Point of View April 29, 2026 – Hour 2 : Midweek Headlines

[00:00:04] Across America, Live, this is Point of View, Kerby Anderson. It's a good hour today, if you'd like to join the conversation, we'll open up the phones a little bit later to give you a chance to join the conversation.

[00:00:26] I might just mention that Matthew Spalding was on with us last hour, we talked about his book, The Making of the American Mind, which is a story of our Declaration of Independence. If you find yourself saying, well, I'd sure like some more information about that. Those of you that are donors and actually part of our truth team, you'll receive, of course, this one that I'm holding up right now, which was the April edition of our booklets on, again, a biblical view on the Declaration. And the one for May is a biblical view on America's founding.

[00:00:57] And, of course, these are the two newest ones of a whole series that we've produced and we have made available to you. And as I pointed out before, that's one of the benefits, one of the many benefits, of course, of supporting this ministry. I hope that some of you that have been listening for some time that have never supported the ministry would do so. I've even mentioned that those of you that support us for the first time, if you let us know that is the first time, although usually we can figure it out by looking at our computer,

[00:01:23] then we'd also like to send you the Patriot Packet of some of the material, including one of those which had a reference to one of the earlier works by Matthew Spalding. And, of course, this new book, I'm sure we'll put that in one of our booklets in the future, as well as maybe if we reprint any of those, because those are great resources. And in the course of the conversation with him, I just mentioned in passing we had a king here.

[00:01:45] And I thought for a minute, just before we get into some serious news, there was some sort of lighthearted banter back and forth. First of all, the speech by King Charles before Congress, well received, talks about his Christian convictions. Don't know where he stands with the Lord, but he's at least a cultural Christian, if not a born again Christian, even cultural Christianity, I think recognizes that that was the foundation for England and the United States. And I thought that was helpful.

[00:02:15] But more importantly, they had a state dinner in the White House. And I happened to be watching the news where they cut to it. So my wife and I said, well, let's just watch it here. And interestingly enough, I thought it was very telling what was said and what was not said. First of all, there wasn't much said about the differences between the United States and the United Kingdom on the issue of the war with Iran.

[00:02:43] Although it's been pretty clear from the president that, look, Britain is going to benefit from making sure that the Strait of Hormuz is open. But nevertheless, he did talk about moments of difficulty between the two nations and even illustrated that there was a time in which Queen Elizabeth had visited the White House. This is under Dwight Eisenhower. This is my generation, not anybody else's, in which we had the Suez Canal crisis.

[00:03:10] And so he didn't make a joke about it's hard to imagine anything like that happening today. But it's not hard to see how important the relationship remains in matters both seen and unseen. But let's get to a couple of the jokes, which were all taken in a lighthearted way, which I wish more people would do. But I won't get into Jimmy Kimmel. We'll leave that for another day.

[00:03:31] But, you know, first of all, there was an interesting joke that King Charles made of President Trump's love of Coca-Cola because he gave a toast not with wine but with Coca-Cola, which, by the way, is what I would do because I don't drink either and he does not, and then made some crack about the readjustments to the East Wing and reminded them that, well, actually, we as British did some readjustments to an 1814, the Royal 1812.

[00:04:01] In 1814, the British came and burned the White House. But nevertheless, that was the case. Gave a bell from the HMS Trump. I didn't even know there was such a thing. And then also did decide to poke a little fun because he referenced to the fact that when he was speaking at Davos, President Trump said that if we're not for the United States help during World War II, most European nations would be speaking German.

[00:04:30] Well, not to be outdone, King Charles said, dare I say that if it wasn't for us, you'd be speaking French, referring, of course, back to the American Revolution. So a little bit of fun back and forth between the king and the president, or some people have the no kings rule, so they maybe think there are two kings there right now. But nevertheless, that was what unfolded.

[00:04:54] And I think it illustrates that some have wondered whether or not we would be better if we had two different leadership styles. Because in England, the king and the queen basically are involved in all the diplomacy, which leaves then the prime minister to focus on the policy. And there have been presidents that have been quite content to maybe work on policy, but really aren't interested in the pomp and circumstance.

