Viewpoints with Kerby Anderson

Kerby Anderson
Each year I teach second-year students at a bible school a class on homosexuality. One of the questions we discuss is what percentage of the population is homosexual. I quote from studies done by the University of Chicago and the Alan Guttmacher Institute which put the percentage around 2 percent. Then I show the students a Gallup poll that found US adults estimated that 25 percent of Americans are gay and lesbian. Of course, those estimates are off by an order of magnitude.
We now have articles quoting the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System of the CDC that estimates that only 75 percent of American high-school students now identify as heterosexual. The headlines and articles therefore claim that 25 percent are LGBTQ.
In a recent commentary, Wilfried Reilly raises some significant questions. First, “there is simply no genetic or biological explanation for a surge like this one.” This is significantly different from the many studies I have quoted in the past.
Attempts to argue that this is due to “increased social tolerance for gays” does not hold either, especially when you consider that many other European countries have been even more tolerant of LGBTQ. I think a better explanation is social contagion, which I have discussed in relation to transgenderism in previous commentaries.
Andrew Sullivan is a prominent gay columnist and provides this answer. “The most plausible explanation is that everyone wants to be LGBTQ now — so why not lie and be cool? Only problem is that this makes the LGBTQ community majority straight.” As you can tell, he doesn’t believe the 25 percent headlines and doesn’t think this is helpful to his gay agenda.
There is no reason to believe the 25 percent claim. It reminds me of the Gallup poll estimate from many years ago.

How Many LGBTQ? Read More

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.

DOJ v. Tennessee Read More

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.

Why the West Won Read More

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.

Equity vs Equality Read More

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.

Racist Coffee? Read More

Kerby Anderson
Perhaps you have heard of the “heckler’s veto.” This occurs when someone who disagrees with a speaker’s message triggers actions or protests to disrupt the event and get the speech cancelled. We have seen this tactic on university campuses primarily used against conservative speakers.
I thought of this tactic when I read about the controversy surrounding expensive security fees charged against Turning Point USA at a Texas university just thirty miles from my radio studio. The administration charged the conservative group $28,000 for security, without obtaining permission for the charges.
The justification for the huge charges apparently was based upon “subjectively evaluating possible actions in which protestors might engage.” It doesn’t appear that any major protest took place. But consider the precedent this might set. If the university administration thinks a particular speaker or conference might draw protestors, they would feel free to charge huge amounts for security.
The ADF has written to the campus police about their actions because the university charged “outrageous security fees for two small campuses events simply because of fear of how others might react.” And they argued that this security fee is essentially a heckler’s veto.
I suspect this might become a new tactic used by radical groups. Threaten a protest or even a riot, and the university feels the need to charge the sponsoring group so much that the group must cancel.
Over the years, I have scheduled speakers to address controversial topics like climate change, radical Islam, and gender confusion. If I was confronted with such an outrageously expensive bill, I would probably have to cancel. This might become a new tactic to silence free speech.

Heckler’s Veto Fee Read More

Kerby Anderson
While looking at various headlines and reading many of the news articles, I noticed a trend that should be highlighted. It appears we are being conditioned to accept high inflation and become resigned to a poorer standard of living.
A headline last year predicted, “Inflation’s New Normal Will be 4%. Get Used to It.” Her prediction was right. Inflation has been with us and will continue to be with us. Another headline reported that “Consumers Are Getting Used to Higher Inflation.” He assumed that workers would demand higher wages to keep up with inflation. As I mentioned in a previous commentary, wages have not kept up with inflation.
The most recent headline came from a podcast in this country done with the Bank of England’s top economist. He said people in the UK need to accept that they are poorer. He lamented there was a “reluctance to accept that, yes, we’re all worse off.” He was concerned that people demanding pay increases and businesses raising prices will fuel more inflation. Fortunately, the article also quoted another economist that pointed to the “massive expansion” in the money supply as a reason for inflation.
Missing from these stories is who benefits from inflation and who is hurt by it. Remember the classic quote, *“Inflation is the surest way to fertilize the rich man’s field with the sweat of the poor man’s brow.” Increasing prices harm the poor more than the rich, and inflation is stealing the wealth of everyone as the dollar devalues.
God condemns Israel in Isaiah 1:22 by saying, “Your silver has become dross, your best wine mixed with water.” People were cheating each other by adding cheaper metals to their silver and by adding water to their wine. That is why we should NOT be conditioned to accept inflation.
*The quote is credited to Charles Holt Carroll, but also attributed to Daniel Webster.

