Point of View August 14, 2026 – Hour 2: Weekend Edition

[00:00:04] Across America, live, this is Point of View. Kerby Anderson.

[00:00:19] Second hour today, we're going to get into some things that are going to affect the midterms, and in studio with us today, Holly Randall, Meryl Matthews, and I might just mention that this article is one that Dr. Matthews identified, and I thought it was a very good piece that comes out of the Wall Street Journal, Inside the Democrats' Push to Win Back Religious Voters. And it relates very much to the booklet that I've put together and will be going out shortly. It's the September issue of our booklet. It has the title, Woke Christianity.

[00:00:48] Now, the reason I did that was because we recognize that we in the past have written something on wokeness, but there are a couple of new wrinkles, one of which is we have some members of Congress that are pastors. There are some other individuals that are seminary trained that are running all on the Democratic Party.

[00:01:05] And so, in addition to whether or not you're getting wokeness from the pulpit, sometimes you're getting wokeness from the podium, if you will, as candidates are out there speaking to some of those issues. So, I thought I'd just mention that will be in the mail for those of you that are Truth Team members. It's just a good illustration of the kinds of topics we're addressing. But, Dr. Matthews, you found this particular piece, which goes back to Iowa.

[00:01:31] And I've used Iowa in the past because it is a somewhat religious state, but it also has been pretty much more of a Democratic-leaning state. So, in this particular case, the candidate recognizes, well, let's just put the two together. There we go. And because my wife comes from Iowa, I get to Iowa fairly often. And once you get outside of Des Moines and some of the college areas, it's a very conservative group. These fathers are very, very conservative.

[00:02:00] And many of them are evangelicals. Sure. So, yes, the Democrats sort of were just separating themselves from the evangelical and strongly religious vote some years ago. And I think we mentioned around 2012 or so at the Democratic Convention. Oh, yes. There was a motion to put the word God in their platform. And they said, this is wildly boozed. We're not going to do that. And that's changing now.

[00:02:26] Kamala Harris had the Evangelicals for Harris website where there were some evangelicals. People who claimed to be evangelicals had said they were voting for Kamala. Kamala said she sort of aligned with evangelicals or conservative Christianity and saying she was a Christian and also saying that the Good Samaritan. And this is where the issue of the Good Samaritan being able to help the poor oftentimes comes in among liberals. And I wrote about this at the time.

[00:02:52] Yes, there is a biblical injunction that we should be helping the poor. We should be helping those who are less privileged than ourselves. But that is an individual charge. There is nothing in the Bible that says I should go to my government and say you need to take other people's tax money and help these individuals. So what I see from this is the effort by Democrats to say we want to care about the poor and that's our Christian duty.

[00:03:20] And therefore, I'm going to go and vote for policies that take taxpayers' money rather than taking what I consider to be Jesus' imperative is you as an individual should be caring for them and helping them, not you should be transferring that obligation to the government to do it. One of the things I thought I'd just ask Holly about is you have to get to about the third page before this comment is just almost thrown out of nowhere.

[00:03:46] And that is the expansion of some of this was in reaction to the so-called far-right initiatives like displaying the Ten Commandments in schools. And so I thought the trigger point was posting the Ten Commandments in the schools. Yeah, I think that part of this is a symptom of – I don't know if symptom is even the right word. But in the Donald Trump years, there was this like reaction that affected a lot of Christians.

[00:04:14] I mean pastors that I look up to, people like Tim Keller before he passed, started sort of engaging in politics in a way that was – I don't agree with Donald Trump on this thing. Or people that used to be sort of staunch conservatives like David French have opposed things like Ten Commandments in the classroom. So you've had this kind of interesting pull away of some groups in reaction maybe to Trump, some evangelicals in reaction maybe to Trump.

[00:04:40] And I don't know what's quite caused that, but it's made this vacuum where I think Democrats can run a candidate like James Tallarico that says things, you know, like trans people need abortion care and God asked Mary for her consent before he – You've got the whole list. Right, like that's where you get this and people are generally becoming more and more biblically illiterate and they're not knowing the truth of the Bible.

[00:05:06] So they're falling for misinterpretations like someone like James Tallarico saying stuff that's just biblically inaccurate but packaging it in this nice evangelical bow. And maybe someone has grown up in the church and feels comfort by the institution but is moving away from the far right. I don't know. There's a weird movement going on right now that's kind of making this squishy middle moderate voter be really swayed by someone like James Tallarico.