[00:05:22] And you can think even more recently of a Jimmy Carter fit into that category. Sometimes the Bushes did and whatever. Of course, Donald Trump just loves that. And the pageantry, especially in America 250, was certainly the case. But that, I think, illustrates that it just kind of depends on who the president is. Some presidents really enjoy the diplomatic aspect of that.

[00:05:47] But meeting diplomats in the Oval Office, accepting their diplomatic credentials, all the things that really are part of the State Department. And others just see this as just an incredible burden, keeping them from doing what they wanted to do. And so you can recognize that there have been presidents, some that have enjoyed that role, some that have not.

[00:06:11] Donald Trump loves the pageantry, so he seemed to be enjoying that last night and took every one of those jokes easily in stride, as did most of the people in the room. But, again, didn't miss the opportunity to point out that if we had a ballroom, more people could have actually been at the state dinner. And, of course, that gets us into the first two articles that I've posted here.

[00:06:37] One by Jeffrey Blahar, the left is lying to itself about the cost of its rhetoric and points out that when we look at some of the kinds of things that have indeed been said, there seems to be a pretty good connection between some of those very strong statements and also the desire of these individuals themselves to act upon it.

[00:07:03] But one of the things he has in there, which I did not know, is sometimes we're blessed by the arrogance of fools, because apparently the shooter from Sunday night actually posted this. He said, like, the one thing that I immediately notice walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance. He says, I walk in with multiple weapons, and not a single person there considers the possibility that I could be a threat.

[00:07:29] He says the security at the event is all outside, focused on protesters and current arrivals, because no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before, which he did. Like, this level of incompetence is insane, and I sincerely hope it's corrected by the time this country actually gets competent leadership again.

[00:07:50] Well, you know, whether that comes from an individual who was taken down fairly quickly after firing a shot or shots fired at him, we'll leave that for another day. It illustrates only so well that here this rather bright individual did figure out how to beat the system.

[00:08:10] And we have been fortunate that most of the people that have wanted to attack the president or members of Congress haven't exactly been the sharpest knives in the drawer. This man, obviously very bright, figured out how to beat the system, and maybe it's time for the system to do some reevaluation, because that's what he said just before he rushed the Secret Service with a shotgun in hand and handgun and knives.

[00:08:38] They took him down, but he was able to get that far because he figured out how to beat the system. We'll come back and look at some other issues related to that, then move on right after these important messages. This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson.

[00:09:06] Pierre Poilievre is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and recently was on Joe Rogan's podcast. They were talking about what happens when the government prints more money. He explains the government money printing seems painless at first, but if you have an economy with 10 apples and $10, it's a buck an apple. You double the dollars to 20, but you still have 10 apples, suddenly it's two bucks an apple. As I think we all know, the cost of apples increased simply because the value of the money went down.

[00:09:34] He then applied the principle to a real-world example. In America, over the last 55 years, you've doubled the number of homes in America from 70 million to 150 million. You know how much money supply has grown? 30 times. We have twice as many homes, but 30 times as many dollars, so housing costs increase 15-fold. He said Canada has the same problem. The impact of money printing affects citizens differently.

[00:10:01] Washington and Wall Street love it because it inflates the bureaucracy in the stock market. This wealth transfer benefits the elites and hurts the working class. Wealth, as he puts it, moves from the have-nots to those who have yachts. He also reminds us that products and services should be getting cheaper. It takes fewer resources to grow food. We grow four times the food on the same acreage, get four times as much milk from the same cow.

[00:10:27] We use 80% less water and fertilizer, but all this agricultural efficiency is erased by monetary inflation. He understands what all of us need to understand. Money printing reduces the value of money and makes it more difficult to support you and your family. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my Point of View. Go deeper on topics like you just heard by visiting pointofview.net.

