Author: Kerby Anderson

Kerby Anderson

We can see some cycles in history. Yesterday, I talked about a political/cultural cycle. Today I want to talk about a technological cycle and a financial cycle.
There appears to be about a fifty-year technological cycle, in which we see important technological revolutions. In the 18th century, we saw the beginnings of what today we refer to as the industrial revolution. Fifty years later was the age of steam and railways that changed the world significantly. Up until that time, we had manpower and horsepower. Now people could move faster and carry heavier loads.
Fifty years after that we had steel and electricity. Fifty years after that we had oil, automobiles, and a revolution in mass production. By the 1970s, we came into the age of information and telecommunications. Today, we find ourselves in a world of fast computers and artificial intelligence.
Some of the financial cycles parallel the technological revolutions. America moved from an agricultural society to an industrial economy to an information society. If you look at the wealth cycles of nations, you notice something interesting. The financial superpower changes over time, with an average of about 100 years. Perhaps you have seen a chart that shows those changes from Portugal to Spain to the Netherlands to France to Britain to the US.
As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, this country (along with other countries around the world) are experiencing a debt crisis. But this is happening as all three cycles (the political, technological, and financial) are converging.
What is on the horizon? I think we are likely headed for a massive change in the future. We should all be in prayer for our leaders and prepare ourselves for possible turmoil ahead.

Kerby Anderson

Are there cycles in history? Yes, even though there is a linear trajectory in history, there are generational cycles we can observe. No doubt you have heard the phrase: “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times.” Or you may have heard: “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” And you may have heard the phrase “the fourth turning” that predicts a crisis at the end of a four-fold cycle.
Today and tomorrow, I will talk about three often quoted cycles: a political/cultural cycle, a technological cycle, and a financial cycle. And I might mention that all three seem to be converging today.
There appears to be about an eighty-year political/cultural cycle (which averages out to about 84 years). Go back to 1848 and you have Karl Marx publishing the Communist Manifesto and other works. The political and social impact of his Marxist perspective swept through Europe, changed the political structure of many countries, and is still an influence today.
Another important political change happened 84 years later in the 1930s. In Europe, you have the rise of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. In this country, you had the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt who signed into law a significant number of New Deal programs that vastly expanded the scope of government and are influential in our lives today.
If you add another 84 years, you come to 2016. In Europe, you have the political battle known as Brexit and the beginning of some populist uprisings. In this country, you also had the rise of populism as illustrated by the election of Donald Trump.
Tomorrow I will show how this cycle coincides with the technological and financial cycles.

Kerby Anderson
Wilfred Reilly has written a book about how American history is taught today. It has the provocative title, Lies My Liberal Teacher Told Me. In some ways, it can be seen as a response to the book by James W. Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me. You can read his opinion column that provides a summary of his book.
What is his concern? “We often, bizarrely, hear the claim that American history is taught mostly from the political right — and that it presents our nation as bucolic. But, in fact, many of the best-selling social-science books of the past few decades focus on the idea that the ‘real’ history of the United States was a virtually unending bloodbath.”
Two of those books are Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States and the New York Times best seller The 1619 Project. He adds that “the contemporary US national media and professors lean roughly 93 percent to the left, and this has been the case for some time. Within the secondary schools, two popular curricula currently in use come from the 1619 Project and Dr. Zinn himself.”
As I have said before, there are many dark chapters in American history. Those need to be taught, but not to the exclusion of the many positive aspects of our history. Students are often left with the impression that the US was the only country that had slavery. They don’t learn about how nations in Europe and North America set out to end the institution of slavery. They may learn about European colonialism, but not about Ottoman, Mongol, or Arab Muslim colonialism.
Wilfred Reilly’s book reminds us that if there is a bias in the nation’s textbooks, it is a leftwing bias against America.