[00:05:34] And it has affected things. And we have to admit Donald Trump came with some baggage. Right, yeah. Not everybody was pleased with that baggage. Yeah. And so they – as they've pushed against Trump, it has opened a door for Democrats. But what's happening among Democrats is that they are looking at this and saying we need – there's people out here who – we need to win some of the white evangelical voters. They get a large portion of the blacks, black religious people, whether they're evangelicals or not.

[00:06:03] And they feel like they are not going to be able to win unless they pull some of those evangelical voters because they are – the evangelical voters tend to go out and vote. And so it's a demographic that Democrats want to be able to say we're trying to attract them with some of these people. But it's interesting. Most of the people who they have as pastors, Raphael Warnock and so forth, I would call them very liberal people. They're liberal in everything across the board.

[00:06:32] And that's just not going to appeal – and especially with abortion – and that's just not going to appeal to an awful lot of evangelicals. Well, again, we do mention some of those individuals there. One other issue is they talk about, of course, the baggage issue, and that's best illustrated by the book if you've ever seen it. Yeah, I'm seeing it almost at every Barnes & Noble. Well, Jesus and John Wayne, which is all about, of course, the issue of the Christian rightists who associated themselves with the Republican Party.

[00:06:59] But the flip side is, again, something on page three where it talks about the biggest issue for Democrats is even if you're trying to bring some religious language or some faith-based language into the Democratic Party, you still have to account for all the radicals out here. And that gets us back to the article just a few minutes ago on socialism. Yeah, I went to a college that was very taken with this woke Christian movement, and I took a – and now I'm really going to be revealing things about myself –

[00:07:25] I took a critical theory class in college because it was a small class, and you were stuck with what they offered those semesters. And we read a book called – and remind you, this is a Christian college – we read a book called Deer Hunting for Jesus. And it was all about how – it was kind of a case study on the Appalachian part of the country, and it was like these people should be Democrats because they need all these government services that the Democrat Party advocates for.

[00:07:51] But they're too blinded by their evangelicalism to realize that they should be Democrats. And I feel like we are seeing a movement now ten years later from when I read that book in class that some people took the message of that book or took the message of Jesus and John Wayne and are trying to package it into candidates like Raphael Warnock and James Tallarico. And I just – I pray it doesn't work. Well, we've got to take a break, but if nothing else, it's just a good illustration.

[00:08:18] Of course, we have the vice president also talking about the hillbilly elegy and bringing – and then talking about his conversion. So religion is going to be in the midterms. And I think the particular commentary that I have today is on the subject of discernment. Maybe that's a good reason to read the commentary and even one of the books I recommend because you're going to need some discernment to think through all the various comments that are going to be made during the campaign. We'll be back right after this.

[00:09:00] This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson. Christians have always needed discernment, but we especially need to develop our skill at discernment in this confused world. One book I would recommend is Why Bad Looks Good, Biblical Wisdom to Make Smart Choices in Life, Love, and Friendship. The author is Dr. Wendy Patrick. She is a career prosecutor with not only a law degree but a master's degree and doctorate in theology.

[00:09:25] Her book helps you avoid falling victim to hazards of misperception that she's seen in courtrooms as well as in life. For example, she warns about the deception of public perception. We live in a world where abnormal is portrayed as normal. It is easy to follow the crowd right off the cliff. That is why her chapter begins with 2 Corinthians 4.4 where Paul reminds us that the God of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers. Another chapter talks about when bad becomes beautiful.

[00:09:52] She has seen this in her experience in prosecuting sexual predators. That is why she begins that chapter with John 7.24 where Jesus admonishes the disciples to stop judging by mere appearances but instead judge correctly. Another chapter advises us to use discernment when bad sounds good. We live in a world where smooth talkers can convince us and our friends of ideas that are counter to biblical wisdom. We should also be alert to the dark side of praise.

[00:10:20] Psalm 55.21 warns us about people whose talk is smooth as butter. Another chapter explains how to react when bad feels good. We live in a world that emphasizes emotion over logic and flash over substance. Ecclesiastes 1.8 warns us that the eye never has enough of seen. If you want to improve your skill at discernment, I recommend you get a copy of her book. I'm Kirby Anderson and that's my point of view.

[00:10:49] Go deeper on topics like you just heard by visiting pointofview.net. That's pointofview.net. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Back once again in studio, Holly Randall and Dr. Merrill Matthews. Let me just mention for a minute, as I've said it before, sometimes we should keep the microphones on during the break. Some of the best comments happen during the break.

[00:11:15] And one of those, Holly, was about the fact that oftentimes a particular religious group will be identified as something that then should be used against everyone else. And a classic example is, if I can find a Baptist who says, I have no problem with same-sex marriage, I have no problem as a Baptist forcing an individual to actually craft a cake for a same-sex communion or wedding or anything of that nature.