[00:10:55] That's pointofview.net. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Once again, one of the individuals that I've been following for some time is Scott Jennings, who is a conservative, an individual that has been on CNN and oftentimes is the lone conservative there and sometimes is on MSNOW, which is MSNOW, used to be MSNBC.

[00:11:23] And he talks about the fact that we have a left-wing violence problem in America. And near the end of his piece reminds us why he feels threatened himself. Think about that. He is pretty visible. He is sometimes the lone conservative voice, sometimes bringing good facts and information, which oftentimes can even embarrass some of the people sitting on the other side of the table.

[00:11:51] And he says you can maybe understand why we're on edge, meaning we're in the conservative movement. He says we've seen three times an assault on the president, of course a shooting of Steve Scalise, an attempted killing of Brett Kavanaugh, and, of course, the killing of Charlie Kirk. There was a plot against him mentioned Russ Vaud, who's been on the program, and goes through enough to say, you know what, I could be a target. So with that as a background for understanding why he has some strong opinions,

[00:12:21] and I would understand why he would, he would actually talk about this, Amy Curtis has done kind of a summary of his talk show because he's now on the Salem Radio Network. So I've had a chance to listen to some of that and have been always very pleased with some of the interviews he's done with individuals. But he says, following the third assassination attempt against President Trump and a wave of violence against conservatives, including Steve Scalise, the assassination of Charlie Kirk,

[00:12:49] it's clear that there is a left-wing violence problem in America. And he points out that if you looked at the talking points in the manifesto by the shooter, and I intentionally don't mention his name, but you know what it is. It says, interesting enough, Jennings says, in the hours that followed the dinner, which was postponed, a clear picture emerged. This man, a schoolteacher with a Ph.D. from Caltech, has been marinating in standard-issue left-wing talking points,

[00:13:15] things you hear every day on cable news and on the left social media websites. He also attended the No Kings rally, apparently, where people routinely hold signs and call for Trump's death. And then he shows you some clips of things. Trump is Hitler. Trump is fascist. Trump is racist. Trump is a threat to democracy. Trump is a pedophile. And, okay, where did that one come from? Well, it turns out that comes from Congressman Ted Lieu, who actually said Donald Trump is in the Epstein files thousands and thousands of times.

[00:13:44] In those files, there's highly discouraging allegations of Donald Trump raping children, of Donald Trump threatening to kill children. Okay, is that true? I don't know that it is, because a lot of us haven't had a chance to see the files. I'm going to say something about the FBI in just a minute, but leave that as it is. But the point is, is that obviously, as, again, Scott Jennings says, the shooter believed Ted Lieu's lies and decided to do something about that.

[00:14:12] So you can begin to see that the words in the manifesto go all the way back to statements made by a sitting member of Congress. Whether they were true or not, they were justification in this individual's mind for taking out the president and other members of the cabinet. So when asked about this the other day, interestingly enough, on CNN, Congressman Jamie Raskin said, well, I don't even know what you're talking about.

[00:14:40] And he says, you know, again, this idea that this heated rhetoric was completely not visible to him. It illustrates, as I've said before, that people view the world through two different sets of glasses. And if you live in your world and don't read the other side, and, of course, this is one of the reasons why Scott Jennings has been so effective, because he reads both sides quite a bit and knows what they're going to say

[00:15:09] and anticipates their arguments and gives them very good analysis of that. But if you live in that world where Jamie Raskin doesn't even know what you're talking about, or, of course, he talks about Barack Obama saying we don't know the motivations of these individuals, Scott Jennings has this conclusion, agree or not, but I think it made some sense when I heard him say it. He says, look, they have no ability to control their radical base,

[00:15:34] and so people like Raskin and Obama have just decided to excuse it by pretending to ignore it. And guess what? Six months from now, six years from now, some Democratic talking head on cable TV is going to say, oh, we really don't know why that guy shut up the White House Correspondents Dinner, because, after all, for a previous president, Barack Obama said so. And so he gets into the fact that there are just all sorts of statements being made. He gives you some others, of course.

