Denying Reality About Transgender Athletes

The news media dove into the deep end of the ideological pool after a transgender swimmer won the NCAA women's championship. Coverage was effusive for the victor Lia Thomas, a biological male. Historic. Courageous.Transformative.  The media drowned viewers in its own gender delusion.

Lia Thomas swam three years on the University of Pennsylvania men's swim team as Will Thomas. He won no NCAA titles. After undergoing hormone therapy, Will became Lia.  Thomas switched to the women's team in 2020.  The university and the NCAA affirmed Will is now officially a female. 

Since adopting a new gender, Thomas has been unstoppable competing against women.  He or she has set school, Ivy League and NCAA records. In a 1650 freestyle final, the six-foot-one, 132-pounder vanquished women competitors, winning by 38 seconds.  That margin is unheard of in swimming. 

Many female swimmers criticized the NCAA for allowing this travesty. They were vilified as bigots.  In fairness, others supported Lia Thomas. They were lauded for showing compassion and respect for transgender athletes.  Today there are 31 transgender athletes competing in women's sports. 

Joining the chorus of adulation were college administrators, sports organizations, pro athletes, Hollywood, politicians, corporations, social media and LGBTQ activists.  Although they are few in number, their voices are amplified in the media. However, most Americans disagree with their views.

A Gallup poll last May found that 62% of those surveyed said they "felt transgender people should have to complete on teams with athletes of their birth gender."  Just 34% supported transgender athletes playing on teams that aligned with their gender identity. 

Gender ideologues disagree, claiming excluding women who are trans harms all women.  It reinforces stereotypes that women are weak, activists point out.  Gender zealots argue women don't need protection from the intrusion of transgenders in their sports. Their position denies science. 

No amount of estrogen can undo the biological benefits of male genetics and development. A 2020 study in the British Medical Journal concluded that athletes transitioning retain a competitive advantage against women even after two years of hormone treatment.   

Weeks after Thomas demolished women's competitors, the Biden Administration announced plans to amend Title IX regulations that ushered in an era of equal resources for facilities, training, recruitment and scholarship for female college athletics 

Under the guise of combating discrimination, the administration's Education Department plans to endorse biological males to compete in women's athletics in the name of equity.  This action would undo 50-years of women's progress in college athletics achieved under Title IX.

State lawmakers are fighting to preserve equal competition in women's sports.  A total of 37 states have introduced bills to keep women athletics for biological women.  Nine states have approved such measures. Expect Biden to unleash the Department of Justice to attack the laws as hate legislation.

The administration won't stop with colleges.  High schools sports will soon be in the bullseye. Public schools will cave because the Department of Education will jerk funding in retribution. For that reason, school districts don't dare  challenge the authority of Washington. Most will surrender without a peep.

In a sign of how far this ideological illusion is embedded in the culture, Supreme Court nominee Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dodged a senator's question on the definition of a woman at the Senate hearings.  Her response: "I'm not a biologist." Her reply reveals more about the culture than the nominee.

What's ironic is less than 0.6% of people identify as transgender, according to a study by UCLA's Williams Institute. That amounts to about 1.4 million Americans.  Progressives and activists demand that society caters to this tiny minority.  The other 99.4% of Americans must bow to this ideology. 

All sports are underpinned by competition and fairness. Biological males have no right to compete against women.  Female athletes harbor no ill will toward the LBGTQ community.  Many insist they respect the transgender revolution. The issue is fairness not discrimination.

Our nation is saturated with identity phobia. Americans must rebel against the cultural doctrine that biology is just an identity choice. The Creator made male and female.  He was not confused. 

Do Parents Have a Say In Their Kids Curriculum?

Skirmishes are erupting across America over parental involvement in the curriculum of public schools. Teachers unions and many school boards are crusading for their right to exercise control over what a child learns. Parents are pushing back, fighting for the imperative to influence curriculum content for their kids.