[00:11:44] Then they can go to other Baptists and say, well, what's wrong with you? Here's a Baptist. And we've seen this in the Catholic Church. We've seen it in the Protestant denominations as well. And that's another aspect of when we start just confusing people with all sorts of religious language, which is, if you will, superimposed upon this wokeism. It's going to be very confusing.

[00:12:06] Hence, one of the reasons we put this booklet together, just to remind ourselves that in some respects, wokeism is sort of fading away from the businesses. Dare I mention Bud Light or Target or a variety of others. But it's alive and well in the political realm and, unfortunately, in some churches. And it's used against you sometimes when you're trying to defend religious liberty.

[00:12:31] Yeah, I was sharing during the break, Dr. Matthews was mentioning, we're going to get to the point where we're going to be started doing this religious besting game almost and using them as cards to play against each other. And I think what I was sharing was that we see this all the time already in our cases. So you have someone that does not want to make a cake for a same-sex couple. They don't use the skills that God has given them as an artist to bless something that they believe is a marriage that's not biblical.

[00:12:58] And the Constitution, the United States Constitution, absolutely gives them that right. We have a freedom to believe in America and not to be compelled to do actions and engage in speech that we disagree with. But there is always, in those type of situations, someone challenging that says, well, I'm a Christian too and my faith will let me make this cake. Or I'm a Christian too and my faith would require me to make that cake because it's sinful to be mean to those people. And we see this all the time in our litigation.

[00:13:28] It always becomes this game of, well, my faith. Well, my faith. And I think that really misses the point when we're litigating a religious liberty case. We're not litigating the truth of someone's belief or lack of truth in someone's belief. We as Christians know what we believe and know what we think is true. But when we're in front of a judge, we're talking about what does the Constitution allow? Well, what it allows is exactly what the person objecting is saying. We have a litany of beliefs here in America.

[00:13:56] Our Constitution allows for this woke brand of Christianity, whether like it or not. And I think that's Christians' obligation to be missional and to educate people about biblical truth. But this hammer that gets used so often against Christians that is, well, my faith would let me do that thing. Well, my faith wouldn't let me put the Ten Commandments up in the classroom. My faith would make me make that cake. It's like, yeah, thank you for proving our point. We have freedom of religion in this country to all believe different things, and we can't be compelled to do it against that.

[00:14:26] So it's an interesting way that it's worked its way also into our litigation sphere. You know, I suspect the Christian aspect is going to play out here in Texas some more because you've got James Tallarico, who has some unusual beliefs, let's say, but he's a seminary graduate, claims to be a Christian, and doesn't seem to have a lot of baggage in his personal baggage in his life, whereas he's going against Ken Paxton, who claims to be an evangelical, but he does have a lot of baggage there. And if you're just the average voter and you're looking at this and saying, here's James Tallarico,

[00:14:56] who has said some things I haven't heard before, but he seems to have a fairly normal, clean life. And Ken Paxton, who has some issues, especially his wife and other things, it's going to make it difficult for some voters to say, if I want to vote for the Christian, who do I vote for? I think what's sort of sad for me to see, and both sad and kind of personally challenging, is that what you can see these people that buy into this woke Christianity,

[00:15:21] you can tell that they have something in their heart or in their mind that is yearning for creator and truth, and they are trying to find it, and they're finding it in all the wrong places. And I think it just, it's, you don't know if they've been hurt in their life by the church in the past, you don't know what their story is, I don't know what James Tallarico's relationship to his faith is, I just know that he is clearly someone that is searching for truth, and he has not yet found it, but he thinks he has.

[00:15:49] And so I think that's both sad, but also encouraging to us as Christians, to engage with people we know that believe in this woke version of Christianity, and ask them questions about, well, why do you believe that? And, you know... Unless you work for a certain coffee company and you get tired. Well, right, unless you're Paige Rogers, and then you've lost your job, and you need to call for slavery. But she was doing exactly what I guess I'm challenging the listeners to do, is just talk to people. So we're going to have a lot of that if you have a conversation. And ask questions. I think, you know, Jesus asked more questions than he answered, and I've always used that as an illustration.

[00:16:19] Well, Dr. Murr Matthews, let's talk about tariffs, and let us count the ways. One, two, three. You know, tariffs were supposed to be something that would actually be paid by other countries, and you take that on, that that would reduce the trade deficit. That didn't work out so well. And it was also to boost U.S. manufacturing. So are we 0 for 3? What do we got in terms of those three particular justifications? And you might say 0 for 4 because the Supreme Court decided against his use of IEPA tariffs,

[00:16:49] so he's moved to another one. But, yes, this is something that's puzzled me for some time because Donald Trump has frequently said that other countries will pay the tariffs. And it's very clear. You don't have to pick up an economics textbook to find out who pays tariffs. But it's also Ford Motor Company, General Motor Company. General Motors, as both come out, said they spent about $2 billion in tariffs in 2025.

