pick crops. Many are already doing that and have been doing that for years. They shouldn’t be here, but they are here now even though they may be taking jobs from other Americans.
Second, they could take other menial jobs, but those may not pay very well and so they may end up on welfare or homeless or even involved in crime. Most of the people here illegally don’t have too many skills or much education. Robots and automation are eliminating many of the jobs that used to exist for Americans or foreigners with few job skills.
The last two categories should disturb all of us. He acknowledges that “some illegals will sell drugs.” That shouldn’t be a surprise since some of the migrants crossing our border have connections to the drug cartels. Even if they don’t have those connections, the lure of quick profits from the drug trade will entice many into the drug trade.
Finally, he says the millions here illegally are a revolution waiting to happen. “The illegals are going to discover that Joe Biden’s America is not what it was advertised to be.  Most of them will exist in squalor and deep poverty, with no easy avenue of escape.”
This is an important question you should ask your family, friends, and coworkers. You should especially ask the candidates who will soon be asking for your vote and financial support. What are these illegals going to do? The few possible answers should concern all of us.

Kerby Anderson
Depression is the US has reached record levels. According to the latest Gallup poll, “The percentage of US adults who report having been diagnosed with depression at some point in their lifetime has reached 29%, nearly 10 percentage points higher than in 2015.” This is a troubling statistic, especially at a time when the country is enjoying a level of prosperity.
Treatment for depression has also increased. “The percentage of Americans who currently have or are being treated for depression has also increased, to 17.8%, up about seven points over the same period.”
Those who were polled were asked, “Has a doctor or nurse ever told you that you have depression?” and “Do you currently have or are you currently being treated for depression?” The answers to both of those questions became part of the ongoing Gallup National Health and Well-Being Index.
It is also disturbing to discover which demographic groups showed the greatest increase in depression. More than one-third of women (36.7%) report having been diagnosed with depression at some point in their lifetime. Women (23.8%) and adults aged 18 to 29 (24.6%) also have the highest rates of current depression or treatment for depression.
Lifetime depression rates are also climbing among Black and Hispanic adults. In fact, these rates have now surpassed those of White respondents. In the past, White adults usually had marginally higher rates of both lifetime and current depression.
The reasons for rising depression are many: social isolation, loneliness, and substance abuse. Christians might add loss of meaning and rejection of the supernatural as other key factors. That is why I recommend that pastors and Bible teachers address the issue of depression and explain the medical, social, and spiritual factors to their congregation. This is an important issue the church cannot ignore.

Kerby Anderson
Depression is the US has reached record levels. According to the latest Gallup poll, “The percentage of US adults who report having been diagnosed with depression at some point in their lifetime has reached 29%, nearly 10 percentage points higher than in 2015.” This is a troubling statistic, especially at a time when the country is enjoying a level of prosperity.
Treatment for depression has also increased. “The percentage of Americans who currently have or are being treated for depression has also increased, to 17.8%, up about seven points over the same period.”
Those who were polled were asked, “Has a doctor or nurse ever told you that you have depression?” and “Do you currently have or are you currently being treated for depression?” The answers to both of those questions became part of the ongoing Gallup National Health and Well-Being Index.
It is also disturbing to discover which demographic groups showed the greatest increase in depression. More than one-third of women (36.7%) report having been diagnosed with depression at some point in their lifetime. Women (23.8%) and adults aged 18 to 29 (24.6%) also have the highest rates of current depression or treatment for depression.
Lifetime depression rates are also climbing among Black and Hispanic adults. In fact, these rates have now surpassed those of White respondents. In the past, White adults usually had marginally higher rates of both lifetime and current depression.
The reasons for rising depression are many: social isolation, loneliness, and substance abuse. Christians might add loss of meaning and rejection of the supernatural as other key factors. That is why I recommend that pastors and Bible teachers address the issue of depression and explain the medical, social, and spiritual factors to their congregation. This is an important issue the church cannot ignore.

