Penna Dexter
In a postmodern society, as more and more people deny biblical and biological truth, a vacuum arises in which individuals come up with their own truth. Consider the transgender movement and its requirements. A person who claims a different gender from that in which they were born is saying, ‘I have my truth and you must accept it.’ We shouldn’t.
To “affirm” a person’s gender confusion may sound respectful, even compassionate. Former FOX News anchor Megyn Kelly thought so. She recently explained: “I was an early proponent of using preferred pronouns as far back as the early 2000’s. Of saying ‘she’ when I knew the truth was ‘he.’ It seemed harmless and I had no wish to cause offense.”
Broadcasting on FOX, and later at NBC, she supported trans people’s right to use restrooms of their choice. She employed their terminology: “gender assigned at birth,” “gender-affirming care.” She said, “I wanted to be supportive of those who were suffering.”
By 2020, Megyn Kelly had her own podcast where she interviewed female athletes and learned they are also suffering.  She says, “Competing against boys who claimed they were trans was dejecting and often near-impossible.”
Megyn Kelly has evolved in her assessment of the harms that result when a society bows to the transgender lobby: Harms to female athletes. Harms to gender-confused students and to parental rights. Physical harms from assaults by trans women on real women in bathrooms and prisons. Harms to the bodies of young people from medications and grotesque surgeries. She says, “for far too long, I failed to see the harm and therefore helped cause it.”
Megyn Kelly promises to no longer use preferred pronouns. She says, “I have resolved to base my conversations around gender on the same tenets that already govern my life: truth and reality.
Megan Kelly’s misguided compassion led her to accede to the trans agenda’s demands. It was destructive. Her reversal exhibits true compassion. 

Kerby Anderson
Amy Swearer is a legal fellow with the Heritage Foundation and has been testifying in Congress about crime and gun violence. She has been challenging progressive policies that begin with the assumption that the increase in crime is due to guns. She identifies four major reasons for the crime increase.
Refusing to prosecute and punish violent offenders is her first reason. She explains that most violent crimes (including crimes involving firearms) are perpetrated by a small and predictable number of offenders. One very effective way of combating violent crime is to focus on deterring and incapacitating these serial offenders.
A second reason for crime increase is due to releasing violent offenders under ill-conceived bail-reform policies. These changes in policy affect which criminal defendants will be released back into society while awaiting trial. Increasing the percentage of offenders eligible for pre-trial release endangers society.
Demoralizing and defunding police departments is also a significant reason for crime increase. Americans are significantly under-policed, especially in urban areas where many of the crimes take place. Changing regulations also hamstring law enforcement officers trying to do their job in the community.
A final reason for the crime increase has been the imposition of significant burdens on the Second Amendment rights of citizens. Progressive gun control restrictions prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves. Almost every major study on the issue has concluded that Americans use their firearms to defend themselves and others between 500,000 and several million times a year.
Any serious debate and discussion about crime and gun violence needs to consider these four reasons for the crime increase.

Kerby Anderson
Entrepreneur and venture capitalist, Peter Thiel recently spoke about the “Diversity Myth.” Back in the mid-1990s, David Sacks and he wrote a book by that title about multiculturalism and political intolerance on campus. The first chapter focused on the decision by Stanford University to abandon the great books as other universities were abandoning the teaching of Western Civilization.
He concluded that three decades later that almost every point he made was right. Back then it was called multiculturalism. Today it is called woke, which fights for diversity, equity, and inclusion. The original cancer has metastasized.
He even thinks the title “diversity myth” has held up well. If you emphasize the word “diversity,” that means that diversity is not real. It is a fiction. There is no real multiculturalism, it’s just monocultural. If you emphasize the word “myth,” then you can dismiss diversity out of hand.
He also noted that the ideas of diversity, wokeism, and multiculturalism also prevent finding real solutions. Here’s the flawed logic. “Homelessness is a mess. It’s a problem. And at the same time that it is a very real problem, it is a giant machine to redirect attention from all the other problems across America toward a narrow aspect of big-city dysfunction. When homelessness is forced into every policy conversation, it leads to circuitous, dead-end reasoning—We’re never going to fix homelessness until we fix the schools, but we’re never going to fix the schools, the police, or even the roads until we fix homelessness.”
Diversity may sound like a wonderful goal, but it doesn’t lead to concrete plans of action. It may make the proponents feel good, but it never really solves anything.