Point of View August 28, 2025 – Hour 2 : Updates in the News

[00:00:04] Across America, Live, this is Point of View, Anderson. Second hour today, let's if we can get back to something I started the program with yesterday by talking about that shooting that took place in Minneapolis, Minnesota at the Annunciation Catholic School.

[00:00:32] Now at the time we didn't know as much as we found out later in the day, but at that point I was doing an interview on a very good book which I would highly recommend, what Gen Z really wants to know about God, and so that was a great interview, but there wasn't really a chance to break in to talk about the fact that we've learned a little bit more. What have we learned? We'll probably cover much more of that tomorrow on our Friday weekend edition, but the man that carried this out was originally named Robert Paul Westman,

[00:01:01] but at the age of 17 he and his mother applied to legally change his name to Robin M. Westman, and also to change his gender identity. Which of course then gets you into the whole issue of transgender. This has some similarity to what happened in Nashville and in other places where he actually attended the school.

[00:01:23] As a matter of fact, his mother actually had a job there at the church and even donated to the scholarship fund, so in some respects there is a lot of similarity. But there are a few things that we can talk about. First of all, it was sort of amazing to me how the legacy press was just falling all over itself to try to make sure that if it used a pronoun, it used the preferred pronouns.

[00:01:53] One of the pieces I've put forward for tomorrow from Jim Garrity, I love what he says, you know, using preferred pronouns on an individual, that privilege gets rescinded when you murder an eight-year-old and a ten-year-old in cold blood. And again, he says, what are we worried about offending a now dead gunman?

[00:02:12] And again, points out that if you look at the number of times these press reports either did where they used gender-neutral terms like the shooter or the perpetrator, even instead of the gunman. So you can see that. But then some other people, I know Rothman's pointed out, we have had a philosophy, and we use it here at Point of View where we don't mention the name.

[00:02:35] I only did make the point, but we have not mentioned the name because there's pretty good evidence that some of these individuals that do engage in mass shootings do that for the recognition they will receive. And so there has been a real attempt in many cases to avoid naming the names, and that went out the window when this individual turned out to be in the transgender world.

[00:03:03] And we heard time and time again the name Robin. So that's something to think about. But maybe the most disturbing, and we've seen this over the years when we've had terrorist attacks, and we saw it yesterday with the New York Times. Again, I give you quotes from the New York Times. I oftentimes post articles from the New York Times. But the writers there really need to think through what they're doing because so often when this comes out, their favorite line is,

[00:03:33] the motive of this particular shooter, or in this case perpetrator, they don't even sometimes use the word gunman, is a mystery. And as I've said before, it's not a mystery. What was his motive? To kill people in the Catholic Church. And I think that's a pretty obvious motive. We've also talked about the fact that he graduated from elementary school there. His mother worked there.

[00:03:57] He is really upset about this kind of education maybe that he received, and how now if he is going through a transition, and we'll find out more about that later, it's really not a mystery, especially when we look at the gun. And it was only late in the day that I found out all the things that were written on the gun, including things like Israel must fall, kill the Jews. Of course, kill Donald Trump was on the gun stock.

[00:04:28] Where is your God was one of those. There are two that I can't even refer to because they use swear words, but you kind of get the idea. So, of course, the other thing I thought I would mention just real quickly is that whenever this happens, what a horrific tragedy. And I've heard some individuals saying, I've got a seven-year-old or a nine-year-old. It'll soon be an eight-year-old or a ten-year-old. Or I've got grandchildren that are that age. I do as well.

[00:04:56] And you can imagine the horror that you would feel and experience. And it would change your life forever of losing those individuals. The first thing you would simply say is, well, my thoughts go to those of you that are struggling with that. And I certainly want to pray for comfort. And yet, how many times yesterday did we see, and I'm not just talking about the mayor of Minneapolis, but I'm talking about some of the talking heads saying,

[00:05:25] I've had it with this idea of thoughts and prayers. And I almost seem to be an attack on. We've already, first of all, attacked a Christian school. We've attacked kids actually in a Catholic situation. And we then attack the people that make some of those statements. But the argument is always made, forget your thoughts and prayers. Let's implement more gun control. And, of course, that's the reflexive reaction.

[00:05:55] But let's, if we can, at least be honest enough to say that in the state of Minnesota, you probably have more gun control laws than many other places around the country. And so, yes, maybe you could make the case, if there is a shooting in Texas, which we had a while back near the border, that was maybe allowed because we have a much easier time to obtain guns.