The confrontation over the competing ideas on education is sparking a national debate that first ignited in Virginia and has spread like a wildfire from big cities to rural school districts. Online learning during the pandemic, opened the eyes of many parents, who were vaguely aware of what their kids were taught.

The New York Times, in an effort to sabotage the nascent parental movement, echoed the arguments of an education establishment invested in mandating every aspect of a child's learning. The Times headline could have been written by the establishment:

"Parents claim they have the right to shape their kids school curriculum.  They don't"

The Times authors conceded that parents have an obligation to raise and educate their children. Then the writers added: "This right, however, does not mean that public schools must cater to parents individual ideas about education."

In The Times view, parents can send their children to private schools if they don't like the curriculum.  This patrician attitude is exactly what is wrong with today's educators, teachers and schools.  If parents don't like what their kids are being taught, then find another school.  If only most parents had that option.

Teachers unions are chagrined that any parent has the audacity to tell an educator what content might be inappropriate for their children. Unions view parental involvement as a nuisance.  Here's a sample:

"In our constitutional order, children's freedoms take priority over parental freedoms.  Given the overriding importance of schooling to democracy, our laws elevate and protect the rights of children to learn and to grow as citizens," the educational lobby insists.

Educational elitists compare the current wave of parental 'interference' to segregation.  In that era, they claim parents fought to preserve racial division in schools. With Critical Race Theory a current lightning rod for parents, the education establishment is playing the race card to silence dissent.

Ironically, African-American parents as well of those of mixed-raced children are among the most vocal opponents.  A Nevada mother of a mixed-race son sued the public school over a curriculum that teaches Critical Race Theory tenants, which elevate racial identity over individuality. 

Despite the Times claims, unions and educators are on the wrong side of the law.  Federal statutes and Supreme Court decisions have reinforced the rights of parents to be involved in their children's education. They are in charge of their child's learning, not unelected teachers, education bureaucrats or unions.

In 1925, the Supreme Court in the case of Pierce versus the Society of Sisters ruled: "The child is not the mere creature of the state...the state of Oregon, by forcing parents to place their children in public schools, unreasonably interfered with the liberty of parents and guardians..."

Although educators dismiss the nearly century-old decision as outdated, the court's ruling has been cited in more than a 100 Supreme Court decisions and nearly 70 by lower courts. The concept is enshrined in American education.  Why change it now?  What is different today?  What are educators afraid of?

In 1978, the Congress passed a federal law that protects parents right to review curriculum.  The law, in the form of an amendment to existing legislation, is known as the "Protection of Parents Rights." Under the act, parents have the right to review a copy of their child's curriculum.

Despite the rulings, courts continue to tinker with the right of parental involvement in education. In 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court in Fields versus Palmdale School District ruled the foundational right to control the upbringing of a child "does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door."

The education establishment usurps the ruling to justify its efforts to fend off the parental movement.  With air cover provided by the legacy media, the establishment has mounted a disinformation campaign to brand parents efforts as anti-LGBTQ, anti-African American and anti-sex-education.

In addition, the education establishment blames conservatives for using this as a hot button political issue, while accusing them of not being interested in the welfare of children. Despite the bluster, the education fraternity is losing because many states have moved to expand parental involvement in education.

Indiana, Georgia, Florida and Texas--to name a few--have seized the initiative to fashion new laws to reinforce the rights of parents to be the primary decision makers in all matters involving their children. That includes protecting children from age-inappropriate classroom materials.

In Georgia, the House version of a parental right bill gives parents the right to review all classroom materials, the right to access all records relating to their children, bans the teaching of "divisive concepts" on race and prohibits transgender girls from playing on girls sports teams.

Democrats claim the bills are election fodder for Republicans and nothing more without acknowledging the right of parents to be involved in the education of their children.  They allege the movement could worsen an antagonistic relationship between parents and teachers.