Kerby Anderson
Today is Memorial Day. For many Americans, it is merely a day off. For others, it marks the start of summer. But hopefully for many of you, it is a day to honor those who fought for our freedom and especially for those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.
Sure we can enjoy our picnics and go for a walk or go for a swim. But we should take some time to put up a flag, make a banner, and perhaps participate in a parade honoring our military.
Certainly those in the military feel more loved than the vets who returned from the Vietnam War. But it wouldn’t hurt to thank those who have served our country and to make them feel appreciated. We will never be able to repay them enough for their service.
What else can we do? If you visit a few websites, you will find all sorts of suggestions. Here are a few to consider. Participate in a “National Moment of Remembrance” at 3 PM today. Pause, listen to taps, and reflect. I was in London’s Heathrow airport on Veterans’ Day. When time came to stop and reflect, the airport was absolutely quiet for a minute or so. I was impressed. We can learn something from the British and their reverence for their war dead.
You might encourage your friends, neighbors, and family to visit cemeteries and perhaps even place flags on the graves. I have been to military cemeteries in Hawaii and the Philippines and have seen what is done there. We need to do the same back home.
Those of you who live near the nation’s capital might visit one of the memorials for the Vietnam Veterans, the World War II Veterans, or the Korean War Veterans.
I will let you consider what you might do to make this day special. The point is to make this day special. Too often we come to think about it as nothing more than a Monday holiday or the kick-off for summer. It should mean so much more for us.

Penna Dexter
Results from a study on the effects of giving cross-sex hormones to young people who identify as transgender were published in the January edition of the New England Journal of Medicine. Cross-sex hormones, described in the article as “gender-affirming hormones,” have the effect of changing people’s bodily characteristics to resemble more closely those of the opposite sex.
The study, entitled “Psychosocial Functioning in Transgender Youth After 2 Years of Hormones,” analyzed 315 participants between the ages of 12 and 20. Of this group, 240 were minors.
The study is being funded by the National Institutes of Health in the form of a five-year grant to Boston Children’s Hospital, the University of California at San Francisco, and Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. Summarizing the results, the article states that “appearance, congruence, positive affect, and life satisfaction increased, and depression and anxiety symptoms decreased.”
The authors tout the study’s ‘successes’ even though they acknowledge that two participants committed suicide and eleven experienced “suicidal ideation,” which means they thought about it.
Fifteen members of Congress wrote to the NIH of their “grave concerns” about this government-funded experimentation on children. They asked 14 pointed questions including: Why wasn’t the research halted “after the first and second deaths?”
Pediatric Endocrinologist Quentin Van Meter told Washington Watch host Tony Perkins, that every one of the cross-sex hormone drugs being given to minors “has adverse consequences.” He said, “these poor individuals not only are sterile, but they are sexually incompetent….their organs are fried.”  He pointed to these hormones’ adverse effects on brain development and adolescent bone density.
As former president of the American College of Pediatricians, Dr. Van Meter has witnessed European countries begin to restrict gender transition procedures as they realize how ineffective, and likely detrimental, they are to mental health.
Tony Perkins brought up the 1930s Tuskegee syphilis study on black men. A shameful study, it should also be remembered with “shock and horror.”

Kerby Anderson
One way to predict what our government is going to do in the future is to look at what other governments are doing in the present. Look at Argentina. The official annual inflation rate is 104%, though the actual inflation rate may be even higher. The government of Argentina has now banned operations that allow bank clients to purchase cryptocurrencies. This announcement came just days after two large institutions announced they would let clients buy bitcoin.
This looks like an attempt to “close the exits” because of a fear that citizens would be looking for ways to preserve what little wealth they have. I cannot blame the citizens for wanting to find ways to prevent the money they were able to set aside each year from losing more than half of its value every year. You would want your savings in the US dollar or bitcoin rather than in the Argentine peso. And I understand why the government is trying to prevent a flight to safer investments.
We have seen the same reaction to possible capital flight in China. The government has instituted capital controls that restrict domestic households from investing abroad, and foreign investors are restricted from accessing financial markets. Closing the financial exits keeps funds within China’s borders.
We also see the possibility in Europe. Christine Lagarde is the president of the European Central Bank. She has called for regulation of bitcoin. In fact, she believes that the regulation “has to be applied and agreed upon … at a global level because if there is an escape that escape will be used.” Again, governments want to “close the exits.”
At the same time, governments are exploring the development of central bank digital currencies. These CBDCs will provide government leaders with more control over the economy and provide them with the possibility of more control over us. That’s why they need to close the exits.

Kerby Anderson
Two months ago, I talked about the push toward central bank digital currencies in several countries, including our own. Earlier this month, John Stossel sat down with Governor Ron DeSantis. One of the topics was the US government’s plan for a central bank digital currency.
The governor makes it very clear what he thinks about a CBDC. He warns, “Sometimes government does things that may appear to be benevolent but really are kind of like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Instead, he says, “This is a wolf coming as a wolf.”
The Biden administration says a CBDC will “protect consumers, investors … and the environment.” The governor responded that the last statement is a “tell.” The government, he argues, would impose certain criteria. “You’re filling up too much (with gas). Wait a minute — climate change. You can’t be doing that! You bought another firearm?”
Lest you think that would never happen, let me remind you about what happened in Canada to the truckers protesting the vaccine rules. The government blocked their bank accounts. That would be even easier with a CBDC.
Ron DeSantis also questions the legality of a CBDC. “The Federal Reserve has come out and said, we would only do it after consulting with the legislative and executive branches. Ideally, we’d get specific congressional authorization.” The governor responded that this isn’t just ideal, it is constitutionally required.
This debate will end up in Congress. Senator Elizabeth Warren argues that “Legitimate digital public money could help drive out bogus digital private money.” Senator Ted Cruz has already introduced legislation to prohibit the Federal Reserve from developing a central bank digital currency.
It’s time for debate to begin in Congress on the future of digital currency.

