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.