Point of View April 22, 2025 – Hour 2 : Tuesday’s Headlines

[00:00:04] Across America, Live, this is Point of View, Kirby Anderson. Second hour today, if you would like to join the conversation, 1-800-351-1212. I'm going to spend just a little bit of time, not a whole lot, talking about the Supreme Court decision that has halted the deportation flights,

[00:00:32] and maybe just dig into a little bit of the reasoning behind it. Then I might just postpone the rest of that conversation until Friday, because we'll have two lawyers from First Liberty Institute. Maybe they can dig through some of that and help answer that question as well. While I'm talking about the rest of the week, I would encourage you to be listening tomorrow, 1-800-351-1212. We're going to be talking about the fact that when your kids graduate from high school, they don't have to graduate from God.

[00:01:00] And what can we do to prepare them for whatever they're going to encounter? If they're going to college, what are some of the particular challenges they're going to face there? If they're going to go into the workforce, what would maybe be some of the issues to address there? If they're going to go in the military, so we'll talk about the fact that you don't need to graduate from God when you graduate from high school, and head off to whatever God might have for you. On Thursday, we have Lathan Watts with us.

[00:01:29] We'll be talking about their Supreme Court case and a number of other religious liberty cases. Of course, you've already heard me mention that on Friday, we'll have Jeff Mateer and Keisha Russell. And I think we will certainly benefit from some of the legal minds that will be with us on Thursday and Friday. Let's get into this one. Matt Vespa talks about the fact that maybe this is why the Supreme Court has halted the Tren de Aragua deportation flights.

[00:01:55] And he points out that over the weekend, I would have talked about it yesterday because we had our millennia roundtable. So here it is Tuesday talking about the Supreme Court over the weekend in a 7-2 decision. You might wonder who were the two dissenting justices. Well, that would be Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas. But 7-2 halted the deportation flights. And again, this is a question that people have had. Why did they do so?

[00:02:25] Now, at issue is this. The initial ruling was that the president has the authority to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport these illegal alien terrorists. One of the big questions was a particular piece of legislation that was passed long ago. Can it be used now?

[00:02:46] And the Supreme Court seems to have agreed with that interpretation because, if nothing else, the Constitution was written, what, a long time ago. And certainly that is still supposedly relevant today. So that was the issue. But then the question in this particular case had to do with those in the state of Texas.

[00:03:10] This would be individuals in Texas that were members of Tren de Aragua, which is different than but maybe similar to. You can talk about the differences or the similarities with MS-13. But, nevertheless, the argument was that this group in Texas, who were supposed to be shipped out, were not given enough options to challenge this. Now, there are all sorts of people that have weighed in. But let me quote from a man by the name of Ed Whalen.

[00:03:40] We've quoted him before. I noticed that his Twitter post says, Ed Whalen CPPC, which means Ethics and Public Policy Center. That's where I know him from. But this article refers to him as Ed Whalen at National Review. So you can take it for whatever it is worth. But he is kind of a legal scholar. And he posted the other day on X, formerly known as Twitter,

[00:04:00] The only explanation I can see for the Supreme Court's extraordinary 7-2 order that directs the administration not to remove any member of these putative class of detainees from the United States until further order from the court is that the court does not trust Trump. Okay, so if that is the case, that's maybe the answer to that question. But there have been others that have raised some very important questions.

[00:04:30] Let me again quote from another post from Emma Jo Morris, who said, It's ridiculous that no due process shenanigans were brought up when Joe Biden was importing criminal illegal aliens. But now that they're being deported and Democrats are crying, we must go through them on a case-by-case basis. Let me talk about that philosophically and then practically.

[00:04:57] Philosophically, it is, I think, a relevant question. You have so often heard individuals complain that we aren't actually vetting each one of these individuals before they go. But that's coming from individuals who turned, I think it's fair to say, a blind eye towards the lack of vetting of anybody that was imported into this country.

[00:05:25] So as Emma Jo Morris says, you know, nobody was bringing up this question about, Have these people been properly vetted before they were brought into this country or allowed to go into this country? Were they vetted before they were put on buses and shipped across the country? Were any of them vetted when they were snuck into some of these airports without anybody's notice? And, of course, you know the answer there.