Notice how parents are painted as the villains.  The education establishment, which contends it values parental involvement, wants to control what students are taught, irrespective of the views of the parents. Education elitists value parents tax dollars but not their rights.

Federal, state and local spending on kindergarten through twelfth grade in the U.S. totaled $734.2 billion in 2021, according to the National Center for Education Studies.  The federal Department of Education contributed $73.5 billion of that amount.  Those billions were paid by parents and those without children.

Taxpayers, especially parents, deserve the right to demand their children get an appropriate education.  Those with the financial means are deciding to pull their children out of  public schools. Eleven percent of students were home schooled last year. Homeschooling leaped five-fold for black families. 

There are 34,576 private schools in the U.S., serving 5.7 million kindergarten through twelfth grade students.  Private education accounts for 25% of the nation's schools and 10% of students. Enrollment is declining in public schools, which lost 1.2 million students at the start of the 2022 school year. 

The education monopoly is showing signs of cracks.  The erosion of support for public schools is hastened by the education establishment's hostile attitude toward parents' request for curriculum transparency.  Ignoring parents will one day doom the public education system to irrelevance.    

Biden's Blame Game For Skyrocketing Gas Prices

President Biden's speech on banning Russian energy was littered with misrepresentations about the oil crisis.  Mr. Biden blamed petroleum firms for excessive oil prices while denying his administration's war on oil and gas was partly responsible.  

Before the announcement, Press Secretary Jen Psaki had spent days brushing off suggestions the president had any intention of sanctioning Russian oil. Her explanation was a ban would pump up gas prices, which would impact Americans.  Her boss wanted to hurt Putin not Americans, she said. 

So why did the president pivot? Mr. Biden was not only being pressured by his own party, but an overwhelming majority of Americans support a ban.  A Wall Street Journal poll prior to the Biden ban found 79% of registered voters, including 88% of Democrats, favored sanctions on Russian oil. 

After finally bowing to political pressure, Mr. Biden savaged Putin in his announcement but saved some of his indignation for the American oil industry.  Here are the three most egregious distortions of the facts from his March 8 speech. Quotes from the official version released by The White House:

"First, it's simply not true that my administration or policies are holding back domestic energy production"

During his first days in office,  President Biden signed executive orders implementing sweeping changes in energy policy.  The chief executive halted new oil and gas leasing and permits on federal lands and offshore.  He also paused the leasing programs in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Wyoming.

In addition, the president withdrew permits of the Keystone XL pipeline.  Psaki keeps reminding the media there is no crude in the pipeline, therefore, shutting down construction has no impact. Her explanation may be technically correct, but it's grossly misleading.   

Construction was expected to be completed this year on the $9 billion pipeline from Canada to Nebraska.  Estimates are the pipeline will have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels of Canadian crude oil every day to the U.S.  But Biden's administration went even further than Keystone, 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) signaled it would reconsider pipeline projects, which would delay the permitting process for natural gas and Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) infrastructure. These measures are handcuffing oil and gas producers. 

Perhaps, the most harmful blow to American gas and oil producers was an International Energy Agency report calling for the world to stop drilling for gas and oil immediately.  The report, embraced by the Biden Administration, has ignited an activist movement to strangle investment in oil and natural gas.

Administration supporters have targeted institutional investors, banks and large pension funds to halt oil and gas investments. Shareholder activists put a bullseye on Exxon Mobil, after it announced a hike in oil exploration last year.  Other big oil companies are being hectored to invest less in fossil fuels. 

The activists have succeeded in turning off the spigot for oil producers while instilling uncertainty in the oil industry's future. Without assurances the administration will avoid imposing even harsher restrictions, producers will be hesitant to ramp up exploration or to build new pipelines.

To further discourage exploration and production, Democrats led by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren have introduced legislation to impose a new tax to punish oil companies. The senator justified the tax as a way to curb what she termed "Big Oil profiteering."

Is there more evidence needed as proof Democrats and their leader President Biden have used everything at their disposal to hobble the oil and gas industry and discourage production? 

