Kerby Anderson
The last five decades have been marked by judicial overreach. But we are now seeing judicial activism replaced by judicial restraint. Before the Supreme Court adjourned for the summer, it delivered four opinions on religious liberty (Groff v. DeJoy), free speech (303 Creative v. Elenis), racial preferences in college applications (Fair Admissions v. Harvard), and student debt cancellation (Biden v. Nebraska).
You might now ask: what is next? Senator Ted Cruz has been building a coalition of lawmakers urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Chevron doctrine, often 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 case involves the New England-based family-owned herring fishing company which is challenging a government rule. It requires every fishing vessel to have a government monitor on board to track compliance with federal regulations and requires that the fishing company pay the monitor’s salary (which amounts to 20 percent of their earnings).
The Chevron doctrine may sound harmless. It isn’t. A case in 1984 involving the Chevron corporation seemed reasonable at the time because conservatives in the Reagan administration wanted relief from rulings by liberal judges on the DC Circuit Court. Now it gives too much control to bureaucrats and the deep state.
Ted Cruz put it this way: “If the voters back home in Texas are ticked off at an idiotic rule that comes from the bowels of the Biden administration, there’s nothing they can do to fire that bureaucrat. And frankly, that bureaucrat does not give a flip what a small-business owner or hard-working family in Texas believes or how they are hurt by the rules they are decreeing from on high.”
I think the Chevron doctrine might be the next big battle before the Supreme Court when it reconvenes this fall.

Penna Dexter
The US Centers for Disease Control recently published guidance for new parents using a word I had never heard until a couple of weeks ago. The word is chestfeeding.
In an article in Today’s Parent magazine, lactation consultant Azura Goodman defines the word. She writes:
“Chestfeeding or bodyfeeding can refer to feeding your baby milk directly from your body. This term is used by people who don’t identify their anatomy with the term “breast.”
She explains that she uses the term chestfeeding in order to be inclusive “rather than narrow in on one population.”
When transwomen — let’s be clear: these are biological males — (when they) go to the CDC website looking for information on feeding newborns, they will find the affirming statement that “transgender and non-binary individuals may give birth and breastfeed or feed at the chest.”
Biological males cannot give birth. They can, however, be given hormones which mimic changes that take place in biological women’s bodies during the late stages of pregnancy. Apparently, this regimen results in some men producing a nipple discharge that a couple of transgender doctors claim can be pumped out and sustain a baby.
One of the hormones used in this protocol is domperidone, which, the FDA warns “can pass into breast milk in small amounts and can sometimes give babies an irregular heartbeat.” The CDC helpfully notes this.
The CDC’s advice on chestfeeding also applies to transgender males — biological females — who have breast-removal surgery and still want to coax a little milk out of what’s left. What a tragic sacrifice to have made. But what truly loving parent — biological or adoptive — would allow their child to be fed this toxic brew especially when it’s usually to allow a confused male to feel “seen” or satisfy a disordered desire to experience breastfeeding.
The CDC’s “guidance” on chestfeeding is not medical advice or a legitimate recommendation for the care and feeding of infants. The post-COVID CDC is embarrassing.

Kerby Anderson
Pete Hegseth is the co-author with David Goodwin of the book, Battle for the American Mind. A central part of their book is an in-depth discussion and history of progressive education in America.
Pete Hegseth is the co-host of Fox & Friends and is the host of the Fox Nation documentaries. He will be speaking at the Point of View banquet this fall. That is appropriate since this book parallels many of the insights found in the book Public Education Against America written by Marlin Maddoux, founder of the Point of View radio talk show.
The book begins with the title, “The 16,000-Hour War.” After students spend 16,000 hours of K-12 indoctrination, they come out of the government schools hating America. They roll their eyes at religion and have little interest in history. The book documents the elitist roots of progressivism and its deliberate influence in education today. One chapter describes the “straight line from critical theory to antifa.”
As we have documented in previous commentaries, we spend more money on education than most other countries and yet have very little to show for it. Some of our nation’s students can barely read and write. They certainly have few skills in critical thinking. Few can reason with any discernment.
David Goodwin provides one solution: classical Christian education. We need to recover a lost philosophy of education. He explains that reason and virtue are the two towers of freedom. Wonder and beauty help students to learn to love the right things.
The educational establishment today is controlling the “supply lines” of future citizens. If we want to make a difference in this country, we need to understand there is a battle for the American mind.