[00:05:51] And so in some respects, just as I've said to individuals who are now upset that we're not properly vetting each one of those individuals being deported, where were you when we weren't vetting any of those individuals coming in? And now if I could take that for individuals and now apply it to the Supreme Court,

[00:06:13] where were you in the Supreme Court when you saw massive influxes of individuals into this country and never issued even a stay or an injunction or an opinion about that at all? You sort of lose a little bit of your credibility, though I still have high respect for the high court, when you now all of a sudden discover that, well, these individuals need their 14th Amendment rights.

[00:06:42] I'm not sure that they do because that now gets to the practicality. Do individuals who are here illegally have the same 14th Amendment rights as individuals who are citizens and are here legally? And more importantly to the practical aspect, if we have to go through a case-by-case basis, recognizing that we have probably more than 20 million people that have been let in, either in the Biden administration or previous administrations,

[00:07:11] if we go through a case-by-case basis, they're never going to leave. I think we know that as well. So again, one of the other questions that has been asked is, where was your concern before? Ed Doherty puts it this way, do you know how many stories I could tell of children who were trafficked across the border and assaulted, he uses a different word, because of the policies of Joe Biden? There aren't enough volumes that could fit into a library.

[00:07:39] And then Stephen Miller on the Trump staff says, we live in a society where foreign alien terrorists have unlimited free legal representation, but Americans whose communities have been stolen from them are left without recourse. He says, we are rebalancing the scales. Well, you can read all of this. This goes on for quite a bit, but it shows you some of the posts and some of the guests as to why the Supreme Court over the weekend

[00:08:07] basically halted the deportation flights, at least in this particular case. And we'll see where that plays out in the next few days and weeks. But nevertheless, I wanted you to have at least some explanation for that, because you probably heard the news and thought, well, is that the end of deportation of individuals? I don't think so. But you can see that the 7-2 decision is of some concern

[00:08:35] by those who felt that it was time to remove the worst first. And now it's even hard to remove some of the worst first. We'll take a break and come back with more right after this. This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson. When I first heard about the survey, I doubted its credibility.

[00:09:05] That's what most people might conclude when you hear that half of left-leaning Americans say that assassinating Donald Trump would be justified. It turns out the survey was conducted by NCRI and Rutgers University Social Perception Lab. It had the chilling title, Assassination Culture, How Burning Teslas and Killing Billionaires Became a Meme Aesthetic for Political Violence. The data included in the report is based on responses collected from 1,200 U.S. adults.

[00:09:32] The research has concluded that a broader assassination culture appears to be emerging within segments of the U.S. public on the extreme left. They come to the conclusions based on these survey results. A majority of left-leaning respondents believe that murdering Trump was at least partially justified. A near majority believed murdering Elon Musk somewhat justified. And a majority thought destroying Tesla dealerships was at least partially acceptable.

[00:09:58] Recently on my radio program, we talked about how Luigi Mangione had become a cult hero because he murdered UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. He has become an illustration of this assassination culture. One of my guests talked about how you can buy devotional candles bearing his image, along with a coffee mug, a T-shirt, and a necklace. You know, on the first day of Passover, the Pennsylvania governor and his family were put in danger when an arsonist set fire to the governor's residence.

[00:10:26] Governor Shapiro forcefully spoke out against the violence. He lamented that it was becoming all too common in our society and had to stop. I agree and suggest you begin by talking to some of the left-leaning people in his own political party. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view. For a free booklet on a biblical view on big data, go to viewpoints.info slash data. That's viewpoints.info slash data.

[00:10:58] You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Back once again, let's, if we can, talk about Harvard University. That's kind of become the issue of the day in terms of higher education. And if you're not familiar, of course, Harvard has said, even though the Trump administration has implemented various kinds of executive orders and actually called for various kinds of actions,

[00:11:23] and even though the Supreme Court has ruled against Harvard University in terms of their admission process, the argument coming back from Harvard University is we will not comply. The Harvard president put it this way. He said, No government, regardless of which party is in power, should decide what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, in which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.

