As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, the Obama administration sent directives to all school districts requiring them to permit transgender students to use bathroom facilities and locker rooms of their choice. The president and his liberal allies in the press are unhappy that nearly half of the states are fighting this directive. That is why Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote a column defending what he and 23 other states are doing in challenging this administration.

Even if you approve of the president’s directive, you should at least admit that he is going about it in the wrong way. Ken Paxton reminds us that: “Control over intimate facilities in schools has always been left to the states. In Texas, for example, state law says that decisions over who uses what facilities will be made by local school districts.”

In order to mandate this directive, the Obama administration has had to reinterpret Title IX, which forbids sex discrimination in the schools. Back when it was passed in 1972, everyone knew what the word “sex” means. It means biological sex, and does not mean gender identity. The Obama administration changed the meaning of the word in order to push forward its transgender policy.

Ken Paxton points out that Congress know the difference between sex and gender identity. In fact, it has written laws to address both. Congress recently amended the Violence Against Women Act and the Hate Crimes Act to address both sex discrimination and gender-identity discrimination.

He has a recommendation for the president. If President Obama is unhappy that “gender identity” is not in Title IX, then amend the law. Urge Congress to do so. Go on TV and ask the American people to elect representatives to amend Title IX. What he cannot do is take out his pen and rewrite the law. Unfortunately, that is exactly what he is doing.

Over the last few weeks on my radio program I have been talking about the plans by this administration to give away U.S. control of the Internet in less than two weeks. On October 1, the transition will take place even though Congress has twice voted to block this transition.

Republican lawmakers have warned that the administration’s plan to relinquish its authority could give authoritarian countries like China and Russia an opening to make an online power grab. That is why some U.S. senators are trying to put up roadblocks. Senator Ted Cruz believes the proposed giveaway will cause “irreparable damage” and this would bring havoc “not only on our nation but on free speech across the world.”

Senator John Thune has proposed language to delay the transition that could be attached to the continuing resolution to fund the government. He doesn’t think the foundation has been appropriately laid for the transition and feels it hasn’t been properly vetted.

Senator Jerry Moran believes: “The transition should not move forward until our many concerns have been addressed.” He added: “There won’t be a second chance to get this right.”

Some argue that this transition will have no practical effect on how the Internet operates. For the near term, that is probably true. However, Judith Bergman (Gatestone Institute) says that if you look at the U.N.’s Geneva Declaration of Principles you will see that the United Nations have particular designs on taking over the Internet. Bergman argues that the giveaway could, “spell the end of the current era of free speech on the Internet, as well as free enterprise.”

Gordon Crovitz, writing in the Wall Street Journal, says: “The only thing worse than a monopoly overseen by the U.S. government is a monopoly overseen by no one—or by a Web-censoring U.N.” That is why Congress should not let this administration give up control of the Internet on September 30.

In previous commentaries I have talked about how Europe and other countries in the world are facing a demographic winter, but now it seems that America is headed in the same direction. John Stonestreet talks about this in a recent Breakpoint commentary.

A country needs a fertility rate of about 2.1 children per woman in order to maintain its population. The population will shrink if that number drops below that number (unless compensated by increasing levels of immigration).

Greece, Italy, Spain, and Germany have a fertility rate less than 1.4. The United States currently has a fertility rate of less than 1.9. This is a significant drop off since the postwar baby boom that reached a fertility rate of 3.8 children per woman.

America’s drop in fertility has been masked by immigration. Immigrants produced children that native-born Americans were not having. Also, these immigrants tended to have higher fertility rates.

In previous commentaries, I also have talked about the fact that the fertility rate varies from group to group. For example, conservatives have more children than liberals. Christians have more children than secularists. As you might imagine, secular liberals have been writing about this “fertility gap” because they realize that Christians are giving birth to future Christians, and conservatives are having more future conservatives. That doesn’t always happen since universities and the secular media have been fairly effective at converting Christian kids into atheists and conservative students into progressives.

Sometimes it is difficult to see the prospect of a decline in America’s population when you look at the crowded nursery at your church. Christians in general have higher fertility rates. We know that children are a gift from the Lord and rejoice with a quiver full of them (Psalm 127:3-5). Sadly, we live in a world that does not view children as God’s gift. That is why we are headed for a demographic winter.

Although candidates have been talking about jobs and raising wages, they haven’t done as well talking about how they will accomplish that. John Goodman and Laurence Kotlikoff have looked at the economic proposals put forth by the campaigns and found one policy change that would make a real difference.

Donald Trump’s campaign has a policy paper that has the potential of increasing the income of the average family by an estimated $4,000 within the next four years. Here’s the surprise. The policy change has nothing to do with immigration or even foreign trade. The issue is corporate taxation.

The United States has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world. But the tax rate doesn’t actually raise that much money because of deductions and exemptions used by corporations. It has had the effect of driving jobs and capital overseas.

The Trump proposal isn’t something he talks about very much. In fact, you have to dig into the policy papers on the website to even see his proposal of replacing the current corporate income tax rate with a simple, 15 percent flat tax on corporate profits.

Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff says this policy change will do three important things. First it would lead to an enormous flow of capital back into the United States. Second, it won’t cost anything in terms of lost government revenue because the loopholes will be gone and the tax base will be broadened. Third, the American people will be the beneficiaries of this policy change.

You don’t have to know much about economics or foreign trade to see the benefit of this policy. About $2 trillion of untaxed earnings are sitting off shore. Lowering the corporate income tax rate will result in a massive influx of money into the American economy. Not only will money flow into the country, but jobs and companies will flow back into this country as well. This is one policy change that will actually raise wages.