[00:17:16] And more than 1,000 companies sued the administration. This was before the Supreme Court decision came down, hoping to get their tariffs that they paid back if the Supreme Court went against the president, as it did. And they're now getting those monies back. The government's slowly returning those tariffs. And that is actually, for some companies, are saying we're actually having a banner year this year because we're getting back several billion dollars in tariffs we had not anticipated getting back. And now we're getting it back.

[00:17:45] And that makes our profit line look better. So that's one issue. The second thing is the president uses this in part to try to encourage manufacturing here. And I will argue on a lot of things we should be manufacturing here, especially things having to do with national security and so forth. He's tried to bring that back. A lot of companies have come and said we're going to be building more manufacturing here. We're going to be moving there. But a lot of these promises are years long in the making.

[00:18:15] I mean, it's going to take years to do that. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the companies are saying, well, we've got some people out spotting places for us to build the manufacturing. But they all know President Trump's going to be out in two years. And so do you want to spend billions of dollars creating a manufacturing facility and hub and so forth when you may have a Democrat in two years? So that's another issue. And the thing was it was going to pay down a lot of our debt.

[00:18:44] I've heard the president say we're going to end the budget deficit that we have with tariffs. You're not going to get anywhere near that. Depending upon how you count it, $130, $160 billion. Our budget deficit had been, according to a month or so ago, $1.9 trillion this year. They've now just bumped it up saying it's going to be maybe $2.1 trillion for this year. And we're just about to cross $40 trillion in federal debt.

[00:19:13] So the tariffs were never going to get anywhere near that. They could have paid it down a little bit. But this is money that we're taking from Americans. Now it's going back to Americans. So President Trump has got a lot of problems with this. And now he's moving to another version of the tariffs. They're much lower than they were on most cases. So will it affect the prices? Maybe a little bit. But for the most part, those people who had to pay higher prices that were passed on to them by companies,

[00:19:43] they're not getting the tariff money back. It's the companies that are getting the money back. Let's give a history lesson before we take a break. And that is that he wanted to create the external revenue service, the internal revenue service. And the argument was, well, we used to pay for the government with tariffs. But if I remember right, Dr. Murrow Matthews ran the numbers months and months ago, really almost a year ago, about the fact that even with the most optimistic tariffs, we wouldn't be able to fund the government. We take about $5 trillion in revenue.

[00:20:12] We're spending about $7 trillion. That's right. And tariffs have been higher these past couple of years than they were before. But they're still in the neighborhood of under $100, $200 billion. So it's nowhere near what we're going to be spending. As I often like to say, when we talk about trillions, it's hard to get a handle on that. But, Holly, I sometimes take the zeros off. And imagine if you're making $50,000 a year and you're spending $70,000 a year

[00:20:38] and you have a $400,000 credit card bill. You can see the problem the United States is dealing with. Yes, I am very woefully underqualified in economics compared to the table guests here. But I do know enough to know if you were following that personal financial plan, it is not going to go well. It is not going well. It is not going well. Well, again, we won't push you on the economic issues, but we will come back and talk about some of the legal ones.

[00:21:08] But I think it's also a perfect setup for Betsy McCoy. We've had her on. It's been a while since we've had her on. Beware tax the rich because this is always the answer. Okay, if we're not bringing in money from tariffs, I know, we'll just tax the rich. Let's talk about that right after these important messages.

[00:21:23] I'm sure that you've noticed that social media is now filled with information generated by AI. Dramatic descriptions of politicians and music stars supposedly making statements about a current issue, leaning into the microphone, looking into the lens, opponents silenced. It's powerful.

[00:21:52] It's riveting. And it's all lies. Even several national television networks were recently found using enhanced pictures, meaning manipulated, falsified, literally not giving a true picture. So many liars. So much deception. Where can we turn for truth? Right here from Kirby and the team at Point of View. We need your support.

[00:22:19] Please join the Point of View Truth team today with a monthly gift of $30 or more together we can shine the light of truth and dispel the darkness and deception of this day. Give now at pointofview.net or call 1-800-347-5151 pointofview.net and 800-347-5151

[00:22:49] 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 Anderson.