Inflation Conditioning Read More

Penna Dexter
The trend toward de-emphasis on hard work and merit is playing out in large school districts in Nevada, California, Iowa, Virginia and other states. Policies there now require that schools make doing homework optional and give students multiple opportunities to complete tests and assignments. The Wall Street Journal reports that these districts have decided to jettison hard due dates, giving students “more chances to prove they have mastered a subject without being held to arbitrary deadlines.” Students’ knowledge of material is only measured at the end of the term.
This is being done, says The Journal, “in recognition of challenges some children have outside school” — perhaps a job or caring for siblings. A new theory, equitable grading, purportedly eliminates bias toward students living in stable homes. It relies on students’ “intrinsic motivation” in allowing them to decide when, or if, they will turn in homework.
Clark County, which encompasses Las Vegas, is the fifth largest school district in the nation. Laura Jeanne Penrod, who teaches English there, told The Journal, “intrinsic motivation…is the furthest thing from the truth” for students in her 11th grade honors class. With an assignment to write a persuasive essay, she would normally require them to first brainstorm the project and then to write a rough draft. Under the new system, students skip these steps without penalty, but they miss out on the teacher’s guidance along the way.
Alyson Henderson, another Clark County high school English teacher says, “If you go to a job in real life, you can’t pick and choose what tasks you want to do and only do the quote big ones.” Samuel Huang, a straight-A student in the district doesn’t like the new system. He sees AP students skipping class until the exam and says “There’s an apathy that pervades the entire classroom.”
These are top students. Ditching homework is even worse for average students and those who struggle. They need more accountability, not less. 

Ditching Homework Read More

Kerby Anderson
Many critics in the current generation are making unfair judgments about past generations with an air of moral superiority. I call it generational judgmentalism. Victor Davis Hanson merely says that these critics are self-important and ungracious and have very little gratitude for those in the past that did so much for all of us.
He observes that these “21st-century critics rarely acknowledge their own present affluence and leisure owe much to history’s prior generations whose toil helped create their current comfort.” Of course, we could also add the millions buried in military cemeteries who fought and died for the freedoms we enjoy today.
He also asks several important questions. “What will our grandchildren say of us who dumped on them over $30 trillion in national debt—much of it as borrowing for entitlements for ourselves?” Another is, “What sort of society snoozes as record numbers of murders continue in 12 of its major cities?”
One of the key buzzwords for this generation is “infrastructure.” But Hanson wonders “when was the last time it built anything comparable to Hoover Dam, the interstate highway system, or the California Water Project—much less sent a man back to the moon or beyond?”
It is easy to criticize previous generations while using today’s standards of morality and behavior. It is easy to forget the struggles previous generations had to face because they were not blessed with the numerous technological advances we enjoy today.
It’s easy to tear down. It’s not so easy to rebuild. These are the questions we need to ask of the critics bent on destroying society. They don’t seem to offer anything significant in its place.