[00:11:52] In some respects, I agree with that. We believe in free speech, and you are free to do whatever you want. But that also gets into whether or not you are free to discriminate against individuals, which is then a different issue, and whether or not you should receive federal funds to do some things which are going against the standard policies of the government. So you can kind of see where we put ourselves. Before I get into the specifics, because one of the big questions is,

[00:12:22] can the government, and I'm looking primarily at the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service, revoke the tax-exempt status of Harvard? So that is our next article. It is written by an eminent professor of law, University of California at Berkeley, John Wu, in which he says Trump could have a strong case to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. I won't get into the legal issues yet,

[00:12:51] other than just simply to say that there is also the question about federal funding, given the fact that the endowment for Harvard University, and I've looked it up, is $50.7 billion with a B. But I think there's a bigger and broader question I thought we'd look at first, and that comes from our friend Victor Davis Hanson. He's been on the program with us before, because he asks a very good question. Do elite universities really wish to fight the federal government?

[00:13:21] And he goes on for quite a number of pages. As a matter of fact, I'm going to give you a good portion of the five pages that he goes into, because he's looking at it from a broader perspective than just Harvard University, although the issue of Harvard University, federal funding of Harvard University, and the tax-exempt status of Harvard University, are, if you will, the particular coat hanger that he hangs all of this on.

[00:13:50] But he points out, first of all, that, of course, Harvard has refused to accept the orders from the Trump administration concerning the chronic problems with, and it's a long list, anti-Semitism, campus violence, what he calls racial tribalism, bias, and segregation. That's a pretty long list, but let's get into it. He says, yet unlike some conservative campuses that distrust an overbearing Washington, Harvard and most elite schools, he's thinking Harvard, Yale,

[00:14:20] Princeton, University of Pennsylvania, Brown, on and on and on, want to have it both ways. They do as they please on their own turf, and yet still demand that the taxpayers send them multi-billion dollar checks in addition to the multi-billion dollar private incomes. And he says, aside from the issues of autonomy and free expression, there are lots of campus practices that higher education would prefer, were not known to the general public. So here,

[00:14:50] because Victor Davis Hanson is at the Hoover Institute, which is at Stanford University, because he's been a university professor in the California system, he really now kind of pulls back the curtain and helps you, the taxpayers, understand what is going on. Because he says, I love this illustration, envision elite private colleges as mossy rocks that seem outwardly picturesque until you turn them over and see what crawls beneath.

[00:15:20] Kind of a good world picture indeed. So if there are protracted standoffs, our elite campuses will be hard-pressed to defend the indefensible. This effort will be difficult because public confidence in higher education has already plummeted to historic lows in the most recent polls. That's where he gives you some of the recent surveys. In some of the surveys, you have, interestingly enough, 30% of Americans

[00:15:49] who either give little confidence or no confidence to higher education. 30%. Then you have 40% that give some confidence. So that means, if you add those two up, 70%, 7 out of 10, either give no confidence, little confidence, or some confidence of higher education. Okay, that shows that less than a third of Americans have anything like confidence in college campuses.

[00:16:18] Now he goes through his list. He says, over the past half century, tuition has generally risen at twice the rate of inflation. In part, that price gouging, he says, became standard because federal aid to our most prestigious schools has skyrocketed hand in glove with the federalized student loan program. We'll go back to Barack Obama, which instituted that. It has become a $1.7 trillion entity in which the combined rate

[00:16:48] of both those students who defaulted on their guaranteed loans and are currently late on their payments is nearing 12% to 13%. In sum, he says, colleges counted on the insured stream of tuition money and so raised their prices inordinately given federal guarantees. He then goes on to say, note that small private Hillsdale College, which takes no federal money and is a guarantor of its own

[00:17:17] generous student aid, charges about $45,000 to $50,000 for combined tuition, room, and board, about half of the going rate in the Ivy League and similar elite campuses. He then goes on to say that half of the youth in the country who choose to go straight to work and not attend college might object to having their tax dollars used in this way. They would assume that universities with multi-billion dollar endowments, I just gave you Harvard's endowment a moment ago,

[00:17:47] and huge annual incomes have plenty of resources to guarantee their own student loans. That way, campuses would have the financial interest in seeing their own students graduate in four years, get jobs, and pay back their alma mater promptly and fully. There's the point. When the government guarantees that, there's no incentive for the colleges to say, maybe this particular major that you're in, or maybe your inability

[00:18:16] to graduate in four years is going to harm your ability to pay us back. He says there's also, this is another concern, no intellectual diversity on campus. Some recent studies have found the ratio of Democrat and liberal professors to their Republican conservative counterparts to be 10 to 1, and especially in the social sciences and humanities. He says there are plenty of conservative PhDs on the market, but higher education is used

