Kerby Anderson
The consumer backlash to Bud Light is well known. But while Anheuser-Busch stock drops and Bud Light cans go unsold, other companies have decided to promote transgenderism. Suzanne Bowdey explains that there are four other companies that are willing to go “Full Bud Light” in their support of transgenderism.
The first is Target. A decade ago, the company was going woke before woke was even a word. A decade ago, they introduced their controversial line of “Love is Love” shirts. Six years ago, Target made news with their plans for mixed-gender bathrooms and fitting rooms. More recently they decided to fill its racks with resources aiding young people to reject their biological sex.
Second is Levi Strauss. We have learned more about the philosophy behind America’s oldest jeans company due to Jennifer Sey, who wrote Levi’s Unbuttoned: The Woke Mob Took my Job but Gave Me my Voice. She warns that radicalism runs deep at Levi’s.
Starbucks is a third company. The company has been financing transgender activism. There was their pronoun campaign in 2019 called #WhatsYourName. More recently, the company offered to ship employees’ children out of state if they wanted to “change” their sex.
A fourth company is Sports Illustrated. I wouldn’t recommend anyone pick up any of their swimsuit issues. But if you even glance at one image expecting to see an actual woman at the beach, you will be disappointed. Kim Petras underwent “gender-transition” surgery years ago and is the Sports Illustrated cover model.
This illustrates the mindset of so many in corporate America. They see a backlash to Bud Light, and the CEOs merely decide to double down. They are free to make those choices, but we are also free to decide what we will or will not buy.

Kerby Anderson
The consumer backlash to Bud Light is well known. But while Anheuser-Busch stock drops and Bud Light cans go unsold, other companies have decided to promote transgenderism. Suzanne Bowdey explains that there are four other companies that are willing to go “Full Bud Light” in their support of transgenderism.
The first is Target. A decade ago, the company was going woke before woke was even a word. A decade ago, they introduced their controversial line of “Love is Love” shirts. Six years ago, Target made news with their plans for mixed-gender bathrooms and fitting rooms. More recently they decided to fill its racks with resources aiding young people to reject their biological sex.
Second is Levi Strauss. We have learned more about the philosophy behind America’s oldest jeans company due to Jennifer Sey, who wrote Levi’s Unbuttoned: The Woke Mob Took my Job but Gave Me my Voice. She warns that radicalism runs deep at Levi’s.
Starbucks is a third company. The company has been financing transgender activism. There was their pronoun campaign in 2019 called #WhatsYourName. More recently, the company offered to ship employees’ children out of state if they wanted to “change” their sex.
A fourth company is Sports Illustrated. I wouldn’t recommend anyone pick up any of their swimsuit issues. But if you even glance at one image expecting to see an actual woman at the beach, you will be disappointed. Kim Petras underwent “gender-transition” surgery years ago and is the Sports Illustrated cover model.
This illustrates the mindset of so many in corporate America. They see a backlash to Bud Light, and the CEOs merely decide to double down. They are free to make those choices, but we are also free to decide what we will or will not buy.

Kerby Anderson
Doing a commentary on the Los Angeles Dodgers and the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” is difficult because the story keeps changing. In case you aren’t familiar, the “sisters” are drag queens whose shtick is to dress up as Catholic nuns and then mock every aspect of religion in general and Catholicism in particular.
The story keeps changing because the “sisters” were to receive an award on Pride Night. Then the inevitable reaction came, and the Dodgers canceled the event, and then reinstated the event due to pressure from the Los Angeles LGBT Center and the California Teachers Association. Then a Catholic advocacy group launched a $1 million campaign to promote a boycott of the team.
I do wonder about the Dodger front office that invited, disinvited, and re-invited the “sisters” to Pride Night. How will they now react to the push for a boycott and for “people of goodwill to express their opposition to your celebration of anti-Catholic bigotry and mockery.” Their latest attempt to address this public relations disaster was to schedule a “Christian Faith and Family Day” at Dodger Stadium a month later.
It’s worth mentioning that the Dodgers have had a long and significant connection to their Catholic fans even going back to the time when they were in Brooklyn. The O’Malley family owned the Dodgers for years and were well known for their Catholic convictions. They even sponsored a “Nun’s Day” at Dodger Stadium. That would be actual Catholic nuns, not the fake “sisters” who have spent years ridiculing Christianity and Catholicism.
Major league baseball teams have promoted various fan nights and given out everything from special hotdogs to signed baseballs to bobbleheads of popular players. But bringing in a group that mocks the faith of some of the players and many of the fans has become a public relations disaster.