[00:16:04] He mentions Jimmy Kimmel. Tim Walsh saying he was hoping to wake up someday to learn that Donald Trump has died. Hakeem Jeffries were in an area of maximum warfare everywhere all time. And after a while, you get to the point where even if that is just rhetoric, it is misused rhetoric, and I think it just is an illustration sometimes of the fact that, as this other article we posted by Jeffrey Blahar, the cost of dangerous rhetoric,

[00:16:33] it would be helpful if both sides would cool it down, but it's pretty obvious where most of that rhetoric is coming from, and it's coming from the left. If you hear some very radical individuals, extreme rightists, make some statements, you can guarantee that the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, you can guarantee that the Senate majority leader

[00:16:58] and many leading leaders in the Republican Party will condemn it almost instantaneously. But I thought the point by, again, Scott Jennings, that right now so many of those radicals are the energy and the motivation of the Democratic Party oftentimes keep individuals from really speaking out against some statements that should be curbed.

[00:17:27] And one of the things that we have posted in one of my booklets that we made available years ago on the whole idea of political violence was a whole section on civility, because if anything, we need to hear that message more often. We need to practice it more often. And certainly that's the kind of mindset that we've really wanted to try to begin to model here on Point of View. But just before we take a break and move on to some other issues,

[00:17:56] I thought I'd take on just a couple of real small issues, but they're significant, but they're small in terms that they don't take time to dismiss very quickly. One of those is the Comey indictment. Now, James Comey, of course, was in the FBI, and he was the FBI director. And the latest indictment is one where I don't even know how members of the FBI

[00:18:24] or the Justice Department can even say this with a straight face. But I thought the editors of National Review did it best. It's called 86, the Comey indictment. First of all, they start out with seashells. Really? Really? Embarrassingly, the Department of Justice indicted James Comey for a stupid social media post with seashells in the pattern of 86-47.

[00:18:51] Okay, 86 usually means cut it. It doesn't necessarily mean kill it, but whatever. Get rid of it. And 47 is 47th the president. Now, the previous indictment, which I think could have been considered justifiable, was obviously one that was set aside because it's hard to get these indictments to be acted upon in the District of Columbia. Understand that.

[00:19:18] But let's, if we can, just simply say that if there has ever been an eye roller, it's this one. And I do not know how members of the Justice Department, the Attorney General and the FBI Director can say with a straight face that this is justification for an indictment. So, if nothing else, let's just recognize right now what we are dealing with, and that is something that is going to go nowhere,

[00:19:45] and just a good example of trying to use the federal government in one way or another to try to involve the government in trying to make life miserable for James Comey. This one will go nowhere, and it's not even worth talking about it on talk radio or anything else, but we mention it briefly here on Point of View. Another one I thought we'd mention as well is the decision that was made to actually arrest

[00:20:13] a member of the military who placed a bet on Polly Market before the raid on Nicolas Maduro, and as a result, that was seen as insider trading. Now, let's remind ourselves that Nancy Pelosi has grown her portfolio 17,000 percent, from $800,000 in 1987 to $133 million.

[00:20:41] Ro Khanna has made 3,000 trades, totaling more than $50 million. Those are Democrats. How about some Republicans? Well, MTG, of course, grew her portfolio 476 percent, and you have Dan Crenshaw, who's going to be now an outgoing member of Congress, even outperformed Nancy Pelosi when he bought stocks during the COVID crash while the CARES Act was being voted on.

[00:21:09] So we've got multiple examples of Congress engaging in illegal inside trading, except it's not illegal for them, but one service member who bet that we would take Nicolas Maduro, he's going to serve in jail. I think it's time to rectify some of these abuses. We'll come back and talk about that more right after this. Where does moral truth come from?

[00:21:36] According to 58% of Americans, individuals determine moral truth. A quarter of Generation Z says society determines moral truth, and morality can even change over time. Only 42% of Americans believe that truth comes from God. I don't know about you, but I find these numbers extremely troubling. It really is a crisis of truth, and that crisis has consequences. Look at society. Evil is called good, good called evil.