[00:06:23] But when the shootings take place in New York, they take place in Minnesota, they take place in Illinois, they take place in California, you already have very restrictive gun laws. This is an individual that, as far as we can tell, there's no evidence to the contrary, that he acted alone, had no criminal history. He's 23 years of age. If you have to be 21 to buy a handgun, which he had,

[00:06:51] or 18 years old to buy a rifle or shotgun, which he had, then he could purchase them legally. The question, of course, is, were those available to him when his, now her, mother, whatever pronoun you want to use, began to manifest some of these problems, which were evident on his social media? And more importantly, Minnesota is one of those few states that have what are called red flag laws.

[00:07:20] Those went into effect over a year ago, January 1st, 2024. But again, no one felt the need to file a petition against him for extreme risk protection. So we can go through some more of that maybe tomorrow. But then some of the questions are, how did the media cover it? If indeed you think we need more gun control,

[00:07:45] what might that be given the fact that this took place in a state with very restrictive gun control laws, including red flag laws and a variety of other issues? So even though we didn't cover as much of it yesterday, I did want to mention it again today. Maybe we can get into a little more of the detail tomorrow. But that is certainly an issue that will be front and center for some time and should be. We should never, whether it's a shooting in Chicago

[00:08:13] or whether it's now the lack of any kind of murders in Washington, D.C. ever become so commonplace that we never really want to cover them. And we do need to cover those. And we did and mentioned them yesterday. But there were other issues which we didn't get into. And I wanted to try to rectify that by covering that briefly in our first segment in the second hour. But let's get back to some of the issues we've posted for you to consider.

[00:08:41] And we'll come back after the news to get into those very quickly. This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson. Earlier this month, a federal judge struck down a government regulation that protected the little sisters of the poor. Once again, they will have to go to court.

[00:09:10] The case has been going on for more than a decade. When we discussed it recently, only one of my guests said that she first heard about it and studied it while in law school. When the Obama administration crafted the Affordable Care Act, they required that employer-sponsored insurance cover the cost of contraception. The nuns asked for an accommodation under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The case was only resolved near the end of the first term of the Trump administration when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the sisters 7 to 2. That should have been the end of the case.

[00:09:39] But two attorneys generals in Pennsylvania and New Jersey were joined by other blue state attorneys general who focused one part of the Supreme Court argument. They were eventually able to convince the federal judge to rule against the little sisters of the poor. This story illustrates how far liberals and progressives will go to force people to adopt their social and political views and subordinate their religious convictions. These nuns do not need contraception, which can also include abortifacients,

[00:10:09] but the persistence of these attorneys general and other Democratic leaders who are forcing this issue should be a warning to what might be coming. They aren't just trying to win the battle of ideas. These politicians have continued to keep this case alive and to attack the nuns who have already been through more than a decade of litigation. In one sense, this case with the little sisters of the poor is a preview of coming attractions. The leaders of these blue states have demonstrated they will demand complete obedience

[00:10:36] to whatever authoritarian rules they enact once they are in power. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view. For a free booklet on a biblical view of intelligent design, go to viewpoints.info slash intelligent design. viewpoints.info slash intelligent design. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. If you happen to be listening to the program yesterday,

[00:11:06] we talked a little bit about the origin of the Federal Reserve, talked about some of the back and forth on the Federal Reserve between the chairman, Jerome Powell, and, of course, Donald Trump. But I thought we would come back to it in a different way by posting this piece by Peter Navarro. Now, first of all, Peter Navarro serves right now for the president as an individual that is in the Office of Trade and Manufacturing. He, in the past, served under Donald Trump in the Office of Trade and Manufacturing

[00:11:35] in the National Trade Council. If you're not familiar with him, he served as a professor at the University of California at Irvine. Certainly brings a lot to the table, but also was convicted of contempt of Congress and became the first person to actually go to jail over contempt of Congress. There have been many other individuals that have been found guilty of contempt of Congress, and they never actually spent any time behind bars. But I do that to help you understand who we're talking about.

[00:12:05] He obviously is in the Trump administration. He obviously has a bias. But just because he does doesn't mean we shouldn't hear those voices along with many of the others that may be critical of the administration. And the point he's making is simply this. Last week, the Federal Reserve Chairman, Jerome Powell, went to Jackson Hole, Wisconsin, Wyoming, as they do every time this year, and admitted a couple of things in his speech.

