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.