[00:23:16] Back once again in studio, Holly Randall and Dr. Merrill Matthews. And a very good piece by Betsy McCoy. It's been a while since we've had her on the program. One time, I think, was Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York. Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York. And, of course, an expert like you in the medical ethics series. And wrote a piece in, what has this been about? 1993 that turned the whole Clinton health care situation on its head. I'm so glad you brought that up because that was one of those things that was very interesting as well.

[00:23:45] Hillary care at the time, you know. Yes. That's before we had Obamacare. So we want to get into all of that. But her piece is Tax the Rich. Now, I think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had a dress that said Tax the Rich. A $4,000 dress. So, see, she remembers the number. That's what her. And I think why I wanted to put this in here is for no other reason than you're going to hear this. If, indeed, you are concerned about budget deficits. And very few Republicans or Democrats seem to be concerned about budget deficits.

[00:24:15] We just, I think, eliminated the idea that tariffs are going to help us with the deficit. And the idea that we're going to have anything austerity. Well, you just saw Doge. That didn't go anywhere. So the answer that comes from especially the socialists, but also a lot of other individuals, is that we certainly need to tax the rich. And it's become a battle cry for some time.

[00:24:39] And, Dr. Merrill Matthews, as you pointed out just a minute ago, if we are now at the $40 trillion national debt level and we actually spend more money on the interest to the debt than we do on the Defense Department, we do have a problem. We do have a problem. And just so the listeners understand, occasionally politicians, some kind of theme or fad hits them and they all pick up on it and then you hear nothing but that. And tax the rich has become the new one for the Democrats.

[00:25:10] And so they look at all various kinds of ways to do this. So we're going to tax, we're going to pose a higher tax on your home if you've got a very expensive home or for your extra home, and New York is trying to do that now, or your assets. They just look for some way to try to get a new tax in there for the rich because they know it sells fairly well with average Americans and it looks like something that they can pass.

[00:25:37] And that way they can say, we're going to take care of spending, lower the government, we're going to balance the budget or something with this extra tax. It never gets anywhere near that, but that's what they say. Well, and I think, first of all, let me just mention that recently I was in a couple of these states, New York, Connecticut. You know, the Connecticut Democrats are pushing through a mansion tax. Of course, we've been out in California where you have Proposition 40, which would be the so-called billionaire tax act.

[00:26:06] So you're really talking about all sorts of groups simultaneously saying, well, look at how much money these individuals make and how much their assets are. But if you read far enough down, you recognize that only 2.7% of a billionaire's wealth is in something that's easily, if you will, liquid. Jewels, yachts, artwork, homes, whatever. Most of it is tied up in stock and ownership, right?

[00:26:33] And that's why if you have a wealth tax, which some of them have proposed, then you would be able to go after art, stocks, bonds, and other things so that you would bring in all those other assets and you would try to evaluate what they're worth, and then even if they're not worth nearly that much later, and then use that for the tax basis. What I do not understand about all of this is how people advocating for the system think that if they begin instituting a wealth tax,

[00:27:01] call it the Taylor Swift tax, call it the wealth tax, mansion tax, whatever these ideas we've got going on is here, there will not be any more people left to tax after you institute this, right? Like one of the reasons I love living in Texas is that we do not pay state income tax here. That is the reason people want to live here. If they did that, people might leave here. So if you have a mansion in Rhode Island,

[00:27:27] and suddenly that mansion starts costing you an exorbitant amount of money, which she apparently does, I was just in Rhode Island. That's called the Taylor Swift tax right now, in case you're not familiar. I imagine if they start heavily taxing her, she is a very savvy-minded businesswoman, she will not have a mansion in Rhode Island anymore left for them to tax. So it seems like, again, my last economics class was my senior year of high school, but I know enough to know,

[00:27:55] if you tax the rich, there will be no more rich to tax. Capital flight. Feels that simple. One of the things that's happening is higher income people, or very wealthy people, are leaving New York, leaving California, going to Florida, going to Texas, maybe going to Tennessee, none of which has a state income tax. And because if you're making several million dollars, and you're in New York, you're paying a huge state income tax.

[00:28:21] You're also paying a huge property tax. And if they, with Mayor Mandami's pied-a-terre tax, taxing homes that are second homes for them, they already pay the taxes for those homes, but they want to put an additional tax on them. A tax on the tax. A tax on the tax. And so they're pushing back on that, but it is, at some point you say, I'm going to move to someplace where I don't have to pay all these taxes.