Kerby Anderson
Doing a commentary on the Los Angeles Dodgers and the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” is difficult because the story keeps changing. In case you aren’t familiar, the “sisters” are drag queens whose shtick is to dress up as Catholic nuns and then mock every aspect of religion in general and Catholicism in particular.
The story keeps changing because the “sisters” were to receive an award on Pride Night. Then the inevitable reaction came, and the Dodgers canceled the event, and then reinstated the event due to pressure from the Los Angeles LGBT Center and the California Teachers Association. Then a Catholic advocacy group launched a $1 million campaign to promote a boycott of the team.
I do wonder about the Dodger front office that invited, disinvited, and re-invited the “sisters” to Pride Night. How will they now react to the push for a boycott and for “people of goodwill to express their opposition to your celebration of anti-Catholic bigotry and mockery.” Their latest attempt to address this public relations disaster was to schedule a “Christian Faith and Family Day” at Dodger Stadium a month later.
It’s worth mentioning that the Dodgers have had a long and significant connection to their Catholic fans even going back to the time when they were in Brooklyn. The O’Malley family owned the Dodgers for years and were well known for their Catholic convictions. They even sponsored a “Nun’s Day” at Dodger Stadium. That would be actual Catholic nuns, not the fake “sisters” who have spent years ridiculing Christianity and Catholicism.
Major league baseball teams have promoted various fan nights and given out everything from special hotdogs to signed baseballs to bobbleheads of popular players. But bringing in a group that mocks the faith of some of the players and many of the fans has become a public relations disaster.

Kerby Anderson
We recently had another case of the major media publicizing book banning that never took place. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised since the same media last year told us that the Florida legislature passed a “Don’t Say Gay Bill.” That’s how they described the Florida Parental Rights Education legislation that was supported by a majority of citizens in Florida (both Democrats and Republicans).
The Associated Press, CNN, ABC, NPR, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Politico, Daily Mail, and the Guardian all ran headlines claiming that a school within Miami-Dade County Public Schools “banned” or “blocked” access to a poem read by Amanda Gorman (who spoke at President Biden’s inauguration). Their story was based on an original erroneous story by the Miami Herald.
The true story is that the poem (and a few other resources) were moved from a shelf in the library’s “media center” for grade school kids and put on the shelf for middle school kids. That’s all that was done. One school, one library, moved some books. But that was enough for most of the major media to run with a story about book banning.
Why do we keep getting these fake stories about book banning? They occur for the same reason that we keep getting fake hate crime stories. It is a matter of supply and demand.  For leftists, the demand is greater than the supply of examples of racism or homophobia. That’s why I have written a dozen commentaries over the years of fake hate crimes that were reported in the media long before anyone ever heard of Jussie Smollett.
Have there been attempts to ban books in the past? Of course. Catcher in the Rye, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and To Kill a Mockingbird are just a few examples. But as one commentator put it “Book Banning Isn’t What It Used to Be.”
The next time you read about a book banning, be skeptical.

Kerby Anderson
We recently had another case of the major media publicizing book banning that never took place. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised since the same media last year told us that the Florida legislature passed a “Don’t Say Gay Bill.” That’s how they described the Florida Parental Rights Education legislation that was supported by a majority of citizens in Florida (both Democrats and Republicans).
The Associated Press, CNN, ABC, NPR, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Politico, Daily Mail, and the Guardian all ran headlines claiming that a school within Miami-Dade County Public Schools “banned” or “blocked” access to a poem read by Amanda Gorman (who spoke at President Biden’s inauguration). Their story was based on an original erroneous story by the Miami Herald.
The true story is that the poem (and a few other resources) were moved from a shelf in the library’s “media center” for grade school kids and put on the shelf for middle school kids. That’s all that was done. One school, one library, moved some books. But that was enough for most of the major media to run with a story about book banning.
Why do we keep getting these fake stories about book banning? They occur for the same reason that we keep getting fake hate crime stories. It is a matter of supply and demand.  For leftists, the demand is greater than the supply of examples of racism or homophobia. That’s why I have written a dozen commentaries over the years of fake hate crimes that were reported in the media long before anyone ever heard of Jussie Smollett.
Have there been attempts to ban books in the past? Of course. Catcher in the Rye, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and To Kill a Mockingbird are just a few examples. But as one commentator put it “Book Banning Isn’t What It Used to Be.”
The next time you read about a book banning, be skeptical.