Generational Judgmentalism Read More

Kerby Anderson
Today is the National Day of Prayer. It is a vital part of our American heritage. The first call to prayer happened before the American Revolution. In 1775, the Continental Congress called on the colonists to pray for wisdom as they considered how they would respond to the King of England.
Perhaps one of the most powerful calls to prayer came from President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. In 1863, he issued a proclamation for a day of “humiliation, fasting and prayer.” Here is some of that proclamation:
“We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand, which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.”
In 1952, Congress passed and President Harry Truman signed a resolution that declared an annual, national day of prayer. In 1988, President Reagan signed into law a bill that designated the first Thursday of May as the time for the National Day of Prayer.
It is estimated that there have been more than 130 national calls to prayer, humiliation, fasting, and thanksgiving by presidents of the United States. There have been 60 Presidential Proclamations for a National Day of Prayer because every president has signed these proclamations.
Today is the National Day of Prayer. Please pray for this nation and its leaders.

Day of Prayer Read More

Kerby Anderson
A recent poll by Pew Research Center discovered that 27 percent of Americans view evangelicals as the most unfavorable faith. They also discovered that Jews ranked as the most favorable religious group.
The poll asked Americans to rank six of the mainstream religious groups. Those were Jews, mainline Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, and Evangelical Christians. The greatest number of unfavorable feelings were expressed toward Evangelical Christians and Mormons.
By contrast, the most positive feelings were reserved for Jews at 35 percent. In fact, only 6 percent said they had a negative view of them. Catholics came in second with 34 percent saying they viewed them favorably and only 18 percent said they had negative impressions of them.
I would contend that this poll not only tells us something about people’s attitudes toward various religious groups, but it also reminds us of the nature of those groups.  On my radio program, I mention that a majority of Supreme Court Justices are Catholic as are a sizable number of members of Congress. Then I ask, what does that tell you about their politics? Of course, the answer is that it doesn’t tell you anything because some take their Catholic faith seriously, while many do not. You could do the same by providing a list of prominent Jewish people.
The religious groups with the highest favorability (Jews, Catholics) also have the greatest theological diversity. Often the religious label says less about their faith and more about their family background. The groups with the highest unfavourability (Mormons, Evangelical Christians) have the greatest theological cohesion.
Put another way, many Americans have no problem with religion unless the religious person takes his or her religion very seriously.

Unfavorable Faith Read More

Kerby Anderson
What is America’s greatest challenge? Former governor Bobby Jindal has a list that focuses on the challenges created by liberals in this country. Although he uses the term liberals, it might be better to realize his critique applies to leftists rather than liberals in general. Here are his four concerns.
“First, liberals are undermining the rule of law that prevents the arbitrary exercise of power and protects law-abiding citizens.” Some of the examples he uses range from liberal prosecutors refusing to enforce the law to restrictive rules and regulations that are adversely affecting home and business owners.
“Second, liberals are undermining the ideal of meritocracy that frees society from inherited privilege and petty corruption.” Gifts and talents are not distributed equally, but the role of government should not be equality of outcome but equality of opportunity.
“Third, liberals are undermining pride in American history and her values that has animated unity at home and a generous, confident and inspiring policy abroad.” America has been a unique force for good, but if you listen to lectures in school or listen to newscasts, you wouldn’t know that.
“Fourth, liberals are undermining the marketplace of ideas that has facilitated a better understanding of reality, protected minority viewpoints, and provided outlets for protesting voices.” Suppression of conservative viewpoints and religious liberty rights is done in the name of inclusion and diversity.
Notice two things about this list. It doesn’t talk about foreign threats, only domestic challenges. Most of the challenges are cultural rather than political, meaning they won’t be resolved just by electing the right people for office.