[00:28:50] Yeah, and I'm going to sell my home in New York that's subject to this special tax. Along the way, I'm going to buy one in Texas. And one of the other issues, and we've seen this before, is when they go after the so-called ultra-wealthy, sooner or later it works its way down to the middle class. Right. Because oftentimes those people that are wealthy have all sorts of tax benefits, a battery of lawyers, trusts and other things that make it even more difficult

[00:29:20] for you to extract it from them. And so many times, many of the listeners, to point of view right now, middle class, end up paying for some of the things that were supposed to be wealth tax. Yeah, remember the Trump tax returns drama from however many years ago that was? People were so upset that he had not paid, you know, but a small, small, small fraction of his wealth in tax dollars. And I just remember thinking, I don't know that this is Donald Trump's fault. If you're upset about that, you need to take a look at the tax code

[00:29:49] because what he was doing was using the means that were made available to him by the people that you elected. So it just seems like there's always some sort of logic missing from these conversations that people forget. This is, it's interesting because when they pass tax increases, they almost always create some kind of element where people can get out of paying those taxes some way or the other legally so that they don't have to do it. And, you know, even if you're, if you're doing a second, a second tax on people's homes that you're,

[00:30:19] you're living in Florida but you're up in New York occasionally, then what they do are they, they'll just change and change their pattern and maybe they'll say they live in New York and do something else. They'll change their pattern so that they avoid the taxes. Sometimes it's legal, sometimes it may be a little sketchy on some of these things, but people look for ways to not pay taxes. Most of our listeners are happy to pay the taxes they, well, I would say happy, are willing to pay the taxes they owe, but they look for ways to minimize their tax

[00:30:48] so that they're paying what they owe but under the illegal exemptions that they get. One of the reasons is you have Dan Pilla on every once in a while to help people. But again, we're talking about Rhode Island, Connecticut, Washington, D.C., California. Just another mention, California is actually voting on Proposition 40. So some of you might be in states like Rhode Island saying, well, I can't seem to get anybody in Providence to hear my, or maybe people in Hartford, Connecticut aren't listening to me, but there's a few places where you can vote.

[00:31:17] But there also is interesting because the definition of rich has changed a little bit. Have you noticed that Bernie Sanders, he used to talk about those millionaires and then he became, Bernie Sanders became one. Yeah. Now we're worried about the billionaires and not the millionaires. Have you noticed that? Yeah. And so again, these are some things that I think we just need to pay attention to. Again, our commentary today is on the whole idea of discernment and I think you just need to have a fair amount of discernment but also to recognize

[00:31:46] even if you were to try to get as much gold out of the golden goose as you can possibly squeeze out of it, there's a limitation which is in the second to the last piece and that is for many of these individuals they say, well, look at Elon Musk. Yeah, well, it's all tied up in stocks and in Tesla and SpaceX and whatever. It's not, I mean, if you look at kind of the Spartan lifestyle that maybe not, he's more, but even Jeff Bezos,

[00:32:16] okay, yeah, he's got wonderful yachts and things like that but there's a fair number of individuals that are very wealthy individuals but they're wealthy on paper and the only way you could extract that from them is to force them to sell the stock and if you're selling the stock at pennies on the dollar, you're not helping the economy so some people need to think through that as well. Yeah, and the solution can't just be let's start taxing these people, it also has to be

[00:32:45] let's also look at where we're spending money, you have to attack it from all sides and we, like you mentioned that at the beginning of this segment, we tried Doge and it sort of fell a little flat I mean, it had great intentions but, and I don't know what the solution to that is but the people advocating for tax the rich are also the people advocating for let's expand government programs, let's spend more and more money, let's send more money to XYZ thing, that doesn't, the math doesn't add up there. Yeah,

[00:33:15] well when you take a break and we come back a couple other quick comments since we are talking about in some cases blue states and blue cities, Pentadecture's piece is on blue city results and just a couple other quick summaries and also maybe some prayer targets because I always like to talk about some things that we can be praying for we of course have Pray for America but Holly can also remind us of, I think you're looking for the Supreme Court to react positively for a couple cases so we will talk about some of those prayer targets right after this.

[00:33:59] Blue cities throughout the U.S. are struggling. Sometimes their solutions are making their problems worse. conservative scholar and journalist Christopher Rufo convened four focus groups with voters in Los Angeles and San Francisco. He and his team were trying to find out how to persuade voters to support policies that will truly help their cities. They found that terminology is important. The use of phrases such as illegal aliens and law and order are seen as right wing coded terms which can immediately shut down constructive discussion. Better, he says,

[00:34:29] to define problems as rooted in failures of care and concern. What Mr. Rufo's team gleaned from these focus groups is that it's important to frame the issue carefully and then offer common sense solutions that will survive in progressive urban settings that are most in need of sound conservative governance. Case in point, San Francisco. When Daniel Lurie became mayor in 2025, the city was plagued with carjackings, robberies, gun assaults, smash and grab shoplifting, and homeless encampments. A tool that might have helped