"Second this crisis is a stark reminder: To protect our economy over the long term, we need to become energy independent."  

This sound bite suggests Mr. Biden wants America to start producing more energy immediately.  But that is not reality.  His plan is to transition to clean energy, primarily wind turbines and solar. Few oppose clean energy, but the transition will take years if not decades.

In the interim, what is the plan to supply enough energy to run American businesses and supply electricity and gas to households? Higher prices will not only damage the economy but will be a tax on those who can least afford to fill up their vehicles and heat and cool their homes. 

When Mr. Biden came into office, the U.S. was energy independent. For the first time in 50 years, America was producing more oil than it consumed.  The U.S. had a 4% surplus of domestic oil and natural gas production for export. Since then, domestic oil and gas production has fallen to a 4% deficit.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that in February of 2020, before the pandemic, America's crude oil production averaged 12,826 barrels a day.  In 2021, the daily production of crude oil never reached 12,000 barrels. 

If the U.S. was energy independent, the nation could mitigate the world's oil and gas turmoil.  Prices at the pump would still rise because the price of crude oil is set on the global market, however, the U.S. would be more insulated from dramatic spikes by relying on American production rather than foreign sources.    

"They (oil companies) have 9,000 permits to drill now.  They could be drilling right now, yesterday, last week, last year.  They have 9,000 to drill onshore that are already approved."

Mr. Biden is either ill informed about the nature of permitting or is deliberately obfuscating the issue to blame oil companies for high gas prices. Oil producers currently hold 9,173 approved permits to drill on federal and Indian lands. Many of the permits were issued under President Trump.

Mr. Biden and Psaki both used the permit issue to create the impression that oil companies are deliberately avoiding drilling. Permits do not guarantee the leased lands hold enough oil to be economically feasible to drill.   In any case, holding a permit is just the first step.

Before drilling for oil, producers must locate an existing pipeline or build a new one to connect to the existing pipeline. Rigs, crews and other equipment must be secured.  Mr. Biden and Psaki made it seem oil companies could just flip a switch and crude oil would gush from the ground.

Thousands of unused permits are not uncommon.  It happens under every presidential administration.  This is not a new phenomena.  Oil companies have more than 24 million acres under lease today, but close to one-half are not producing oil.  

Mr. Biden's use of the permit data is sheer political chicanery.    

Gas prices had rocketed to new highs in the U.S. before the Russian invasion. When Mr. Biden took office, the price of a regular gallon of gas at the pump was $2.39.  It had been as low as $1.80 in May of 2020.  Long before Putin's invasion, gasoline hit $3.39 a gallon on February 2 of this year. 

Prices for a barrel of West Texas Crude were $55 when Mr. Biden moved into the Oval Office.  By February 2, prices had swollen to $88.26 a barrel, a hike of 60.4%. 

Some administration officials and Democratic Party progressives believe steep gas prices will prompt more Americans to switch to electric cars.  They view the run up in price as a welcome development. These tin-earred politicians have no regard for the inflationary impact on average Americans.      

No doubt Putin's war triggered higher oil prices.  But Mr. Biden's policies had already fueled a 61% increase in gasoline. If the Biden Administration continues to hamstring oil and gas production, the economic pain will worsen for average Americans.  Blaming Putin and oil companies is not a solution.  

Thinking of Buying a New Car? Good Luck!

There has never been a worse time to buy a new or used car.  Car dealership inventories are skimpy. Some automobile models, especially lower priced cars, are nowhere to be found.  Prices for cars are soaring near historic highs. Forget deals. Car buyers are now paying above sticker price.  

The automobile market is reeling after the pandemic upended the balance of supply and demand. Supplies of semiconductors used in today's cars and trucks remain a scare commodity. Semiconductors are a critical component in today's feature-rich cars.  