Kerby Anderson
There are many reasons why politicians talk about “draining the swamp.” The federal bureaucracy is bloated. Our taxes don’t even cover all the costs of the executive branch in the federal government.
Economist Stephen Moore argues that “The Case for Draining the Swamp Is Stronger Than Ever.” He reminds us that the latest official employment report finds once again that “the federal government and state-local hiring spree is still in full gear.” Government and health care are hiring many more people than the ones hired by the private sector.
Although there are more government workers than ever before, he says, “good luck finding them or getting them on the phone. This is because so few of them are actually physically on the job.” He has the statistics to back up that claim.
A recent Federal News Network survey of federal workers finds only six percent are working full time in the office. Even more surprising, it reports that thirty percent are full-time remote. No wonder so many of the offices in Washington, DC buildings are empty, especially on Fridays.
When we compare these percentages to the private sector, we discover that federal employees are three times more likely to be working remotely either some or all the time. The irony is that three years ago the federal government issued an order to federal employees to return to work post-COVID-19. Thousands ignored the order.
Stephen Moore has a solution: stop hiring new people. The government is losing almost $2 trillion a year. How about a hiring freeze until we get government spending under control? He adds that if government needs more revenue, it should start selling half-empty federal buildings.
This is one of many good reasons to drain the swamp.

Kerby Anderson
With political tensions throughout the world, we need someone to step forward and promote some important principles for America to provide global leadership. It isn’t too often that a speech by the Speaker of the House fulfills that need. But these are not ordinary times.
Earlier this month, Mike Johnson spoke at the Hudson Institute and laid down a marker for future leaders because he rejects American decline and retreat. He explained, “While democracy is not perfect, the burden of self-government is certainly far lighter than the yoke of tyranny.” But he laments that “absent American leadership, we’re looking at a future that could be” defined by “communism and tyranny, rather than liberty and opportunity and security.”
He warned about the three major dangers facing the world. Chinese President Xi Jinping wants to expand “his communist footholds.” Russian leader Vladimir Putin envisions a Russian empire that absorbs more of Europe, including the Baltics. The Muslim leaders in Iran plan to wipe Israel off the map.
The current administration does not seem to take any of these threats seriously. The Biden Administration, he explains, is “appeasing and apologizing and accommodating.” America is threatened “by Chinese Communists, by Russian oligarchs, and Islamic terrorists. We can choose to ignore them. We can try to appease them.” Instead, the Speaker offered that “we can choose another course.” He has a solution: “We can rearm, rebuild, reinvigorate, restore, and reinstate fear in our enemies.”
We will hear many speeches from candidates between now and November. This is one we should remember. The world needs global leadership from America’s leaders.

Kerby Anderson
It’s time to have a meaningful conversation about tipping, for two reasons. First, there is a significant reaction to the expectation of tipping. Andy Kessler writes about “The Tyranny of Tipping.” Second, tipping may become a political issue. Donald Trump declared in Nevada: “When I get to office, we are going to not charges taxes on tips.”
Why do we tip? Historically, it goes back centuries. Andy Kessler talks about London taverns in the 17th century that suggested tipping “to insure promptitude.” Or to put it in modern terms, “to insure prompt service.” Frankly, many customers tip today because a percentage is already on the credit card screen. It is easier to add a tip than to zero it out and then feel guilty.
Most of us are glad to tip people who perform an important service. The frustration comes when we are asked to tip at a fast-food restaurant where we must pick up the food, take it to the table, refill our own drinks, and then throw away our garbage.
The social and economic consequences of tipping are significant. The IRS reported $38 billion in reported tips a few years ago. This would likely mean a loss of income in taxes. But what might this do to human behavior? Will employers pay less since they assume that workers are getting tax-free income? Will other professions start asking to be paid in tips?
Here’s another question. If we no longer tax tips, will they go up or down? According to the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers receive a tip credit between $2.13 per hour and the federal minimum wage. In a sense, your tips now pay part of a workers’ base salary. Will that increase or decrease?
America needs to get ready to have a serious conversation about tipping.