[00:34:59] solve the crime problem was prohibited in 2019 when San Francisco became the first major city to ban police from using facial recognition technology. Crime shot up, exacerbating the exodus of families and businesses from the Bay Area. In an article for the Washington Post, San Francisco real estate investor Max Raskin says, Mayor Lurie, a Democrat, has eased restrictions on the use of drones and facial recognition for law enforcement, effectively reversing the 2019 ordinance and passed a kitchen sink

[00:35:28] ballot initiative that gave flexibility to the city's police department. Mayor Lurie also launched an initiative to increase police hiring and has worked in cooperation with federal and state officials to get drugs and dealers off the streets. This Democrat mayor of the country's most liberal city is implementing the conservative principle that says, if you get crime right, everything else will follow. Max Raskin says, it's working. For Point of View, I'm Penna Dexter.

[00:35:59] You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Back once again, one of the things we do right now is to give you a chance, if you're especially listening on the computer, to actually hear the commentary by Penna Dexter. If you sign up to receive the commentaries, you receive mine in your inbox Monday through Friday. Penna's on Saturday. One of the things she's talking about is Blue City results and talks about Christopher Ruffo, who we've certainly quoted many times on this program. Sometimes if you're going to have a conversation with voters

[00:36:29] in Los Angeles or San Francisco or a variety of other places, you need to avoid certain kinds of phrases. But in the midst of this, he even talks about the current mayor of San Francisco, who I've been paying attention to, interestingly enough, wanted to ease restrictions on the use of drones and facial recognition for law enforcement, but at the same time address some of those issues that we've talked about before. Our take action item, if you aren't familiar, is, again, one which came from Representative

[00:36:59] Keith Self about to protect our privacy through some of these flock cameras. So that take action item is there, but I thought it was interesting that even in San Francisco some of the issues we're talking about are there. Next week, by the way, I just might mention Monday is on Christian Worldview, Tuesday on gender dysphoria, all sorts of very important topics, but what about this? Because Christopher Ruffo, who's worked with the Manhattan Institute and has written some very good books, including one on just the whole culture change that has been taking place

[00:37:29] in our society, recognizes that if you're going to get anywhere in some of the conversations with your fellow leftists, especially in blue cities, using right-wing terms like illegal aliens, and I didn't know this was a right-wing term, law and order, aren't going to work you so well. What? But nothing else. I think that if you're going to build some bridges rather than trying to build some barriers, it just is an illustration, again, that many of these cities are dealing with carjackings

[00:37:58] and smash-and-grab, shoplifting and the rest, and homeless encampments, and sometimes you can find some common grain, common grace, common ground conversations, can't you? Yeah, definitely, and I think it's a good reminder to always be discerning, I guess, in those conversations about the way that your language works. I have a little bit of caution on that, his advice there,

[00:38:28] because I think it could easily become a slippery slope of, well, I should be using gender-obscuring pronouns or I should be, you know, so there's kind of a delicate balance, I think, that people have to say, like, do I need to use the word illegal alien? I don't know, but do I need to not use pronouns that are false? Yeah. I need to be very careful about that, and I do not want to use gender-obscuring pronouns, so I think it's just, I guess I'm promoting your word of the day, discernment,

[00:38:57] like our woke Christianity conversation, it all comes down to knowing truth and discerning how to act in circumstances without compromising that truth. Some of the things that happen in terms of terms that are acceptable to the left, how that happens, so if you're talking to somebody in several of the large cities in California have huge homeless problems, but homeless is not the word you want to use, unhoused population. Why unhoused

[00:39:27] is acceptable and homeless isn't doesn't make any sense to me. It seems one way half a dozen the other to me, right? Illegal alien versus undocumented immigrant or something like that. But some of those things are just big issues for them, but many of them are struggling with some of the people, some of these issues within those cities. Right. And so if it means, if you're talking to somebody and you're willing to change the language just a little bit, you might be able to have a good conversation. I don't know why some of these things

[00:39:56] become big issues for them and they consider you a hater if you say a homeless person rather than an unhoused person, but it does. You know, one of the things I always like to do is talk about our prayer deal and prayer issues and of course we have Pray for America and the one that just came out recently was just to remind you of everything that's in the Democratic Socialists of America agenda the platform and one of those I'd just love to get your thoughts for just a minute, Holly,