[00:12:34] And one of those is that the tariffs were not fueling inflation. I've been trying to help you understand that this whole question about tariffs is more complicated. And one of the things I would highly recommend, if you'd like to go to school on that, is go to my commentary, which was yesterday. That's the August 27th commentary on paying tariffs. Because I really wanted you to understand,

[00:13:01] it's much more complicated than you'd be led to believe by listening to some of the legacy press, or even individuals that try to explain it briefly, but don't go into the details. So you can do a little bit of a research there. But, nevertheless, Peter Navarro, I think, took as at least a success that finally, begrudgingly, the Federal Reserve Chairman had to admit that, you know, maybe tariffs aren't as bad as everybody was saying they were going to be.

[00:13:30] At most, he says, tariffs create a one-time adjustment in prices, not the kind of runaway spiral that demands punishing rate hikes. And even that one-time bump may be negligible if, as we've argued, foreign exporters, not American consumers, shoulder most of the burden. As a matter of fact, we've got some pretty evidence that that is the case. The implication, he says, is clear. Whether the impact is zero, or merely a one-time step-up in prices,

[00:13:58] there's absolutely no justification for the Federal Reserve to hide behind this, well, there's some uncertainty about tariffs, so that gives us a reason for not to reduce the insurance rates, interest rates, interest rates, excuse me. He says, really, this is historic epiphany from the Fed chair, who is long misunderstood, he says, Trumponomics, than the four beautiful horsemen of economic growth and price stability. That would be tax cuts,

[00:14:28] deregulation, strategic energy dominance, and fair trade. And he believes that, indeed, that has been the case. And after the speech, given by the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell, the Dow Jones smashed through its 45,000 ceiling. So, that was good, and I think a suggestion, that come September, which is just around the corner, just remember, Labor Day is Monday, and, indeed,

[00:14:58] there is going to, most likely be, a rate cut, and many people are now arguing, it shouldn't be 25 basis points, it needs to be a lot more. What, again, Peter Navarro says, is memo to Jerome Powell, every one of America's major trading partners, the same countries driving our $1 trillion annual trade deficit, is deeply dependent upon access to the U.S. market,

[00:15:25] when Trump slaps on tariffs, it is the exporters, not the consumers, who shoulder the burden. Without U.S. demand, the economies falter, so pay the tariff piper, our trading partners must. And so he goes on to begin to remind us of the question about the interest rates. He says, American families are already being crushed by the world's highest mortgage rates,

[00:15:53] small businesses can't afford credit, and exporters face a dollar so overvalued, that prices them out of the global markets. As a result, he points out, that we live in a world now, this might be news to a lot of you, that the U.S. economy combines the world's highest policy rates, and mortgage rates with the world's strongest currency,

[00:16:20] which is a triple hit to those of us in America that want to export our products overseas. So again, he says that small businesses reliant on bank credit rather than Wall Street bond markets, face double-digit loan rates that suffocate job creation. And consumers pay more on everything from credit cards to auto loans.

[00:16:45] And so he points out that even a token 25 basis points, which would be one quarter of a percent, cut in September is not enough. He's, of course, making the argument that, number one, tariffs aren't as bad as you kept telling us, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. And number two, you've got to cut the interest rates more, not 25 basis points, not 50 basis points. He says 100 basis points. In other words, a full percent of interest.

[00:17:15] And that would make a real difference in terms of people wanting to buy homes, make a real difference in our ability to sell American goods overseas, and certainly be a benefit to small business. So you can see why there's a push back and forth between the Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and, of course, Donald Trump. Tomorrow, we have Dr. Miro Matthews with us,

[00:17:38] and he has strong comments to say about whether or not the president can remove one of the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve. As I pointed out, I don't think it's going to stand any constitutional muster, but we'll hear from Dr. Miro Matthews tomorrow on that regard. But just before we take a break, let me just mention my commentary today is about the Little Sisters of the Poor. And that, I think, illustrates again why we should be concerned,

[00:18:08] even in these upcoming elections, because the Little Sisters of the Poor have been in court for year after year after year, and it looks like they're going to have to go back to the court again. Now, to give you some of the history, we'll go back to when the Obama Administration crafted what was called the Affordable Care Act, oftentimes called Obamacare. And that required that employer-sponsored insurance needed to cover a number of things and the cost of contraception.