Kerby Anderson
The Biden administration is taking aim at nearly every appliance in your home. Three months ago, I talked about the gas stove controversy. But that is just one example of how the proposed Energy Department standards will affect your home. The administration has proposed or finalized new standards for ovens, microwaves, refrigerators, and laundry machines. This is in addition to other rules that will affect furnaces, air conditioners, and lightbulbs.
The latest set of rules will apply to dishwashers. The editors of the Wall Street Journal refer to these as “The Federal Dirty Dish Rule.” The regulations are an attempt to make dishwashers more efficient in terms of energy and water. New appliances must cut energy usage by 30 percent and reduce water use from 5 gallons to 3.2 gallons.
A little history is in order. Back in the Obama administration, dishwasher regulations raised the average price of a machine nearly $100. But trying to make dishwashers more energy and water efficient didn’t make them more efficient at cleaning glasses, dishes, and utensils. One consumer complained that it’s “ridiculous that dishwashers I had years ago worked better than the high-tech ones today.”
Slowing dishwashing times is also a complaint. To meet higher efficiency standards, the machines recirculate water in longer cycles. A typical run time can be two or three hours. Once the cycle is over, many owners may decide to run the dishwasher again. That seems to undermine the administration’s goal of energy and water conservation.
According to the US Energy Information Administration, nearly 20 percent of American households own a dishwasher that is never used. I think it is time for the government to rethink their “dirty dish rule.”

Kerby Anderson
Wokeness can be found in just about every academic discipline including the recent revelations of woke science. If there is anything more dangerous, it is “woke medicine.” The attack on meritocracy is well documented in Heather Mac Donald’s book, When Race Trumps Merit.
As important as the book is, the danger is driven home by Ann Coulter’s column, “No Biggie, Just the End of Civilization.” Many institutions have dropped their standards, but she decided to focus on the impact on medicine. For example, “the American Medical Association, the American Association of Medical Colleges and the American Association of Pediatrics have all agreed that medicine is racist.” You can find lots of articles in science journals and medical journals talking about racism.
The solution is to lower standards or change standards for medical school. Heather Mac Donald writes “the average score for white applicants on the Medical College Admission Test was in the 71st percentile … The average score for black applicants was in the 35th percentile – a full standard deviation below the average white score.”
Therefore, we shouldn’t be surprised that “medical schools responded by dropping the MCAT for black and Hispanic students.” One medical school offered these students admission based on their “strong appreciation of human rights and social justice.”
One medical institute announced it would spend $2 billion. Was it to find a cure for brain cancer? Parkinson’s disease? Heart disease? No, the $2 billion was set aside to promote “diversity and inclusion in science.”
I think you would agree with me that when it comes to various professions like medicine, I want doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals selected for their expertise not for their skin color.

Kerby Anderson
David Bernhardt reveals that “The Deep State Is All Too Real.” He should know since he has worked in the government as a cabinet secretary and writes about it in his new book. He says we have “two competing conceptions of American governance: the version students are taught in the classroom, and the one that exists in the real world.” Unfortunately, more and more rules and regulations are being made by the administrative deep state rather than by Congress.
Much of this began in the 1930s when Congress delegated much of its lawmaking authority to the executive branch. Federal agencies issue regulations that have the force and effect of law. And to make matters worse, the Supreme Court’s Chevron doctrine encourages courts to defer to executive branch interpretations of the law.
You might then reasonably ask, where is any accountability? He reminds us that the federal government has 2.2 million civilian employees, but only 4,000 of them are political appointees the president can remove. In other words, career bureaucrats (who were not elected by the American people nor appointed by the president) make major policy decisions.
In my booklet, A Biblical View of the Deep State, I dismiss the idea that the federal bureaucracy is like a military unit (where every order is routinely obeyed). Instead, the bureaucracy is often more like a university faculty (where many have their own ideas about what should be done).
David Bernhardt does provide some hope. In 2020, President Trump issued an executive order that would let the president remove certain federal employees in the bureaucracy. The Supreme Court will hear arguments for a case that would force the judges to reconsider Chevron defense.
These two actions might return the American government back to some necessary checks and balances.