[00:22:05] People with biblical beliefs are called bigots, or worse, they're canceled. But there is hope. The Bible promises the truth will set us free, and that's why Point of View is relentless in our commitment to the ultimate source of moral truth, God's Word. At Point of View, we know that God's truth is eternal, and if we stand together, we can help more Americans apply His truth in their daily life.

[00:22:31] Help Americans find truth again by giving at pointofview.net, or call 1-800-347-5151. That's pointofview.net, and 800-347-5151. Point of View will continue after this.

[00:22:54] 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 Anderson. Back once again, if you'd like to join the conversation, 1-800-351-1212.

[00:23:21] Put a couple things on the table, but also a few more that I thought might be of help to you to understand, and one of those is the gerrymandering that has taken place now in the state of Virginia, the Commonwealth of Virginia. First of all, as we've said before, I think gerrymandering is a bad idea. Both sides do it. It doesn't make it right. And more importantly, if we're going to do it at all, let's do it every 10 years, which is what the Constitution mandates.

[00:23:51] This mid-decade gerrymandering was a bad idea, whether done by Democrats or Republicans. But as we pointed out, once Donald Trump gave the go-ahead and even the instruction for Texas to begin to gerrymander its districts, did you not think some of the other states would do so? Now, the argument at the time was that some of these states are so gerrymandered it wouldn't make any difference anyway. I'm looking at you, Illinois, as one good example of that. But guess what?

[00:24:18] Virginia took a state that was 6-5 and made it a 10-1. Ten Democrats, one Republican. Now, I think in the midst of that, what surprised me was to read this piece, which we've posted for you to read, from Jonathan Turley. Now, you say Jonathan Turley, who was he? Well, he's a law professor at George Washington University. I know enough about him to know that he almost always votes for Democrats,

[00:24:44] probably would be the least likely to have agreed with Donald Trump, more likely maybe to have agreed with what was done by the governor of the state or the Commonwealth of Virginia, but nevertheless points out that this is something that really needs to be reversed. And, of course, there were oral arguments the other day held before the state Supreme Court.

[00:25:08] And whatever happens, I think it was interesting to see that as he was watching how the Attorney General, Jay Jones, for Virginia was on CNN, how much difficulty he was having trying to justify what was taking place. Because, he points out, that the state of Virginia was considered kind of the gold standard among states

[00:25:30] up until recently rejecting gerrymandering by having fairly divided districts in a state that's sort of divided right down the middle, sort of a purple state, not red, not blue. And then they elected the governor, Abigail Spanberger, who actually said she was running as a moderate and she was against gerrymandering. As soon as she got into office, first thing she did. And, of course, then, after opposing gerrymandering,

[00:25:58] rushed to create a resolution to the voters that, and I love what he says here, would have made Eldridge Jerry himself bludge. That's where the word gerrymandering comes from. Eldridge Jerry in Massachusetts had created this particular district, looked like a salamander, so they called it gerrymander. That's where it came from. By the way, just passed by a slim margin. Just barely passed with more individuals supporting it than not,

[00:26:28] leaving Republicans with just one of 11 districts. And the point he makes, which I think is a very good one, is that they crafted a campaign which was, as he says, shockingly dishonest and misleading. Each one of these statements, by the way, he makes, has a reference to a key article. And he points out that the resolution itself, which the voters in Virginia were voting for, was vague. It was very difficult to understand.

[00:26:57] And it also said that it would temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections. As he points out, there was nothing temporary about the plan, which will continue for years. And it was unclear how it would restore fairness when it wipes out virtually every Republican congressional district. In addition, the process was used to rush the resolution. He goes and talks about that as well.

[00:27:25] And so he points out that there are just a lot of problems with this gerrymandering that took place. And as a result, you then have people making the argument that anybody that would question it, well, then they were, if you will, judicial activists when a lot of this was rushed through at the last few moments. And points out that when the attorney general of Virginia, Jay Jones, was asked some basic questions, he said he looked like a deer in the headlights.