[00:18:45] insidious methods such as diversity oaths and covert political bias to find ways not to hire or retain them. Then, of course, we get to the legal issues. The Supreme Court in a recent case ruled against Harvard and the University of North Carolina stating their use of racial and gender bias is illegal under the 14th Amendment and thus affirmative action and associated racial essentialism are forbidden. Yet, he says,

[00:19:15] many of our campuses simply rebrand their offices of diversity, equity, and inclusion, the campus euphemism for using race and gender bias in applications, hiring, retention, and promotion with newer, as he said, Orwellian names like the Office of Belonging or Community Outreach and points out that it's illegal to segregate university events or facilities by race, but again, the university sidestep that

[00:19:44] by offering race-based graduation ceremonies as auxiliary or additional events and commemorations, racially segregated dorms or deemed theme houses open to all but de facto widely known as racially inclusive and points out, of course, if you ever wanted to have an extra white graduation, the university would shut that down and even maybe talk about expelling the students. So again,

[00:20:14] it goes in just one direction. So up until now, he's given us at least three very good reasons why maybe universities would not really want to fight the federal government, which is why if you start reading between the lines, overtly, the Harvard president saying, we're not going to capitulate, covertly, they seem to be hiring some individuals that have been favorable to the Trump administration, maybe with a back door to try to work out

[00:20:44] some kind of settlement. When we come back, let me pick out a few more because we've mentioned just a few of the reasons why these universities might not want to fight the federal government, but Victor Davis Hanson isn't finished, nor are we. Just as we go to a break, though, let me just mention again that we do have our take action item, and if you haven't taken action, let me encourage you to do so. It's very simple. You can click on that button that says take action. You can read about the so-called SAFE Act.

[00:21:13] The SAFE Act has already passed the House. It's now in the Senate. If you want to contact your two United States Senators, we make it easy for you to do so, so simply go to the website pointofview.net. When we come back, we'll continue our conversation about Victor Davis Hanson's piece. We'll be right back. At Point of View, we believe there is power in prayer, and that is why we have relaunched our Pray for America campaign, a series of weekly emails to unite Americans

[00:21:43] in prayer for our nation. Imagine if hundreds of thousands of Americans started praying intentionally together on a weekly basis. You can help make that a reality by subscribing to our Pray for America emails. Just go to pointofview.net and click on the Pray for America banner that's right there on the homepage. Each week, you'll receive a brief news update,

[00:22:12] a specific prayer guide, and a free resource to equip you in further action. We encourage you to not only pray with us each week, but to share these prayers and the resources with others in your life. Join the movement today. Visit pointofview.net and click on the banner Pray for America right there at the top. That's pointofview.net. Let's pray together for

[00:22:42] God to make a difference in our land. Point of View will continue after this. You are listening to Point of View. The opinions expressed on Point of View do not necessarily reflect the views of the management or staff of this station. And now, here again, is Kirby

[00:23:12] Anderson. Back once again, we've been talking about what Victor Davis Hanson puts together. Are do elite universities really want to fight the government? He's talked about the rising cost of higher education, the lack of any kind of intellectual diversity on campus, and even the legal issues that have been surfaced because of the Supreme Court ruling against Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Here are three more. Another one that he focuses on is what

[00:23:42] you might call foreign influence. Over the past few decades, he writes, foreign governments without audit have poured some $60 billion in America's purportedly most prestigious universities. That would be communist China and illiberal Qatar have alone given $500 million just last year alone, and he says they expect and receive something for their ideologically driven sentiments. The Department

[00:24:11] of Education during the first time when Donald Trump was president fined many campuses millions of dollars for not reporting these quid pro quo gifts, and you have to wonder again why we are dealing with a number of foreign students from these dictatorial and, in many cases, anti-American nations, China, some of the Middle Eastern autocracies, and what that has

[00:24:41] done to create a growing anti-American, even anti-Israel protest, and so this foreign influence is another issue that he raises. Two more that come to mind, no protection. Now, on the run hand, the Bill of Rights and its later amendments apply to everyone everywhere in the United States, so it doesn't matter whether you're a student or a non-student, doesn't matter whether you're citizen or non-citizen, but these

[00:25:11] laws are especially operative on those entities that receive federal government funding, and if they don't obey that, then certainly they would forfeit some of their, what he calls operational autonomy. Yet he points out, and you know this well because we've talked about this on the program many times before, he says disruptions of invited guests who are conservative, or pro-Israel,

[00:25:41] or pro-life, or who even question the idea of biological males competing in female sports, are commonplace on campus. Anytime you take any one of those positions, many times they take all of those positions, and you're thinking about whether it's Ben Shapiro or a variety of others, or whether it's the issue of biological males competing on female sports, whether or not some of those individuals have been attacked.