America’s Greatest Challenge Read More

Kerby Anderson
Do you have too much month at the end of your money? That question and catchphrase has been around for decades. But it seems even more relevant to our current economic situation. High inflation, rising interest rates, and runaway government spending has had a negative impact on American families.
E. J. Antoni is an economist at the Heritage Foundation and has run the numbers and explains that Americans have taken the pay cut every month since President Biden took office. For example, he documents that the average American family has lost the equivalent of more than $7,000 in annual income. He also argued that “There is a direct link between spending, borrowing and printing trillions of dollars, and the disastrous results for Americans.”
A skeptic might respond that while it is true that prices have gone up, wages have also increased. That may be true, but I haven’t found too many people in my sphere of influence who have told me their salary or wages have increased. If you look at the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you will note that average weekly earnings are up 9 percent since President Biden took office, but consumer prices have risen 14.9 percent over that same time.
In some ways, it reminds me of times when I have tried to climb a hill or mountain with lots of gravel, talus, and scree. Two steps forward can sometimes result in falling three steps back. That is what is happening to the typical family with two parents working. Their combined weekly paychecks are up about $200, but the money has lost so much of its purchasing power from inflation that it is as if their weekly pay shrunk by more than $100.
These are numbers to remember while Congress is debating raising the debt ceiling and worth remembering during the election next year..

Pay Cut Read More

Penna Dexter
House Republicans proposed the Limit, Save, Grow Act as an attempt to pair modest reductions in spending growth with approval of an increase in the debt limit. The legislation includes requirements that able-bodied adults work if they are to receive welfare such as food stamps and Medicaid.
This is not angry mean Republicans “cutting benefits.” The Wall Street Journal points out that both SNAP, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, and Medicaid “were turbocharged in pandemic measures, including higher food stamp benefits and a ban on states from removing from the Medicaid roles individuals who may no longer be eligible.” Work requirements for SNAP were “waved away” and should be restored with the end of the emergency in May.
And Medicaid, which was expanded under ObamaCare to include men of prime age above the poverty line, needs to include a work requirement. Otherwise, the Journal warns, we threaten “America’s social and economic future as government sustains a permanent dependent class.”
A new entitlement is on the table: A proposal for increasing child tax credit payments which contains no work requirement.
With nearly two jobs open for every unemployed person, it’s a terrible time to implement policies that discourage work. House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (TX) argues, in a Journal op-ed, that Congress should “return to commonsense policies that encourage people to look for work and rejoin the labor force.”
Rep. Arrington says getting people back to work is “pro-growth and pro-family.” It provides “the surest way out of generational poverty.” It will improve the solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
When we require Americans who work to subsidize able-bodied Americans who don’t, we exacerbate political and social divisions.
In God’s eyes, work has dignity and importance. A recent survey that shows the decline of hard work as a core value for Americans bolsters the case for encouraging work in law and policy. As Rep. Arrington says it’s a “moral imperative.”

Culture of Work Read More

Penna Dexter
House Republicans proposed the Limit, Save, Grow Act as an attempt to pair modest reductions in spending growth with approval of an increase in the debt limit. The legislation includes requirements that able-bodied adults work if they are to receive welfare such as food stamps and Medicaid.
This is not angry mean Republicans “cutting benefits.” The Wall Street Journal points out that both SNAP, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, and Medicaid “were turbocharged in pandemic measures, including higher food stamp benefits and a ban on states from removing from the Medicaid roles individuals who may no longer be eligible.” Work requirements for SNAP were “waved away” and should be restored with the end of the emergency in May.
And Medicaid, which was expanded under ObamaCare to include men of prime age above the poverty line, needs to include a work requirement. Otherwise, the Journal warns, we threaten “America’s social and economic future as government sustains a permanent dependent class.”
A new entitlement is on the table: A proposal for increasing child tax credit payments which contains no work requirement.
With nearly two jobs open for every unemployed person, it’s a terrible time to implement policies that discourage work. House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (TX) argues, in a Journal op-ed, that Congress should “return to commonsense policies that encourage people to look for work and rejoin the labor force.”
Rep. Arrington says getting people back to work is “pro-growth and pro-family.” It provides “the surest way out of generational poverty.” It will improve the solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
When we require Americans who work to subsidize able-bodied Americans who don’t, we exacerbate political and social divisions.
In God’s eyes, work has dignity and importance. A recent survey that shows the decline of hard work as a core value for Americans bolsters the case for encouraging work in law and policy. As Rep. Arrington says it’s a “moral imperative.”

Culture of Work Read More