Kerby Anderson
If you spend any time viewing social media, you have probably seen a few clips from notable experts on the dangers of alcohol. We know so much more about its dangers than we did just a few decades ago.
Professor Jordan Peterson warns that “alcohol is an extraordinarily pernicious drug.” He understands why people would use it because of its anxiety reducing properties. But he argues that alcohol is a really bad drug. He says, “50 percent of murders take place in an alcohol-fueled environment, either the victim or the perpetrator or both are drunk. It’s almost the sole cause of domestic abuse. It’s almost the sole cause of so-called date rape.”
He also adds that “it’s the only drug we know that actually makes people more aggressive.  Alcohol can turn perfectly good people into impulsive and dim-witted monsters.”
Dr. Daniel Amen, MD explains that he started looking at the brain in 1991. He found that people who drink every day have a smaller brain and when it comes to the brain, size matters. He reports that “people who drink every day have more disrupted white matter in the brain. The white matter brain cells are the communication network. It’s the highways. People who drink, even a little bit, have more disrupted communication networks.”
He also points to the fact that “the American Cancer Society came out last year and said you shouldn’t drink because any alcohol is associated with an increased risk of seven different kinds of cancer.”
Six years ago, I did a commentary on alcohol consumption based on a study in the journal Lancet that concluded there was no safe level of alcohol consumption. Each year we seem to be learning even more about the dangers of alcohol.

Kerby Anderson

Warner Wallace has a new book out with the title, The Truth in True Crime: What Investigating Death Teaches Us About the Meaning of Life. Although he is known as a cold-case homicide detective, he is best known in Christian circles as an apologist.

The title of his book might be a bit deceiving. He uses the crime scenes he investigated over the years to point to life principles that lead to human flourishing. The fifteen chapters discuss wisdom, friendships, marriage, humility, contentment, purpose, justice, grace, guilt, and shame. It also includes a chapter on the importance of fathers. Each chapter documents an important principle from his experience and is validated by secular studies. He then ends by showing that each of these are what the Bible claims allow humans to thrive.
You can buy the book (published by Zondervan) in a bookstore. But everything else you might want (like a video series on the book) is free on his website. When he was on my radio program last week, he said he wanted to make sure that most of the material Christians might want to use did not cost anything. The book could certainly be used by an individual, but it would be much more effective as a group study. He has provided all you need to get started.
Each of the chapters looks at the evidence. He then provides pictures and diagrams that help clarify some of the life principles. Finally, he provides some concrete suggestions on how to alter your life course to incorporate these principles into your life.
He ends by noting that cultures that aim at human flourishing hit the bull’s-eye called Christianity every time. Once again, we see that the Bible offers wisdom from above.

Kerby Anderson
We need to find the “lost boys of America” and reach out to them. They are responsible for mass shootings. And they are also killing themselves (slowly with drugs or quickly through suicide). This needs to be a priority for every church in every community.
Many people have written about this. David French wrote an essay and quoted from two authors I have discussed in previous commentaries. Robert Putnam is best known for his book, Bowling Alone, that addressed the crisis of loneliness when few were aware of these dangers. He then went on to write the book, Our Kids, that explained how kids in crisis grow up in relative isolation from children in healthy families.
The other author is Malcolm Gladwell, who wrote about the need to see all the school shootings together rather than looking at each incident independently. As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, he says the school shootings (and later, mass shootings in general) represent a form of slow-motion riot. Each new shooter lowers the threshold for the next.
His conclusion is ominous. “The problem is not that there is an endless supply of deeply disturbed young men who are willing to contemplate horrific acts. It’s worse. It’s that young men no longer need to be deeply disturbed to contemplate horrific acts.”
They may commit those acts in a shooting or even turn the gun on themselves. We have heard the profile before. You can probably write the script. “Is the shooter an alienated young man? Yes. Did he meticulously plan the shooting? Yes. Did he repeatedly broadcast his deadly intent on social media? Yes.”
They are a danger to us, and they are a danger to themselves. We need to create programs to reach out to these lost boys. After all, the Bible makes it clear that we are our brother’s keeper.

Kerby Anderson
Batya Ungar-Sargon is the deputy opinion editor of Newsweek and is getting lots of attention for her recent book, Second Class: How the Elites Betrayed America’s Working Men and Women. In her book, she explains the plight of people who live and work on the opposite end of our social ladder.
She is unusual among the establishment media because she is willing to interview people in the working class and thus tell the story of class differences in America. Her book destroys the elitist idea that these hard-working people are angry, radical, and illiterate.
One of the most significant problems the working-class face is what can be called “excessive credentialism.” More and more jobs require a college degree when it is rarely necessary to perform well.  Working class people without a degree are thus unable to pursue a career that will give them social mobility and financial security.
She calls that the “diploma glass ceiling.” They deserve a chance at a job but are overlooked when a management position opens. To make matters worse, they sometimes find themselves training a college graduate with less aptitude and experience.
Their economic hardships are made worse by the sneering mindset of American elites who often paint them as racist and intolerant. Wokeness, she argues, is often an attack on the working class. It merely serves to demoralize people further down the social ladder while making those at the top feel virtuous and superior.
It’s worth noting that President Trump in 2020 signed an executive order to revise the qualifications for government jobs from a college degree to relevant experience. We need more reforms that will switch emphasis from degree-based hiring to merit-based hiring.