[00:26:11] And he says usually when an invited conservative federal judge, or a Republican office holder, or a traditional activist, or professor deemed not conservative enough is shouted down, or the lecture hall is swarmed with disruptive and sometimes violent student protesters, campus administrators issue maybe a pro forma stern statement about not tolerating violations of free speech, but then they do nothing.

[00:26:40] He says most campus officials either empathize with the spirit or the ideology of the disruptors, or they are far more afraid of their own radical professors and students than they are a federal government cutting off their funding for refusing to guarantee First Amendment protections. So again, this whole idea of First Amendment could be either a carrot or a stick, but nevertheless that's the case. He goes on to say that most

[00:27:09] campus administrators assume that if conservative pro-life students ever swarmed a pro-abortion lecturer, or if Jewish students ransacked a Middle East Studies classroom or chased and then trapped foreign students in a library, they would be expelled. You know that would be the case. Most naturally assume that university's selective timidity and laxity are ideologically and politically driven. He says there's also no guarantee of due process

[00:27:39] on campus under the Bill of Rights, points out some of these hot button crimes and the rest, but let me go on to the last one. If these other five illustrations are not enough, the last one should cause concern because we've also lowered our standards. He says the best kept secret of our marquee universities is a radical fall-off in standards as once defined by their once ballyhooed tough requirements. Our best universities customarily now ensure that

[00:28:09] 70 to 80% of students in their classes receive what? An A grade. Prestigious campuses like Harvard and Stanford have recently introduced remedial math classes. Privately, they supposedly are more demanding campuses know that their prior non-merocratic admissions have resulted in thousands of students who enter college without the high school preparation necessary to meet their own past

[00:28:38] university requirements. When pressed, universities usually point to their professional and graduate schools in medicine, engineering, math, science, and business as integral to American prosperity. True, they are, but to the degree they are, it's likely because they've either resisted university orthodoxy or never politicized as the social sciences humanities have been as well. He says that the universities were smart, they would accept federal conditions to follow the law and protect the

[00:29:08] safety and interests of their own students. That way, they would restore their academic rigor and reputations, regain public support, and enhance meritocracy, the key to their former excellence. A very good piece. By the way, I've still left out some of what he writes about there and if you'd like to read it, it is our second article, Do Elite Universities Really Wish to Fight the Government? But just before we take a break, what about this idea of tax exempt status?

[00:29:38] And John Yu, who is a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, an individual that has also been a senior fellow, I guess his co-author has been a senior fellow there as well. John Yu, I should clarify, used to be also at the University of California Berkeley, but also at the Civitas Institute of the University of Texas at Austin, but also his co-author is an individual that is a fellow with the American Enterprise

[00:30:07] Institute, but they make the case that it is quite possible that Harvard University could lose its tax-exempt status, and that was a surprise to me. And the reason is he goes back to a 1983 Supreme Court opinion. That is one I'm familiar with. One of the first newspaper columns I ever wrote that appeared in the Dallas Morning News was about the decision by the IRS to pull the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University.

[00:30:36] The campus at the time prohibited interracial dating, since then they've removed that, but at the time that was justification enough to actually remove the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University. And the argument that John Yoo and his co-author make is that if you are going to go against Harvard University and remove its tax-exempt status, the Supreme Court created the precedent in

[00:31:05] 1983 for doing that because the argument was you have violated some of the discriminatory policies that are part of federal law. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Harvard University has indeed violated the policies of the federal government and the Constitution with their admission policies. The administration, he says, could further argue that Harvard's failure to protect Jewish students from

[00:31:35] harassment violates their public policy against racial discrimination. discrimination. And so you have some of those examples which were very easily on view after October 7th a year ago with the invasion in Israel of Hamas. And then the Harvard defenders might respond, well, yes, but the three branches of government have not presented the same united front