[00:18:38] By the way, especially when we had abortion legal, that also meant that many of these contraceptives were abortifacients. Well, you can imagine why the Little Sisters of the Poor nuns were not really interested in contraception. They didn't need it. Second of all, it would certainly violate their religious convictions. So they sought an accommodation under what was called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

[00:19:08] Well, it lingered in the court. It was never completely resolved. There was a resolution of Hobby Lobby, but that was not necessarily applicable to the Little Sisters of the Poor. So when Donald Trump came into office, eventually, they were able to put together an accommodation, and that went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor, seven to two. That'd be the end of it, you would think, and you would be wrong, because it turns out that two of those states,

[00:19:38] in these attorneys general, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, actually wanted to go back and find another justification, and they were able to find at least one federal judge that agreed that indeed the way in which this particular accommodation was crafted by the Trump administration was not going to stand constitutional muster. So once again, the Little Sisters of the Poor have to go back to court.

[00:20:05] I suspect eventually it will go to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will rule in their favor. But I think it illustrates something that we need to understand, and that is the real demand that came from these attorneys general in these two states, and from others, by the way. There were a number of other states that wanted to join in later on,

[00:20:30] that even on something as simple as whether or not to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to have in their health care policy contraception, they wouldn't give up, and they would bring this case again. And these are the individuals that you get to vote for or vote against in the next election. These are the individuals that are convinced that once we have passed an edict,

[00:20:57] there is no deviation even for any kind of religious accommodation. You've heard us talk about that before here on Point of View, and I think this case of the Little Sisters of the Poor illustrates that particular progressive mindset is not going to give up, even when it involves the Little Sisters of the Poor. I think it's a lesson to be learned, and certainly we would encourage you to read the commentary and learn from that for this next election.

[00:21:27] We'll be right back. The Bible tells us not to worry, and yet there is a lot of worrying stuff in our world today. Thankfully, the Bible doesn't stop at telling us not to worry. God gives us a next step. He says we need to pray. But sometimes even knowing what to pray can be difficult,

[00:21:52] and that is why Point of View has relaunched our Pray for America movement, a series of weekly emails to guide you in prayer for our nation. Each week, you'll receive a brief update about a current issue affecting Americans, along with a written prayer that you can easily share with others. We'll also include a short free resource for you in each email, so you can learn more about the issue at hand.

[00:22:21] Will you commit to pray for America? Go to pointofview.net, click on the Pray for America banner at the top of the page to subscribe. Again, that's pointofview.net, click on the Pray for America banner. Let's pray together for God to make a difference in America. Point of View will continue after this.

[00:22:57] 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. It is, of course, time to get back to school. And just the other day, we talked about the southern surge,

[00:23:20] in which you had four different states where they've actually improved dramatically in terms of the public school system. And there are some very good reasons for that. And I thought we might talk about universities for just a minute, because there's this very good piece by Christopher Mullen, who actually has served in the state of Florida, in which he points out that Florida universities have become world class.

[00:23:45] The Sunshine State universities are in the top tier of the Washington Monthly's rankings, thanks to strong public governance and some things that have been taking place even before and then during the fact that Ron DeSantis has been governor. He points out, for example, that Florida is a national leader in higher education with universities that focus on success. He says Florida is known for a number of things, theme parks, retirement communities,

[00:24:13] but academic excellence is typically not one of those. But if you think about it, the state doesn't have any prestigious Ivy League-like schools. But, as he points out, numbers don't lie. The Washington Monthly's 2025 Best Colleges for Your Tuition and Tax Dollars, seven universities in Florida rank on the top 100. And they include, of course, the state universities that you're very familiar with, Florida International, the university as well, University of Central Florida,

[00:24:43] New College, and on and on. And we've mentioned in the past, just last week, we got talking about former Senator Ben Sasse, who left the Senate to become a president in Florida. He's not there now. But you have some really pretty good universities. And so he asks, and then answers a pretty good question. And that is, well, why are these universities where they are? He says, well, part of that is Florida is a populous state with a lot of universities.

[00:25:09] But then he points out, hey, Michigan and Pennsylvania have about the same combined population as Florida, yet only two Pennsylvania colleges, both private, make the top 100 list. None of these colleges in Michigan make the list. And so part of it has to do with the way in which they govern public higher education. And so that is certainly a key element of that. He also says that some of the other states could learn from what they're doing in Florida,

[00:25:37] trying to be debt free and really focusing on some of the essentials of education. And he points out that the tradition of a strong state control of institutions in Florida goes back more than a century because even though there is, I think, a tendency sometimes to say, well, a lot of that has to do with the governor. And I'm sure Governor Ron DeSantis is going to take some credit. Some of that happened before. And there are all sorts of other things.