Kerby Anderson
The other day I came across a shocking statistic. Lee Burdette Williams says, “About three million first-time college students will soon be arriving on campus—most of them coming directly from high school. About one million of them won’t make it through their first year or return as sophomores.” She concludes that “this attrition is financially and emotionally devastating for families” and it is also “destabilizing for colleges.”
Why is this happening? Many of these departures are financial. Higher education costs so much and has been rising more than twice as fast as inflation. But another factor, often ignored, are the mental challenges these incoming college students face. Just consider these two facts.
First, nearly half (44%) of all college students report symptoms of depression and anxiety. Second, the rate of students taking psychiatric medication doubled in less than a decade and a half (2007 to 2019) and now includes one quarter (25%) of all students.
Lee Burdette Williams has served as dean of students at the University of Connecticut and later at Wheaton College. She suggests that the nine weeks between high school graduation and a student’s arrival on campus are not enough time for social and mental adjustment. They go from being under their parent’s authority and management to independent living. Although many of us made this transition in the past, today’s students seem less mentally equipped to do so.
That is why she suggests two alternatives. One is what she calls a “half-step year” where the student lives at home while attending a local college. The other is a full “gap year” which is becoming more popular and provides students with an opportunity to pursue study or experiences that may enhance their resume.
If you want to make sure your child or grandchild doesn’t drop out of college, you might explore some of her suggested alternatives.

Kerby Anderson
When I talk about the polarization in this country, I am often asked why is there so much hostility against Christians? We are often the greatest source of ministry and encouragement in the community.
In his book, Christians in a Cancel Culture, Joe Dallas devotes a chapter to this question about hostility toward Christians. You can summarize his excellent discussion with three words that begin with the letter “C.”
The first is convenience. Whenever truth is told, someone is inconvenienced. Former worshippers of the Goddess Diana were upset when the gospel was preached in Ephesus. The silversmith who made money selling shrines was negatively affected. Elijah’s words to Ahab were an inconvenience to the King.
The teachings of Jesus were certainly troubling to the religious leaders of His day. He rebuked their hypocrisy (Matthew 23) and presented Himself as Savior (John 3:16) and the way to salvation (John 14:6).
The second is conscience. Presenting biblical truth can prick the conscience of unbelievers and carnal Christians. One example, he cites, is the accusers of the adulterous woman who were convicted of their own sins (John 8), because that conviction can be found in both Christians and non-Christians (Romans 2:15).
The third is conviction. It would be a mistake to assume that hostility toward biblical truth springs only from an inconvenienced agenda or a pricked conscience. Saul of Tarsus had strong convictions. He “persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it” (Galatians 1:13). But after his conversion was able to later say that he “lived in all good conscience before God until this day” (Acts 23:1).
Should we expect hostility? Jesus faced hostility, so we will likely face hostility as well as we present biblical truth. We should speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and leave the rest to God.

Kerby Anderson
Perhaps you have seen the news article, “Details about Jesus’ childhood revealed in 2,000-year-old manuscript.” The article explains this is the earliest known copy of a story about Jesus performing a miracle. The fragment was discovered on an ancient Egyptian manuscript.
What they are talking about is what has been called the “Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” This book is not a gospel and was not written by the Apostle Thomas. In fact, it should not even be confused with the so-called Gospel of Thomas. These are second century Gnostic writings that were never considered to be part of the biblical canon.
If you read the story, you will discover that it is likely that the fragment was probably written as a part of a class exercise in a school or religious community in the fourth or fifth century in Egypt. They conclude that because of the clumsiness of the handwriting.
We could stop there, but there are many other reasons to ignore this recent discovery. It is a 1,600-year-old fragment, not a 2,000-year-old manuscript. Even if we had the original manuscript, there are reasons to ignore it. It wasn’t written by an apostle or disciple nor was it accepted as Scripture by the early church.
The story spins a fanciful tale of a young Jesus turning clay pigeons into live birds. More concerning is the fact that much of the story contradicts the biblical picture of Jesus. He isn’t sinless but something of an out-of-control brat. He curses and even kills people who offend him, although he supposedly raised two of them from the dead.
There is no reason to believe that any of the story in the “Infancy Gospel of Thomas” is true. It isn’t worth your time to read or consider.