We all know how addictive these digital devices might be, but I was surprised to see an article in the New York Post describing it as “digital heroin.” The author is a doctor at one of the country’s top rehabs and also served as a clinical professor at Stony Brook Medicine. What he says in the article is shocking.

We now know that these digital devices (iPads, smartphones, and Xboxes) are a form of digital drug. All you have to do is look at some of the brain imaging to see how these devices are affecting the brain’s frontal cortex. This is the part of the brain that controls executive functioning, including impulse control.

We also know that these devices raise dopamine levels (the feel good neurotransmitter), which involves the addiction dynamic. In fact, scientists have found that they can raise these levels as high as when people engage in sex.

One doctor who serves as the director of neuroscience at UCLA calls these screens “electronic cocaine.” Chinese researchers call them “digital heroin.” The head of addiction research for the Pentagon and the U.S. Navy has been researching video game addiction and calls the games and screen technologies “digital pharmakeia” (the Greek word for drug).

Of course, you don’t have to know much about neurophysiology to suspect there is a problem. Many parents wonder if these glowing screens are having a negative effect on their kids. They see aggressive temper tantrums and short attention spans. The few brave enough to take these devices from their kids even see them going through withdrawal.

The author has treated over 1,000 teens for digital addiction. He has found that treatment is very difficult once a child has crossed into addiction. In fact, he has “found it easier to treat heroin and crystal meth addicts than lost-in-the-matrix video gamers or Facebook-dependent social media addicts.” We shouldn’t be surprised that some call these devices “digital heroin.”

Are conservative Christians being targeted for their beliefs? Many would say that they have been targeted, but can you really prove that? If you are a baker or a photographer or a florist who declines to participate in a same-sex ceremony, you will pay a price. If you cannot in good conscience prescribe an abortifacient, you will come under scrutiny. I have written about such examples in previous commentaries.

Professor George Yancey is well aware of the penalties that Christians have paid for their biblical stands on these social issues. So he put together a thought experiment. Could he find at least ten times where non-Christians were not penalized when they declined to provide a service. Here are just a few of the examples he cites.

Wal-Mart refused to bake a cake featuring the confederate flag. It did, however, make one featuring the ISIS flag. In another case, you have a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake with the Bible verse that criticizes homosexuality. Pharmacists were sent a letter encouraging them to use their freedom of conscience to refuse drugs to be used for the death penalty.

A landlord refused to rent his apartment to Donald Trump supporters. When the Westboro Baptist Church members found their tires slashed, local businesses refused to fix their tires. The Jim Henson Company announced that Chick-fil-A could no longer sell Muppet toys with their meals due to the CEO’s stance on same-sex marriage.

These are just a few examples, and it would be easy to find others. Professor Yancey points out that he finds some of the people and beliefs in his list to be repulsive. That’s not the point. You have prosecution of conservative Christians and not for some of these other examples even though both groups were engaged in the same behavior. He could not find any way to rationalize the inconsistency.

His examples demonstrate that conservative Christians have been targeted.

Donald Trump has said that he will build a wall and force Mexico to pay for it. Although that might sound extreme, if you look at a map of boundary walls and fences published in the Economist, you find that other nations have done the same thing.

For example, Mexico announced it would create a barrier between its country and Guatemala. Brazil eventually could have a boundary barrier between it and every other country that borders it in order to deal with immigration and trafficking.

Saudi Arabia has barriers with Yemen, and plans to have similar barriers with Oman, Qatar, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates for security and to prevent smuggling. Hungary has a fence and barriers to protect it from immigration. Other European countries like Austria, Latvia, Lithuania, and Sweden have also announced similar plans.

Algeria has a barrier between it and Morocco and has others planned in the future. India has a boundary between it and Pakistan for security reasons and also has other barriers planned in the future. Probably the best-known barrier is the one between North Korea and South Korea.

The big question for Donald Trump has been how he would force Mexico to pay for a border fence, especially since the Mexican economy seems to be struggling. His two-page memo to the Washington Post outlines his plan. He would threaten to cut off a portion of the funds send to Mexico through money transfers.

Nearly $25 billion was send home by Mexicans living abroad in 2015. Trump argues that the majority of that comes from illegal aliens. Of course, that figure includes cash from around the world, and not just the United. States. But it does represent a significant amount of income into Mexico and could be used as an incentive.

If Donald Trump is elected and pushes forward with his plan to build a wall, it won’t be the only border wall or barrier in the world.

We all know that the cost of living varies from state to state and from city to city. The Tax Foundation has produced a map that shows the real value of $100 in each state. Prices for the same goods are often much cheaper in Missouri or Mississippi than they are in New York or California. The same amount of money can buy more in low-price states than in high-price states.

The first thing you notice by looking at the map is the obvious correlation with politics. In general, the low-price states are the red states, and the high-price states are the blue states. The west and northeast are not only the blue states, but they also have less buying power. The red states clustered in the south and Midwest have more buying power.

The regional differences are striking. Alan Cole writing for the Tax Foundation explains that real purchasing power is 36 percent greater in Mississippi than it is in the District of Columbia. Put another way, you need an after-tax income in D.C. of about $68,000 to equal an after-tax income of $50,000 in Mississippi. To compensate, government and businesses often pay higher salaries in these high-price states.

He also compares the states of California and Nebraska. People in these two states earn approximately the same amount in dollars per capita. But after adjusting for regional price parity, people in Nebraska can buy more.

There is obviously a difference in real value within a state. The cost of living in Manhattan, for example, is much greater than living in the Adirondacks in upstate New York.

These differences in the cost of living also have policy implications. Most economic policies (tax brackets, food stamp eligibility) set at the national level do not take in account the significant differences in the cost of living. This map is a reminder that $100 goes much further in some parts of America than in others.