[00:27:55] Went on babbling about, well, look, I'm really proud of Virginia. I believe in the right to vote is sacred, not just as Virginians, but as Americans. This is the birthplace of democracy. At that point, even the talk show host there at CNN said, I don't hear you answering the question. And he says, the problem is that the campaign and the resolution, as the Washington Post noted, are flagrantly misleading and dishonest. Okay, when you have the Washington Post criticizing it,

[00:28:25] you have Jonathan Turley criticizing it, then the argument is, I think, clear that you would hope that the Virginia Supreme Court would say, okay, enough is enough. But the Democrats are betting on this. It turns out that the justices in the Supreme Court, Virginia Supreme Court, that is, depend on their selection by what? The General Assembly, which is run by the Democrats.

[00:28:53] And so you can see how unlikely it might be for judges to negate a Democratic vote. And so, hence, the concern about whether or not, even though this seems unfair, certainly almost unconstitutional, and maybe even rushed past any kind of normal procedures that would be used in the Commonwealth of Virginia, that that is the case. So it points out, though,

[00:29:22] that if the court stands with the law and throws out the vote, Democrats could fate the ultimate disaster. They just spent, he says, a fortune to narrowly pass a resolution and do so. And so they alienated half the state, who took it rather personally that Democrats were trying to wipe out virtually all their representation in the state after recently promising never to engage in such gerrymandering. They're not likely to forgive this effort, and virtually every Democrat in the state fought to pass this resolution.

[00:29:50] Some of the Democrats have to rely on Republican votes in the purple state to secure statewide office. That's all based upon the assumption that the Virginia Supreme Court would throw it out. I'm not convinced. But if nothing else, it just simply says again, he says, the use of unlawful means to gerrymandering state only further destroys the credibility of the Democratic mantra of being defenders of the Constitution and democracy.

[00:30:19] The optics are not going to be magnified by an attorney general who was elected by Democratic voters after threatening to kill political opponents and their children. That is, of course, the statements that were made by the Attorney General Jay Jones, and yet he was elected anyway. And so, in some respects, what you, I think, are seeing is Jonathan Turley saying whatever the state Supreme Court does with the Virginia gerrymandering,

[00:30:47] it's probably not going to bode well for Democrats. What they're depending on is hoping that most voters have a very short memory. But in some respects, this one is happening much closer to the November elections, so we will see. And I think the whofaw, the controversy in Virginia should maybe be a wake-up call to what is being proposed right now in Florida as well. But we will talk about that

[00:31:15] probably in our Friday weekend edition to really cover some of those issues as well. But just before we take a break, let me also mention that my commentary today is about government and inflation. It comes from some very clean and very clear statements made by Pierre Poulevet, who is the leader of the Conservative Party in Canada, in which he was on Joe Rogan's podcast. And he has such a very simple way

[00:31:44] of explaining inflation. He says, if you have an economy with 10 apples and $10, it's $1 an apple. You double the number of dollars to $20, you still have 10 apples, suddenly it's $2 an apple. It's pretty straightforward. And he points out the fact that the cost of apples increased, not because the apples got more valuable, but because the value of the dollars decreased. And so then he takes a very clear, if you will, real-world example.

[00:32:13] And again, I'm quoting him. He says, in America, over the last 55 years, you've doubled the number of homes in America from about $70 million to $150 million. You know how much the money supply has grown? 30 times. And goes on to say, so as a result, you have twice as many homes, but 30 times as many dollars, so housing prices increased 15-fold. Which is exactly why so many individuals today, especially our younger generation,

[00:32:42] those which we had on the program yesterday in our Next Generation Roundtable are saying, it's so much more difficult to buy a home. Yes, because the price of homes went up, not because the homes got to be more valuable, but because the dollars were worth less. And if you don't understand that, well, there's nothing I can do to help you, but I think certainly the leader of the Conservative Party in Canada, who should have been the next Prime Minister, by the way, but that's their problem, not ours,