[00:32:05] on affirmative action as existed in the Bob Jones case. But then the court could go back to some of their other cases, the Bakke case, of course, this one with the issue of affirmative action and a number in that is the case. And so they conclude, the authors conclude, that Harvard could run into a brick wall. That would be the court itself. And if Harvard then takes its case to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration

[00:32:35] could ask the court to expand Bob Jones. It will argue that the agreement of the other branches on public policy is unnecessary and only the courts view that racism violates public policy matters and argue on that case. And so, again, the Harvard defense could be arguing that, well, we have academic freedom and our contributions to science and medicine. But if you go back to the 1983 case of Bob Jones,

[00:33:04] the court ignored the research benefits of the university and rejected that claim and illustrates again that if, indeed, that 1983 decision against Bob Jones was expanded, Harvard University could lose its tax-exempt status. Of course, we certainly could also point out the possible danger to Christian institutions, universities, hospitals, and others.

[00:33:34] But it is an interesting case, and it's our next article that you can read if you'd like to read it in its entirety, about the loss of a tax-exempt status for Harvard University. We'll be right back. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Heck, once again, let me ask a question. What is dark woke?

[00:34:04] Okay, you probably are going to hear this for the first time, although it's interesting, even though I posted this article yesterday for us to talk about today. I noticed last night there were some individuals talking about it, in part because Jack Crosby wrote about it in New York Times. By the way, this article and the one we'll probably not get to today are not necessarily by a people that we would agree with or would agree with some of the things that we talk about here on Point of View, but I always like to go to the source, and this source is the

[00:34:33] New York Times. Jack Crosby writes this piece for the New York Times. He's also written quite a bit for Rolling Stone, and others, and again, you can take it for what it's worth, but they're now starting to talk about online Dark Woke. What are we talking about here? I'll spend some time with this. We may get back to some of it tomorrow because it also relates to the other piece that I think we will postpone to tomorrow, the New Democratic Divide, because you are starting to see Democrats trying to say, okay, what are

[00:35:03] we going to do? Who's going to be our standard bearer? Who's going to be our leader? Who's going to run even in the midterms in less than two years? Who's going to run for the presidency in less than four years? A lot of issues, but part of it is a change in strategy. Jack Crosby puts it this way. There was a time last summer when the Democratic Party was cool. Kamala Harris had just stepped in as the Democratic Party's nominee for president in the waning days of summer. She went on the popular podcast Call Her Daddy. Tim

[00:35:33] Waltz's outdoorsy drip led to a camo trucker hat. The memes were flowing. The party's mood was high. But that point, he says, that moment has passed. And now, of course, Donald Trump is in the White House. Republicans control both the House and the Senate. And except with a couple of Supreme Court decisions, some of the decisions seem to be coming in the direction of some of the things we talk about around the program. So, by the time you get to his fourth paragraph, he

[00:36:02] says, well, as liberals tried to get their groove back, some party insiders say Democratic politicians have been encouraged to embrace a new form of combative rhetoric aimed at winning back voters who have responded to President Trump's no-holds-bar version of politics. It's an attempt to step outside the bounds of political correctness and to be crass but discerning, rude but only to a point. And online, this

[00:36:32] has the name dark woke. The argument is pretty simple. It's a meme, he says, that lives mostly online but its roots have been sown throughout the party for years. He says, in the waning days of the Biden administration, memes about dark Brandon often refer to the version of the former president that conservatives most feared. That's his perspective. Not sure about that but okay, we'll leave it there. And that is the idea that we're just going to be a lot more

[00:37:02] in your face, a lot more intense. And the best example of that comes from this meeting a year ago, interestingly enough. It's amazing, that happened a year ago. It was last May and here we are in April, in which in the House Oversight Committee there was a dust up between then not that well-known representative Jasmine Crockett and of course fairly well-known representative Marjorie Taylor Green and Marjorie Taylor Green talked

[00:37:32] about Jasmine Crockett's fake eyelashes which then caused an appeal to the head of that committee, which is James Comer, a Republican from Kentucky and of course Jasmine Crockett said, wait a minute Mr. Chair, a point of order, I'm just curious, just to better understand your ruling, if somebody on this committee then starts talking about somebody's bleach, blonde, bad-built butch body, that would not be engaging personalities, correct? Because she