Penna Dexter
During her senior year swimming for the University of Kentucky, Riley Gaines learned something about feminism’s identity crisis. She says she never considered herself a feminist. She told FOX News, “It almost goes against the co-dependency that I believe the sexes should have.”
Then, last spring, Riley tied for fifth place in the NCAA 200-meter freestyle finals with the University of Pennsylvania transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, who for 3 years, had been swimming, as William Thomas, for the men’s team. Riley and her teammates were also subjected to Thomas in all his undressed glory in the women’s locker room.
Riley told FOX News: “The feminist movement has gone two directions,” She says she resonates with one of those branches and it’s not the one that’s “fighting for male inclusion in women’s sports, women’s spaces.”
Lia Thomas says of the criticism from female teammates, “They’re using the guise of feminism to sort of push transphobic beliefs.”
Laura Favaro is also a feminist and a sociologist at City University of London. Like Riley Gaines, she believes in just two biological sexes. She conducted research, she says, “to investigate the disputes around sex and gender that have escalated dramatically since the 2010’s.” Her plan, as described in The Telegraph and by Daily Signal writer Nicole Russell, was to conduct “the first taxpayer-funded study into ‘whether social scientists at universities feel censored over their views on transgender issues.’” Laura interviewed 50 feminists who worked in gender studies departments and surveyed 650 social scientists.
Scholars who were open about their traditional views of sex and gender reported they had experienced threats and smears from colleagues. They sometimes feared for their jobs. These findings were deemed “dangerous’ by Laura Favaro’s bosses at City. Eventually, administrators denied her access to her email account and demanded she give up her material and findings. She ultimately lost her job.
Riley and Laura are learning what it costs to be the wrong kind of feminist.

Kerby Anderson
Economist Stephen Moore wonders if the goal of President Biden and his administration is to turn out all the lights. His climate change agenda is forcing us to buy a certain type of lightbulb and to use a certain kind of energy. In the end, we may not have enough electricity to keep the lights on or to keep electric cars moving.
A few weeks ago, the Biden Administration proposed limits on tailpipe emissions that would essentially require two thirds (67%) of all new vehicles sold in the US by 2032 to be all-electric. But the latest polls show that nearly half of all Americans don’t want an electric car and only 6 percent of drivers are buying them.
Stephen Moore says “that was child’s play compared to the latest Biden scheme to shut down as many as half of our electric power plants across the country. These are the plants that charge those Tesla batteries and cellphones. They also keep the lights on in our factories, schools, hospitals, stores, and homes and power the internet.”
On one hand, the administration is working to force more Americans to drive electric cars. On the other hand, the same administration is pushing a plan that would shut down most of the nation’s gas-fired and coal-fired plants that provide electricity. Stephen Moore asks, “Where are we going to get the electric power to charge 150 million EVs every night? From windmills?”
We need more power plants to generate electricity, not fewer. Even if these power plants do not shut down, the administration says they will have to pay for carbon offsets to justify any carbon emissions. Guess who will pay for that? You, the consumer, will pay for that with higher utility bills.
I believe these administration policies will turn the lights out on our economy.

Kerby Anderson
The Federal government is running out of money and needs to raise the debt ceiling. But the debate centers on whether Congress can bring some controls on spending before raising the debt limit. The argument for spending controls was strengthened by the latest numbers from the Congressional Budget Office for the month of April.
April is usually the best month for the federal government since that is when tax payments are due for the previous year. But the April 2023 budget surplus fell by $135 billion from April 2022. When you include various adjustments, the decline was $275 billion. That means higher budget deficits for the rest of the year.
The primary reason for the mounting deficit is spending, which is up 12 percent in the first seven months. Entitlements are up 11 percent, while education spending is up 56 percent.
The other reason for the increasing deficit is decreasing revenue to the Federal treasury, which fell by 10 percent. Individual income taxes fell 18 percent.
Here’s a quick summary. Spending has increased significantly, while revenue has decreased. And the president and many Democrats do not want any spending decreases tied to what they feel should be an automatic increase in the debt limit. Does that make any sense to you?
By the way, it gets worse. Interest on the national debt rose 40 percent. That is due to the Federal Reserve raising interest rates. That portion of the Federal budget is growing faster than any other area. And borrowing more money in the future will also be more expensive.
The national debt is larger than our nation’s Gross Domestic Product. Federal spending is up, and federal revenues are down. And the cost of borrowing more money is increasing significantly. That’s why it is time to rein in spending.