[00:26:04] Even as we talk about universities, you know that many times I've talked about the fact that a lot of young people don't need to go to four-year colleges. And they have in Florida the 2 plus 2 system, which I think is very good, in which students that think they may go on to a four-year college can go to a lower-cost Florida community college for two years and then transfer to a bachelor's degree granting institution without losing credits.

[00:26:32] Or if they, after that point in time, figure that was all that they needed, can go on. That, I think, is a very wise system. And the other is cost control. This was a great illustration in this article. By the way, it's six pages. I'm not even going to try to cover all of it. But I'm just giving you a few highlights to illustrate that if you're in a particular state where you say, I'd like to improve public education, well, I've got a commentary coming out on that.

[00:27:01] We talked about it the other day in terms of some of the success of the Southern Strategy. If you're in a college system or maybe you're one of the individuals thinking about what you can do to improve the university system in your state, you can learn from that. But here's something else. Because they have a centralized system in which they designate certain colleges to do this, other colleges do something else, It was interesting.

[00:27:28] When several state universities in Florida asked for permission to open law schools, a costly but prestige-enhancing undertaking, the Board of Regents in the state of Florida said no. Because based on a study showing that the state's need for attorneys was being met by the existing Florida law schools, lawyers trained in other states were moving to Florida and passing the state bar exam, there was no need for any more law schools.

[00:27:56] So they actually shut down what would have been prestigious, but it really, if you think about it, was unnecessary. The Board also cracked down on the practice of university-required students to take more courses than necessary for their degree by putting a maximum number of credits that would provide state support for in an academic program. Again, carrot and stick and all sorts of other great illustrations. One last one I thought I'd mention.

[00:28:25] In other states, universities use the so-called merit aid to lure students from affluent families who can pay higher overall tuition, but thus what they do is deprive students from poorer families of the financial aid that they really need. So in 1997, the Florida legislature created a merit aid program funded by lottery revenues that was specifically targeted to high-achieving students.

[00:28:54] And over the years, then, they've been able to help students that had the greatest need. This goes on for many pages. I won't go into the rest of the details, but simply say that we are learning once again, whether it's in the public schools or, in this case, universities, best practices. And if you want your universities in your state to do better,

[00:29:20] maybe you could learn some lessons, at least vicariously, from some of the success there in the state of Florida. So I post that for those of you that may be in the academic world. And more recently, as I've traveled around, I've had a chance to meet some people that serve on the board of regions or on the board of various colleges, universities. I hope that you'll take advantage of that resource and begin to apply it to your state to make a difference.

[00:29:47] Just before I take a break, we have talked about the problems with gerrymandering. But Edward Ring points out that gerrymandering, in some cases, might at least prevent the majority party from taking over. Of course, we've seen in places like on the East Coast, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and a number of others, where you are actually seeing no Republican representatives. But he says the argument against gerrymandering usually begins with visuals.

[00:30:16] And you've seen me post some of those maps. Because we see a map of state or federal electoral districts. They're convoluted. They look like a salamander, hence the name gerrymandering. And they have no regard for geographical features or municipal boundaries. But he says there is a problem with that. And that is the more we come up with electoral districts that are logical in shape, instead of those which are gerrymandered, the more undemocratic some of the repressation might be.

[00:30:45] And he uses California and Texas as an example. For example, in California, Trump got 38% of the 2024 vote. Republicans only control 15%. In Texas, Trump got 56% of the vote. Republicans control 68% of the vote. Even if you begin to add in the fact that, and this is still up for some grabs, whether Republicans win five more seats, it's still within that range.

[00:31:11] But if every district in a state were a winner-take-all, and if the majority in the state were Democrats, then a Democratic candidate would always win. And so he points out, if you look at some of the maps, that is the case. In California, when viewing party control by county, a pattern emerges that is familiar to most states, especially blue states. The urban centers are deep blue. The rest of the state is a sea of red.

[00:31:41] But it turns out that the sea of red is a lower population. So sometimes gerrymandering throws a wrench into what is inevitable. But nevertheless, he points out that if indeed Governor Gavin Newsom really wants to manipulate what would take place, you have Trump actually has carried four California counties, which Democrats currently control.