The chips power back-up cameras, blind spot detection, adaptive cruise control, heads up displays, call phone integration, emergency braking, bluetooth connection, power management and many other features buyers want.  That is driving the demand for semiconductors at time when supplies are tight.    

This has triggered near record prices. The average new vehicle price in January reached $44,905.  The previous high for any month in history was set last December when prices hit $45,283, according to J.D. Power. Industry sources are forecasting the average will top $47,000 before the end of the year.  

In January, 80% of new car buyers paid more than sticker price, reports Edmunds, an online site that tracks pricing. Average buyers paid $900 above sticker, while luxury car shoppers shelled out $1,300 above sticker, according to data compiled by Kelley Blue Book.  

The manufacturer's suggested retail price (MRSP) jumped nearly 15% from January a year ago and $7,000 higher than the average price paid before the pandemic began roiling the automobile and light truck industry.  Customers price negotiations with salespeople are a relic of the good old days.

Some unethical dealers are tacking on up to $10,000 onto the sticker price of hard-to-get luxury cars and trucks, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.  Buyers in some markets are driving to neighboring cities for a better deal.  Manufacturers are beginning to crack down on price gouging.    

Spiraling new car prices and limited choices have steered buyers to used cars.  But there are even fewer bargains to be found.  Used cars now sell for an average of 42% more than before the pandemic.   Good luck trying to find a car under $15,000.  Used car prices have added one percentage point to inflation.    

Auto inventories on dealer lots are stingy.  According to the National Auto Dealers Association (NADA) inventory levels at the end of last year totaled 1.12 million units, down 59.1% compared to the number at the end of December 2020.  January's inventory sank below one million units.

With fewer cars, auto dealers are selling vehicles as fast as they arrive on the lot.  In January, nearly 53% of vehicles were sold within 10 days of being transported to the dealer, says J. D. Power.  That would be great news for dealerships, if their lots were jam-packed with cars and trucks.  

Auto manufacturers sold 14,697,837 cars and light trucks last year, the lowest since 2012, and 15.8% lower than 2020. Demand is strong enough to support 17 million in sales this year, according to research site CarGurus.com.  But until inventories return to normal, total sales will remain suppressed.

Despite the depressed sales volume, G.M., Ford and Tesla all reported record revenues in 2021.  With semiconductors at a premium, auto manufacturers shifted to producing higher-margin vehicles, including light trucks and luxury models to fatten profits. 

Pandemic-induced shutdowns continue to hamper semiconductor supplies. The shortage has squeezed lead times.  The gap between when a semiconductor chip is ordered and then delivered is at a record high of 22 weeks, despite some improvement late last year. Chip shortages are expected through 2023.

Car manufactures are taking matters into their own hands. Currently car makers rely on Taiwan and South Korea, which account for a combined 87% of the global semiconductor market.  Chip makers shipped a record 1.15 trillion semiconductor units in 2021. Global sales topped $559 billion.

Ford signed an agreement with U.S. based semiconductor supplier Global Foundries to collaborate on developing microchips for Ford vehicles.  GM is forging ties with San Diego-based Qualcomm and NXP Semiconductors, a company headquartered in the Netherlands but with a factory in Austin. 

In an effort to reduce its reliance on China for chips, last year Tesla turned in house, switching to a new semiconductor technology using silicon carbide materials for its chips. The unique properties of silicon carbide made it more energy efficient and more durable than traditional silicon wafers. 

That is good news for American automobile manufacturers.  However, ramping up production at Ford and GM will take years.  

American car buyers likely will be hanging on to their cars and trucks a little longer.  The University of Michigan, which has been polling consumers for more than 50 years, found that more people today than ever before say it's a bad time to buy a car. 

This is another case of American dependence on overseas companies for strategic components. Car makers are captives of chip fabrication firms in Taiwan and South Korea. It may take years, but at least GM and Ford are headed in the right direction, aligning with American chip suppliers.  

A turnabout in the semiconductor supply chain can't come soon enough for American car and truck buyers.