Penna Dexter
Early last year The Daily Wire investigated Vanderbilt University Medical Center and found a robust gender transition program including pressure tactics against conscientious objectors and a “Buddies Program” in which trans activists accompany patients seeking treatment to make sure nothing deters them along the path to transition. Doctors pushing for the gender program touted so-called gender affirmation surgeries as “huge money makers.”
When Tennessee House Republicans saw this evidence, they sought clarification from Vanderbilt Medical Center. The clinic paused transition surgeries on minors, pending “review” of the program.
Fast forward to the session of the Tennessee General Assembly that wrapped up last month. Legislators passed and the governor signed, SB1, which prohibits gender transition procedures from being done on minors.
House Majority Leader William Lamberth exhibited blunt southern honesty when he stated,  “We’re not gonna have any kind of quack doctor coming to this state and start doing double mastectomies on children that are suffering through body dysphoria.”
The U.S. Department of Justice has now sued Tennessee to block this law. The DOJ claims SB1 violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The complaint states that this new law “denies necessary medical care to children based solely on who they are.”
The complaint argues that, under SB1, a doctor would be allowed to prescribe testosterone for a “non-transgender male minor” for delayed puberty, but would be prohibited from issuing that same prescription for a transgender male — i.e., a biological female.
SB1 defines a person’s sex as “determined by anatomy and genetics.” The DOJ’s complaint, instead, elevates gender identity over sex “assigned” at birth. In an article describing the lawsuit, Washington Stand writer Joshua Arnold, points out that the DOJ is supposed to enforce federal law. But the language in this complaint signals what he terms “a revisionist reality at work,” which “would retroactively rewrite laws distinguishing the sexes.” 
The courts must shut down this overreach.

Kerby Anderson
Historian Nial Ferguson begins his PragerU video with a lament that few students graduate from college with any idea of what makes Western Civilization different from the rest of the world. In his video with the title, “Why the West Won,” he summarizes a few key points from his book, Civilization: The West and the Rest. He explained that western civilization succeeded because of six killer apps—competition, modern science, the rule of law, modern medicine, the consumer society, and the work ethic.” These are the secret sauce of Western Civilization.
You may not have time to read his book, therefore, I suggest you take five minutes to watch the video. And since these ideas aren’t being taught in the universities today, you might share the video with some young people.
These are the six killer applications. The first was economic and political competition. The second was the scientific method. All the major 17th century breakthroughs happened in Western Europe. A third application was the rule of law and representative government. This included private property rights and representation of property owners in elected legislatures.
The fourth was modern medicine. Nearly all the 19th and 20th century breakthroughs in health care were made by Western Europeans and North Americans. Fifth was the consumer society. The industrial revolution took place because there was both a supply and a demand. Sixth was the work ethic. Westerners worked harder and saved more of what they earned. This led to capital accumulation which in turn led to investment in the wonders of modern technology.
These six killer apps made the West successful and have now been downloaded to other countries as well. That is why the west won.

Kerby Anderson
Leftists have redefined many key terms to push their radical agenda. One of those words is the word “equity.” We traditionally understood the term to mean equality. You can even find this word in the Bible. But in our modern culture, equity doesn’t mean equality of opportunity but equality of outcomes.
Activists push DEI, which stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. At universities DEI bureaucracies have grown significantly. A study by the Heritage Foundation found 163 DEI personnel at the University of Michigan, 94 at the University of Virginia and Ohio State, 86 at the University of California, Berkeley, 83 at Virginia Tech, and 80 at Stanford. I recently wrote about the behavior of the DEI Dean at Stanford, who has now been put on leave.
Jack Miller in a recent column writes about “Equity’s War on Equality.” The equity agenda is making its way into K-12 schools across the country. In some schools, honors classes are being eliminated so as not to “perpetuate inequality.”
He laments that “teachers are simply slowing down instruction for everyone. Students are increasingly taught at the lowest common denominator rather than being challenged to do their best.” Motivated students complain that often the students slowing them down are unmotivated and have no desire to try harder.
Jack Miller does have some good news. Parents are mobilizing at the ballot box and at school board meetings. “They do not want to sacrifice academic excellence for grand social experiments. They want their kids to become educated and ambitious, not indoctrinated, and complacent.”
Equity, the way it is currently being defined, is not equality. Rather it is an attack on meritocracy and keeping gifted and motivated students from doing their best.

Kerby Anderson
Periodically I must remind my listeners that you should pay less attention to what people say and more attention to what they do. Climate change activists encourage us to lower our carbon footprint while flying to conferences in private jets. Progressive politicians warn that global warming will raise the level of oceans yet live in homes next to the shore. Liberals claim there is a rape epidemic on college campuses, but still send their daughters to the university.
The latest claim is that “coffee is racist, and drinking coffee perpetuates white supremacy.” Therefore, argues the author, “It’s time to boycott and divest.”
According to the article, “Coffee first came to North America and Europe between 1650 and 1700. But coffee was an important, almost religious, part of Black culture going as far back as the 1400s in Ethiopia. After the whites got the first sip of the Black delicacy, they brutally enslaved people of color to keep up with demand, turning a ritualistic drink into another consumer product in the colonial capitalist machine.”
I don’t know how much of that can be verified by historians, but let’s assume it’s all true. The argument is that by consuming coffee you are helping an industry built on racism. By consuming coffee, you are perpetuating white supremacy.
Now for the more important question: do you think we will see a massive boycott of coffee over the next few months? I doubt we will see a dent in the coffee business, and if there is any decline in coffee sales it will pale in comparison to the number of people who no longer buy Bud Light.
The article may claim that coffee is racist and call for a boycott. But I doubt we will see any boycott. Once again, we can see the value of paying more attention to what people do rather than what they say.