[00:32:11] And three of them are demographic heavyweights, Orange County, Riverside County, and San Bernardino County. And so he makes the case that when we try to draw these districts, I will be the first to admit that some of them look pretty bizarre. But at the same time, if we want to include or interject any kind of fairness, if we didn't have some of the gerrymandering, we would have many of the states where nobody from the opposition party

[00:32:41] would even have a chance of winning. So we will continue to look at this, but it was probably the most interesting discussion about how sometimes gerrymandering makes some sense if we want to inject any kind of fairness in the next election. But we'll see where that takes us in the future. We come back, though, real quickly. Just a quick comment or two that comes down from an individual

[00:33:06] who has been suggesting how Democratic leaders might respond to some of the various proposals by Donald Trump. And, of course, we'll also encourage you to join us tomorrow because we're going to spend some time with, again, Dr. Merrill Matthews and Penna Dexter getting into some of those issues, ranging from, of course, this tragic shooting that took place in the Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, Minnesota,

[00:33:34] to a number of very good articles that Dr. Matthews has published in The Hill. And we look forward to that conversation tomorrow. But join us right after the break for at least one more commentary. We'll be right back. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth.

[00:34:01] Back for a few more minutes, let me just mention that our last article here, which is written by Dean Kariannis, Democrats struggling on Trump's response to crime have forgotten how to say yes and. And this is a lesson that you can learn, even if some of the Democratic leaders have not figured this out. It's just basic common sense. And I always get a smile on my face when I think about this, because Dean Kariannis, if you're not familiar, actually worked with Rush Limbaugh.

[00:34:30] So he's actually just providing some common sense ways to address the issue. And if Democrats don't listen, well, that's their problem. But it's a way to think about how you may respond if somebody asks you a question. I know sometimes that they even do candidate forums where they help individuals running for office to know how to answer questions.

[00:34:56] And one of the keys sometimes is to not always accept the premise of the reporter, especially if you're Republican. The reporter is probably going to be a liberal, a Democrat, from legacy press. And they're going to make some statements and say, well, first of all, I don't agree with the premise of your argument. And then take that on. But there are times when you can say, you know, yes, it's got a good point, but let me add to that. And that's really what he's arguing about, that somehow the leadership in the Democratic Party have forgotten to know how to say yes and.

[00:35:26] And here's what he's talking about. He says with President Trump now mulling over whether or not he'll have troop deployments in other American cities, how have the Democrats responded? Well, they've responded with denials that crime is a problem. And he says this is a reflexive opposition that amounts to a weak posture.

[00:35:47] Voters tend to be more favorable to politicians who imply the improv rule, respond yes, and then to advance a topic. Never reject a premise with a no. Now, there are some times when you might. But let's use some examples. The first one he uses is the mayor of Chicago. And if you have seen this video, and it's certainly gone viral, in which the mayor of Chicago, Brandon Johnson,

[00:36:12] struggled to even articulate what his policy as a Democrat and what the Democratic Party's policy would be in Chicago. And on Tuesday, on MSNBC, the host of Morning Joe, which is Joe Scarborough, asked if Chicago streets would be safer if there were more uniformed police officers or if there was more federal funding to help put 5,000 cops on duty.

[00:36:38] If you have ever watched this, and I'm sure it's going to show up again on Bill Maher and a variety of other things. It certainly showed up on Fox News. And that is, on five separate occasions, Joe Scarborough pressed Brandon Johnson and was met with five denials. As, again, one of the things that Dean Kerry Yachtas is saying is, it would have been a great opportunity to say yes,

[00:37:06] and Chicago would welcome more federal dollars. Or he could have pivoted to arguing that Mr. Trump isn't sending police officers because, say, the National Guard aren't really instructed or equipped for law enforcement. Those are some ways to answer the question. And somehow it just didn't seem to ever occur to the mayor of Chicago. Okay, let's take another one. We have a Democrat from Maryland. That's Jamie Raskin.

[00:37:35] Again, Democrat from Maryland who was on CNN and many times actually probably took a bad problem and made it worse by simply saying crime has always been part of our history, which was sort of a rhetorical shrug with the problem. And if you're not familiar, one of the questions being raised is, will Donald Trump deploy troops to Chicago? Will Donald Trump deploy troops to Baltimore?