Kerby Anderson
Perhaps the most disappointing Supreme Court ruling this last session dealt with the real concern about social media censorship. The justices chose not to decide the case supposedly because the plaintiffs lacked standing. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote: “We begin—and end—with standing…. We therefore lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of the dispute.”
The other argument dealt with the issue of “traceability.” Although numerous federal agencies did attempt to censor social media posts and people, Big Tech didn’t always take their advice. Justice Barrett argues that the platforms “had independent incentives to moderate content.” That is a poor argument. As one commentator put it, the government couldn’t be held responsible “because the platforms only followed through with government flags or requests at a roughly 50% clip.”
In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito did acknowledge that “what the officials did in this case was more subtle than the ham-handed censorship found” in another case the High Court decided. In fact, he argued, “because of the perpetrators’ high positions, it was even more dangerous. It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so.”
This is a disappointing ruling especially since we have the revelations from the “Twitter files” that show emails and subsequent decisions by Twitter and Facebook to censor content. Also, the House Weaponization Subcommittee has released reports showing federal agencies working with nonprofits to coerce Big Tech into curtailing certain forms of speech.
There will be other Supreme Court cases concerning social media censorship, but this was a missed opportunity.

Kerby Anderson
Last July, I wrote a brief commentary about what has been called Chevron deference. This is the idea that the court should always give deference to an administrative agency when it interprets an ambiguous statute.
The recent 6-3 Supreme Court ruling dealt a significant blow to the administrative state and the power wielded by federal bureaucrats. One of the legal guests on my radio program concluded that it may have been the most significant case in this session of the Supreme Court. If you think the “deep state” has too much power and has become unaccountable, you will probably agree.
The concept goes back to the Supreme Court’s 1984 opinion in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council. They argued that the courts must defer to a federal agency’s interpretation. In the case before the high court was the argument from commercial fishermen that a government agency charged them even though Congress did not give the agency authority to do so.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and explained that “most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”
The counter argument is that the courts, or even Congress, lack the technical expertise to evaluate statutes and policies. In some cases, that may be true. But it does not follow that those decisions should be made by unelected bureaucrats currently working in the bowels of the Biden administration. If they make a flawed interpretation, as I mentioned in my previous commentary, there’s nothing Americans can do to fire that bureaucrat.
This was an important Supreme Court decision, even if most Americans don’t yet understand its importance.

Kerby Anderson
One book that documents the Judeo-Christian foundations of America is the book, On Two Wings, written by Michael Novak. He the author of more than thirty books and was awarded the $1 million Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion.
In his preface, he says, “Although I have wanted to write this book for some forty years, my own ignorance stood in the way. It took me a long time, time spent searching up many byways and neglected paths, and fighting through a great deal of conventional (but mistaken) wisdom, to learn how many erroneous perceptions I had unconsciously drunk in from public discussion.” He concludes that “most of us grow up these days remarkably ignorant of the hundred men most responsible for leading this country into a War for Independence and writing our nation’s Constitution.”
The way American history has been told for the last century is incomplete. Secular historians have “cut off one of the two wings by which the American eagle flies.” The founding generation established a compact with the God of Israel “and relied upon this belief. Their faith is an indispensable part of their story.”
One example can be found in yesterday’s discussion of the Declaration of Independence. While secular historians point to John Locke as the source of the ideas embodied in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, they usually fail to note the older influence of other authors and the Bible.
“Before Locke was even born, the Pilgrims believed in the consent of the governed, social compacts, the dignity of every child of God, and political equality.” By forcing a secular interpretation onto America’s founding history, these secular historians ignore the second wing by which the American eagle took flight.
It’s time to look at the two wings of our history.