[00:40:26] is that we've been from First Liberty warning people all the time about the attempt to pack the Supreme Court but if you read that carefully you recognize they just say I've got a better idea let's just get rid of the Supreme Court Well, they're going to run into the Constitution on that one unfortunately that's going to stand in their way but yeah that's definitely something that listeners should be on guard for is sort of covert and veiled attempts to undermine the court's ability to protect our liberty and our Constitution we can see it in any country that has tried it I mean Venezuela

[00:40:56] is the prime example start packing the court you start losing your freedom left and right so it's just something for people to watch pay attention to and that's why my piece in the Hill from a few weeks ago was can a Democratic Socialist truthfully take the oath of office because if you're there to undermine if you're going to get rid of the executive branch put the president under Congress if you're going to get rid of the Supreme Court and put it under Congress you're essentially messing with Article 1, 2, and 3 of the Constitution like they went bowling with the Constitution

[00:41:26] those are the key points yeah so you couldn't you can't truthfully say I'm here to defend support and defend the Constitution if you mean to essentially undermine it so that's one of the key issues and I noticed you know we talked about this a couple weeks ago I think the Democratic Socialist of America just had their annual meeting last year they put their agenda up so you could see all the topics of the things they were meeting this year they did not do that so I was going

[00:41:55] through looking for okay what are the topics it doesn't say it's just going to say we're going to be meeting at this time and this time and this time and presumably if you were there in Chicago at the meeting you would get a handout that would show you what you're but you couldn't find it online and I suspect they're getting wise to us though a lot of the Democratic Socialist of America especially some of the leaders are going on the media and saying yeah of course we want to get rid of the Supreme Court yes we want to get rid of the executive branch they are very clear in talking yes we wanted to get rid of the police it may be a

[00:42:24] long term go but we want to get rid of that some of them are being very truthful about what they're doing and that's going to raise some questions with a lot of Americans you go on our website you can even just maybe type in Megan Romer who is the vice president of the Democratic Socialists of America we posted one a while back in which she actually was interacting with some individuals on Fox News but the one I posted the other day was interacting with somebody from the New Yorker so in one case you know you obviously maybe are in quote hostile territory but still check yes

[00:42:54] and you go to the New Yorker where at one point it was just almost embarrassing because then he would ask a follow up question which was even more embarrassing because it was pretty obvious that we are dealing with people that are really good with the slogans but Holly they're not really good with public policy or even understanding the implications of the policy no I think one of the most interesting shifts has to see the commentator Bill Maher who's a democrat that's a good example

[00:43:24] harshly critical of the Democratic Socialist America platform because it's to him ruining the Democratic Party that he's been a member of so it's interesting to see sort of the inter fighting among the let's would you fly Alexandria Ocasio Cortez says she is a member of the Democratic Socialist of America the local chapter in New York but not the national body because she may be wanting to run for president she wants to be careful about that nevertheless I just thought it would be very good do you have any cases before the

[00:43:53] Supreme Court because I always like to encourage people to pray for First Liberty and I know you have a couple of course we have a victory with Valerie Kulsterman and that one we talked about last week but anything else that we can pray for the Supreme Court is in a period right now where they're in recess so what they're not doing is deciding cases on the merits but what they're doing is they're watching and they're planning what are we going to hear next fall so thousands and thousands and thousands of people petition the Supreme Court every year for them to hear their case and they

[00:44:23] usually land somewhere around 50 of those some 6,000 odd so they are in a period right now where tons of those petitions are hitting the desks of the justices to consider do we do something about that and First Liberty has at least in my time involved the company a record amount of those petitions up there just like Bethany Hall that we talked about at the beginning of the show asking the court hey go fix this bad precedent or change this bad ruling or correct this part of the law that's been sort of out of line and so we are just prayerful that

[00:44:53] they will see and hear those petitions and want to do something about them again pray for Bethany Hall and pray for First Liberty and I thank both of you for being here today most always I like to thank Megan for help engineering the program producing the program see you on Monday when we talk about worldview right here on point of view in 19th century London two towering historical figures did battle not with guns and bombs

[00:45:22] but words and ideas London was home to Karl Marx the father of communism and legendary Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon London was in many ways the center of the world economically militarily and intellectually Marx sought to destroy religion the family and everything the Bible supports Spurgeon stood against him warning of socialism's dangers Spurgeon understood Christianity is not just

[00:45:51] religious truth it is truth for all of life where do you find men with that kind of wisdom to stand against darkness today get the light you need on today's most pressing issues delivered to your inbox when you sign up for the viewpoints commentary at pointofview.net slash sign up every weekday in less than two minutes you'll learn how to be a person of light to stand against darkness in our time it's free so visit

[00:46:21] pointofview.net slash sign up right now pointofview.net slash sign up point of view is produced by point of view ministries of the