[00:38:05] And to say either we don't have a crime problem, which is the way in which the governor sort of responded, or, well, crime's always been our problem. Not a good answer and not a good look if, indeed, you want to win re-election. Let's take another one. Sunday and meet the press. Illinois Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker focused on trends.

[00:38:30] And, again, although Chicago had more murders last year than in the U.K., J.B. Pritzker said it's actually operating extraordinarily well and in a much better position from a crime perspective than it was four years ago. Well, if the murder rate is going down, great. That's not the best answer. And there you are, once again, not learning how to maybe learn the issue, as Dean Kariana says.

[00:38:59] Say yes and, and then do what you can. Well, he goes on to point out that Democratic mayors in Los Angeles, Oakland, New York City, Baltimore have all carried the party line that crime is falling, and yet there's a reason for the old journalistic statement, if it bleeds, it leads. So the bottom line is that's what leads on the local newscast, and to then say, well, crime isn't as bad is not helpful.

[00:39:29] A single murder or child abduction can strike fear into a city, and citizens just aren't really comforted by those kind of statistics. And so, again, you can see that it also opens you up for a rebuttal from Donald Trump. Because the other day, Donald Trump, he talked about how Mr. Johnson was a very incompetent mayor. He refuted his assertion that the National Guard only arrested nine people in Washington, D.C., putting the number well over 1,000.

[00:39:57] Donald Trump talked about the fact that the National Guard took hundreds of guns away from young kids and apprehended scores of illegal aliens along with dozens of illegal firearms. That's how to make the case. Whether you like Donald Trump or not, he's figured out how to make the case. Unfortunately, the mayor of Chicago has not. And the point I'm making is you can learn a lesson vicariously. Sometimes we look at this and we roll our eyes by some of the things that are said by both Republicans and Democrats,

[00:40:27] by politicians, by people in the media. Well, if you're a wise and discerning individual, maybe you can learn some lessons vicariously from some of the mistakes they've made. But just before we wind down, again, Dean Kariannis points out the fact that if you look at any of the polls, and he quotes just one, but there's some others we can look at, but let's look at the one from The Economist, YouGov poll.

[00:40:54] It's certainly, if it's biased at all, it's biased left to center, and yet they found that 67% or two-thirds of American adults judged urban crime a major problem. Just 3% said it was not one. So, again, 67% versus 3%. That's an illustration, again, maybe you're trying to defend something that,

[00:41:21] in the minds of most Americans, is indefensible. And then, interestingly enough, you had 55% that actually believed that crime had increased since 2020, which was the final year of Donald Trump's term. So he ends, again, Dean Kariannis, by saying, it's said that perception is reality in politics. Rather than denying Donald Trump's concern about law and order,

[00:41:48] Democrats would be better off advocating for solutions other than federal troops. Yes, they can say crime is a problem and then pledge to work with him to address it in the cities they serve. It's a lesson to all of us. Yes, and is sometimes a very good answer. Agree with the premise if it is accurate, and then go on to point out that that maybe is an inadequate solution, or there are other solutions that did not get mentioned.

[00:42:18] Just a lesson in how to craft your message. We're going to have to know how to do that. And the more effective we are, the more effective I think we'll be. That's all we have for today. I hope that we will be able to cover a couple of other very important issues tomorrow on our weekend edition. First of all, go to our website, pointofview.net. You can find out a little bit more about some of the books and resources that we've mentioned here today, some of the organizations you may want to know more about,

[00:42:46] all available at the website, pointofview.net. Megan, thank you for your engineering of the program. Steve, thank you for producing the program, and we encourage you to visit the website often, find some of that material, pass it on to your friends, and use it effectively. And most importantly, I look forward to seeing you tomorrow right here on Point of View. Let me ask you something, if I may. Have you been blessed by Point of View?

[00:43:16] We often hear from listeners about the positive impact that Point of View has in their lives. As one listener told us, Point of View leaves me informed and encouraged. So this may surprise you. Out of all of Point of View's hundreds of thousands of listeners, just 1% supports the program. And yet Point of View relies on listener donations.

[00:43:44] If every listener gave just $10, Point of View's full ministry and operations would be funded for an entire year. Let me ask you again. Have you been blessed by Point of View? I urge you, pay it forward today with a $10 donation, so others may be blessed as well. Give online at pointofview.net

[00:44:09] Or you can call us and give toll free, 1-800-347-5151. That's pointofview.net and 1-800-347-5151. Point of View is produced by Point of View Ministries.