[00:33:12] illustrates it only so well between the have-nots and the have-yachts. And the elites, they love it because their assets increase, and it's good for bureaucracies, it's good for Wall Street, it's good for people that own assets. It's a disaster for everyone else. So if you want to read my commentary, it's at our website, pointofview.net. If you go there, you can also click on the button that says, see more viewpoints, and there's a place in which you can also take the time

[00:33:41] to receive my viewpoints commentaries in your inbox every single day. Just simply go to pointofview.net. We'll be right back. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Once again, let me just mention for a few minutes that tomorrow we're going to have Tim Gaglin with us. He is the Vice President

[00:34:10] for External and Government Relations at Focus on the Family. You might remember him also served as a Special Assistant to President George W. Bush. He was also Deputy Director of the White House Office for Public Liaison. He's been on the program before with Penna Dexter, and he will be with us tomorrow as we talk about his book, What Really Matters? And really, that book is a compendium of some of the things he's written about in terms of some of the issues facing this nation, of the breakdown of the family

[00:34:40] and marriage in the family, the decline of American education, various attacks on our faith, increased political polarization, and just all sorts of other issues that he has been writing about. So we will have him on, and he is one of our guests that we will be talking with tomorrow. Might also mention that our other guests will get into a few other issues in terms of marriage and family. So that will be kind of a theme that we'll be running through

[00:35:09] on our Thursday program. Looking forward to that opportunity because we'll also have J.D. DeGantz, and he is the president and founder of Communio, which is a group that really talks about how we can maybe save the church by what we do around the family dining table. So thank you. We'll appreciate that as well. Just before we wind down, I know we've been a little critical of the president's cabinet today,

[00:35:37] and I think we'll be a little more critical of the president because facts are facts. And the last piece I've written, or posted, I should say, is written by Phil Graham and Michael Sellon, in which they're talking about the Trump tax increase. Now what do you mean by that? Because as I have pointed out, we certainly, as we are receiving, and more and more of you now have received, no doubt, your tax refund. I owed this time,

[00:36:06] but most of the time we receive a nice refund, and this one was more generous. But the problem, these two authors point out, is although the government is putting more money back into the pockets of taxpayers, on the one hand, through tax refunds, they're taking more money out through the tariff-driven price increases, which ultimately leave Americans worse off. If you are actually hoping, Donald Trump,

[00:36:36] and the Trump administration, and Republicans in the House and Senate, that you were able to retain control of the House and Senate, the economic circumstances are working against you. Let me give you the numbers. Again, you can read this, it goes on for four pages, so I'm just giving you a very brief update. But, for example, they said that, say by October, if this plays out, that's the time when people start thinking about how they're going to vote in November. By October,

[00:37:06] the new tariffs from this second term of Donald Trump will have cost American consumers and businesses, are you ready? $443 billion. Whereas the tax cuts will have provided them $379 billion. So, obviously, there's a difference. Now, it is not necessarily a one-to-one because some of the people that have benefited the most from these tax cuts oftentimes have been the middle class and lower middle class

[00:37:35] because no taxes on overtime or tips and things of that nature. But, again, they've even said that if the president successfully restores his tariffs to the level they were before the Supreme Court ruled against him in February, the tariff tax in 2026 could be 44% larger than the new tax cuts which were found in the big, beautiful bill. And the CBO, that's the Congressional Budget Office,

[00:38:05] which is supposed to be nonpartisan and generally is pretty close to that, estimates that businesses are absorbing maybe 30% of the tariffs while consumers are paying 70%. And so, this particular issue goes on to talk about the fact that the president could argue that the tax cuts are a benefit and the tariffs are something that we need to do in order to make us more competitive. But voters might not necessarily

[00:38:34] see it that way. He points out, too, that really many of the so-called tax cuts, if you will, in the big, beautiful bill were those that probably would have been extended even if Democrats were in control of the House. And so, as a result, you don't get any credit for doing what probably both parties would have done. And on the issue of tariffs, again, they point out that Donald Trump believed that tariffs replacing income tax would be popular.