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

Kerby Anderson
When two boys are wrestling in the living room and break something, a parent is sure to say: “This is why we can’t have nice things.” Christian Schneider applies this to society at large arguing “We Can No Longer Have Nice Things.”
He opens with a story about The Portal, which is a public technology sculpture. It beams live video from the streets of New York City to Dublin, Ireland. It was one of several planned “portals” meant to virtually teleport people across the globe. It was supposed to be “a symbol of unity and wonder that draws in crowds from far and wide.” It was built to last for centuries. It only lasted six days. People in New York and Dublin broadcast middle fingers and body parts.
This is just one example of the decline of decorum and civility in our society. America’s culture is fraying. He talked about stores having problems with self-checkout lanes. Some stores will limit the lanes to people who pay a $98 annual fee.
During the pandemic, food chains set up online systems so customers could order on their phones, pay for it, and then pick it up off the shelf. Unfortunately, many people are grabbing the meals off the shelf. That happened to me when I ordered dinner for my family at McAlister’s.
Recently, “Disneyland and Disney World had to crack down on the rapidly growing number of people who claimed disability status in order to avoid long wait times on the rides at their amusement parks.” Apparently, this trick was promoted on social media so people could game the system.
And as I write this, a news story just dropped about climate activists disturbing another athletic event. And don’t even think about letting these activists into an art museum.
When a society is in cultural decline, you can no longer have nice things.

Kerby Anderson
The other day, I saw a TV commercial for the March of Dimes which reminded me that I should do a commentary on what has been called the “March of Dimes Syndrome.” In my government classes, we often talked about it as a textbook example of goal succession. The March of Dimes was created in the 1930s to combat polio. By the 1950s, we had the polio vaccine. But instead of going out of business, the March of Dimes transitioned to other causes.
John Tierney wrote about how “The March of Dimes Syndrome” manifests itself in many social causes today. He argues that “the better things get, the more desperately activists struggle to stay in business.” We have seen this recently during pride month. If you didn’t know any better, you would think homosexuals are facing massive discrimination. After all, the Human Rights Campaign declared a “national state of emergency” last year for LGBTQ people.
Anti-sodomy laws were erased decades ago. Same-sex marriage was legalized by the Supreme Court and is supported by a majority of Americans. Gay characters can be found on TV, movies, and in commercials. And don’t you dare decline to bake a cake for a gay couple.
Another example he mentions is civil rights. There has been significant success since Martin Luther King, Jr. and others marched for equal rights and against segregation. The Southern Poverty Law Center used to sue members of the Ku Klux Klan. But then, there weren’t many to sue, so it began labelled all sorts of Christian organizations as hate groups.
There are many other examples. You can tell when a group is getting close to reaching its goal. That is when it increases its apocalyptic language and tells you the sky is falling. That’s why you need some discernment during these polarizing times.

Kerby Anderson
Is much of the transgender ideology backfiring? Consider this recent poll by Pew Research. For the last seven years, they have been asking this question: “Which statement comes closer to your views? A) Whether someone is a man or a woman is determined by the sex they were assigned at birth, or B) Someone can be a man or a woman even if that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth.”
I acknowledge that the question is a bit convoluted and even uses the term “assigned at birth.” Even so, the percentage of Americans who picked the first option (we are determined by the sex assigned at birth) rose from 54 percent in 2017 to 65 percent today. Notice that this increase from a majority to nearly two-thirds took place when Americans have been pummeled with lots of transgender propaganda.
Byron York is the chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner. He reported that at last year’s Transgender Day of Visibility, the White House released a list of 42 action and policy initiatives the Biden Administration has taken to support transgender people. He also reminds us that “the Biden White House has gone all out even at a time when doctors in Europe have expressed growing concern about the lasting damage caused by the irreversible medical treatments known in some circles as gender-affirming care.”
I am convinced that transgender ideology is backfiring. President Biden has put his full weight behind transgenderism, and the mainstream media have spent many hours promoting transgenderism. Yet the American people are less likely to accept some of tenets of transgender ideology than just a few years ago.