[00:38:01] was then chiming back at, of course, Marjorie Taylor Green, well that particular moment became a meme, probably gave a lot of national visibility, Jasmine Crockett was printed on a t-shirt and it got an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel, so you can kind of see that that was if you want to have the coming out party of woke, which we'll call it dark woke, was there. And so

[00:38:31] again, the credo as again Jack Crosby points out for the Democrats goes all the way back to Michelle Obama who in 2016 said, when they go low we go high. And now he says some Democrats want to see how low they can go too. And so the implication is Donald Trump and Republicans have been saying nasty things. By the way, I don't disagree with that. We've talked about the lack of civility for some time.

[00:39:00] But then you, of course, are starting to see more examples of dark woke. Jasmine Crockett, certainly one that is engaged in that. We talked about, of course, her reaction to Marjorie Taylor Greene. How about referring to the governor of the state of Texas, Greg Abbott, who's in a wheelchair as Governor Hot Wheels, and you're seeing a lot more there. And at the same time, there has been a desire on the part of Tim Waltz.

[00:39:30] You remember him. He was running as the vice presidential nominee to actually go out and say a lot more crass things. And the other day, Tim Waltz was saying, for example, when he was in Ohio, I know I'm going to get something right when the Fox News crowd is just, well, he's using some words I won't use, at me like crazy. I'm loving it. Elon Musk was crying, Tim is being mean to me. And so now you're starting to see a little bit more of

[00:39:59] the emphasis of what people are starting to call dark woke. I'll give you a preview to our other piece, and that is talking about the new democratic divide, because it is a divide not only on strategy, but it's also maybe a divide on generational, because some of the younger individuals in the democratic party, and I'm thinking of David Hogg, who is right now the vice president of the vice

[00:40:29] chair, I should say, of the democratic national party, is talking about being a lot more in your face, and so I think you're going to start seeing that there is going to be not only more evidence of the so-called dark, woke rhetoric, but also of a generational difference, where maybe the younger are more likely to do so, not to say that certainly Nancy Pelosi has not engaged in what could be called dark,

[00:40:59] woke, or Chuck Schumer, or a few others that are much older, but I think as we get into some of this tomorrow, a real kind of searching for who's the leader, what is the strategy, who are going to be the individuals that are going to be front and center in the Democratic Party, and how to maybe address some of these issues, and those issues run from, of course, doge, to deportation, to tariffs, what I call

[00:41:28] the DDT, that are point and center of some of the controversy, and even within the party, a disagreement about whether or not we should be for tariffs or against tariffs, a real division there as well. So we'll certainly get into that in the future, but it's just a good reminder and illustration of how much has really changed simply since the election of Donald Trump, how in some respects his tweets have

[00:41:57] changed things as well, and how that may not bode well for any hope for civility in any kind of political discourse in the future. But we'll cover some of that probably tomorrow. Let's, if we can, also mention that yesterday my commentary was on tariff facts. Even if we can't agree about the good or bad of tariffs, I think we can at least agree with some of the basic facts that I set forth. And while we're talking about a

[00:42:27] culture, we've sort of moved, as is evidenced by this research done by NCRI and Rutgers University, from a maybe cancel culture to an assassination culture, which again comes part and parcel with some of the people. I hope you'll join us tomorrow. First hour we're going to talk about just because you graduate from high school doesn't mean you have to graduate from God. And we'll talk about that then. Most importantly, I want to thank Megan

[00:42:57] for her help engineering the program. Steve, thank you for producing the program. Look forward to seeing you tomorrow right here on Point of View. It almost seems like we live in a different world from many people in positions of authority. They say men can be women and women men. People are prosecuted differently or not at all depending on their politics. Criminals are more valued

[00:43:26] and rewarded than law abiding citizens. It's so overwhelming, so demoralizing. You feel like giving up. But we can't. We shouldn't. We must not. As Winston Churchill said to Britain in the darkest days of World War II, never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. And that's what we say to you today. This is not

[00:43:56] a time to give in, but to step up and join Point of View in providing clarity in the chaos. We can't do it alone, but together, with God's help, we will overcome the darkness. Invest in biblical clarity today at pointofview.net or call 1-800-347-5151 pointofview.net and 1-800-347-5151

[00:44:26] Point of View is produced by Point of View Ministries.