[00:39:03] But if you look back over the American history, we can talk about the Townsend Acts of 1777, for example, or we can talk about the American Revolution, we can talk about Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s, or even the tariffs of the 1890, McCannily tariffs, whenever, they were never popular with the American people. So, there is every reason to believe that right now it is quite possible that Republicans

[00:39:33] won't win the House and be lucky to keep the Senate if for no other reason than because of affordability, which has become kind of a theme there in 2026. So, if you'd like to read a little bit more, it's a reminder that, yes, indeed, government has been putting more money back in your pockets because of some of the tax refunds, but then it's taking it away from your pockets because of some

[00:40:02] of the tariff-driven price increases as well. So, it's our last article there, and I thought just before we run out of time, I would address one other of these really short stories, and that is you perhaps over the last couple of weeks have seen these claims being made that we found evidence of Noah's Ark. No, we haven't. And this is something we've talked about on Point of View. First time I ever actually was on Point of View

[00:40:31] back in the 1980s, we even had a person on the program with what was called the Ark Report that was reporting on, in many cases, supposed sightings of the Ark and really dealing with a lot of these false rumors. Well, there's one in which they found something that looks like a ship-shaped reformation, and that that is actually Noah's Ark. There's a lot of reasons for that. First of all, it was first publicized by Ron Wyatt,

[00:41:01] somebody we used to talk about quite often here on Point of View. The same man that said he found the Ark of the Covenant under Jerusalem and the chariot wheels of Pharaoh and all those kinds of things without any archaeological training. Second of all, individuals that actually are holding to this, not a one of them holds to that if they're credentialed archaeologists. This is what's called a sincline, a sedimentary rock,

[00:41:29] and it is not something that could be left by Noah's Ark or was. Then you have papers. There was a peer-reviewed paper that came out, and this is back in 1996, the bogus Noah's Ark from Turkey exposed as a common geological structure. So if nothing else, you can go back and find that. And then the argument that we have ground penetrating radar that shows that these maybe had

[00:41:59] some right angles or corridors, no, that isn't the case. And the man actually promoting all this is not the lead archaeologist, but a person with no degrees in archaeology, no peer-reviewed publications, and a reason to completely set aside some of these claims. So as we have talked about with our good friend Jeremiah Johnston, he has posted some of this, which I'm reading from right now on the Christian Thinkers

[00:42:28] Society website, and it's just one more reason why if we really want to be credible, let's bring on some of these individuals who have great credibility, like Jeremiah Johnston, Titus, Kennedy, and another one, Paul, later is going to be coming on with this as well. So I think we will have some very gifted individuals, but if nothing else, this is just one more one of those false statements,

[00:42:58] hoaxes that needs to be set aside. I thought I'd mention that today here on Point of View. Well, we're out of time, so let's, if we can, get to some very important issues tomorrow. I want to thank Megan for help engineering the program. Steve, thank you for producing the program. We'll see you back here tomorrow, right here on Point of View. Have you ever met a child you knew would do great things? They displayed remarkable imagination, understanding, and a zest for learning. Now imagine someone takes that child, and instead of fostering their potential

[00:43:28] with a real education, they feed them nothing but lies. You know, that scenario isn't so far from reality. From a young age, Americans are fed a consistent stream of distorted facts, from the secular indoctrination they receive in many public schools, to the biases presented as fact in many colleges and universities, to the barrage of misinformation from the mainstream media, and the lack of moral grounding in our society. It's not that Americans aren't capable of understanding the truth,

[00:43:58] it's that they aren't exposed to it enough. You can expose more Americans to the truth when you give to Point of View, where listeners receive facts, perspective, and biblical truth they don't get from society. As long as we have truth, we have hope. Give today at pointofview.net or call 1-800-347-5151 pointofview.net and 1-800-347-5151

[00:44:27] Point of View is produced by Point of View Ministries.