Point of View February 19, 2025 – Hour 1 : Mid-Week Updates

[00:00:04] Across America, Live, this is Point of View, Kirby Anderson. Thank you for joining me, it is the Wednesday edition of Point of View and we've got quite a number of different topics we're going to be addressing over the next two hours. So if one particular topic isn't of great interest, just bear with it because we'll get into something I'm sure you will find interesting.

[00:00:34] We're going to look at really what is kind of happening right now on the political scene because of DOGE. Spend on that for a little bit of time. Go back to the speech that J.D. Vance gave in Munich in particular because there's some interesting comments coming in about that. Then we're going to talk about the big tech and what oftentimes is referred to as the little tech revolution. We'll talk about that.

[00:00:57] And also this issue of big tech censorship coming from one of the writers of World Magazine, but that will be just the first hour if we can get it all in. If not, of course, we'll get to some of that tomorrow. Second hour, we have our good friend Todd Hampson with us. He a while back wrote a book called The Chronological Guide to Bible Prophecy, an illustrated panorama from Genesis to Revelation. We're going to be talking about prophecy, not just end times prophecy, but messianic prophecy and a number of others.

[00:01:25] I think you will find that to be just kind of a chance to sit back from all of the controversy that seems to be surrounding Washington, D.C. right now and kind of look ahead and maybe get some spiritual perspective as well. So I think you will enjoy that. Let me just say, first of all, thank you to those who sat in yesterday for the Millennial Roundtable.

[00:01:44] It was actually scheduled, but it couldn't have come at a better time. I've been a bit sick, and yesterday would be one of those days where I might have actually even taken a sick day, but didn't need to because we had very qualified individuals around the table. I think I'm back to almost normal. I'm not sure what normal means some days, but nevertheless, we'll have some fun with this.

[00:02:04] And interestingly enough, even though I was kind of just recovering, over the last 18 hours, Jana and I, who is our vice president of stewardship, have had a chance to meet with a couple of donors. And one issue that surfaced a couple of times is our first topic, and it comes from some of the work being done by Frank Luntz. Now, if you're not familiar, Frank Luntz has been kind of become the pollster who goes into various focus groups, asks all sorts of questions.

[00:02:34] Of course, we've had all sorts of things like the Gallup polls, and we've had all sorts of other kinds of research being done. And so that is certainly the broader sense. But he, over the years, has not only polled the way many of the big pollster companies have, he will oftentimes go to a focus group of individuals and then see if he can determine maybe some winds of change that are coming.

[00:03:03] And one of the things that you'll see in our first article, which is written about by Matt Vespa, is, I'll just read the first line, Frank Luntz is waiting for Democrats to put out something so he can go about his business testing their messaging and communication strategies.

[00:03:20] Which is, I think, also a nice way of saying messaging does not include somebody standing in front of the Department of Education and chanting or singing or demanding that you come in for a protest. We're talking about, okay, how are you going to challenge some of the things that newly elected Donald Trump is doing, as well as the most significant target of criticism, Elon Musk, what he and the Doge are doing.

[00:03:49] And so far, he hasn't been able to find very much. And it's interesting because he says there's really nothing that Democrats have come up with to attack because they seem like, they feel like they're on the back of, and this is more his words, a blowback. Trump is at the height of his power, his core tenets of his agenda, boosting 60% voter support on certain elements of his agenda. If you look at the latest Gallup poll, they've had him drop below that.

[00:04:19] There have been some people that have wondered about whether that's just, again, reacting to the way, and Donald Trump says some things in a very inarticulate way, maybe a mean-spirited way on true social. But when it comes to the policies, that's very different. So let me give you a couple of illustrations, and then I'll talk about how people have reacted to that in a number of different talk formats. The first is Frank Luntz actually put together a focus group for CNN. Breonna Keller was there.

[00:04:48] And the focus group were individuals who had been Biden supporters, Biden voters, who in the last election, the most recent election, became Trump supporters. And this is what Frank Luntz said about this group on CNN. He says they love what Trump is doing. The caveat is they wish the president were a little more polite in his remarks. But his actions, they're hardcore for what he's doing,

[00:05:13] is slashing spending, securing the border, reducing the fat in District Columbia or Washington, D.C., through the Department of Government Efficiency. He went on to even say that Trump 2.0's pace of change could be, he argues, the new normal that voters have come to expect from any future president. I'm not so sure about that, but I'm not necessarily disagreeing with it either. I think time will tell.

[00:05:41] To make it even more significant, this particular piece by Matt Vespa not only quotes Frank Luntz, but then goes into the piece that is in Newsweek. So you can go to CNN and see this. You can go to Newsweek. This actually gives you the link, and I'm going to read part of it. And again, what they found is this on Newsweek. They're not just these hardcore mega-voters who have stuck with Trump through thick and thin, who are responding positively to the speed and sweep of the new administration.

[00:06:09] Alan Schindelman, a photographer in New York City, told Newsweek that while he doesn't necessarily agree with everything he's seen from the second Trump term so far, there's been a lot of movement and action. I think that's a healthy thing for the country. Goes on to say, this is again Alan Schindelman, Sure, a lot of policies are not necessarily exactly what was promised or the best thing in my personal opinion, but I at least can clearly see what is happening. The administration is there doing work.

[00:06:39] Then, of course, the writers for Newsweek say, polling suggests that Schindelman is not alone. Trump is putting up some of his personal best approval ratings, according to polling aggregators like Real Clear Politics and also 538, where he still remains underwater in those trackers. That comes from a leftist center study group. Okay, that's what they have there as well. Many in the typical liberal Reddit community have also backed that argument,

[00:07:09] populating various subreddits with comments like, whether you like him or dislike him, he did a lot of what we said he's going to do in the first week. For some people, that's bad. For some, that's good. I feel most happily with his first week and glad he's more aggressive this time around. Others left remarks like, it's exactly what I voted for to happen, or another one. And so I won't try to speak for all his supporters, but I will say this. He is acting on his campaign promises the best he can so far.

[00:07:39] If they voted for him any other reason other than he's this guy, I'm sure they're happy. And so, again, you keep hearing the phrase, promises made, promises kept. But what I think has been so interesting has been, and this has surfaced in meeting just a few donors in the last couple of days, there seems to be sort of a pause on the part of the Democratic response. I mean, not that there aren't people out banging on drums. I saw this one here just down the road from us here,

[00:08:07] and others singing and holding hands and holding up signs and all the rest. And a lot of them were, you know, Elon Musk is not elected, President Elon Musk, those kind of phrases. But, by and large, there has not been this kind of coordinated and concerted response, which certainly about a couple of weeks into a presidency you would have expected. And so, Frank Luntz is still waiting, and I guess a number of other people are waiting as well. That's our first article.

[00:08:36] We're going to come back and talk about what Democrats do plan to do when it comes to this issue of a government shutdown. All that coming up right after this. This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson. Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

[00:09:06] In a recent column, he asked, Are the schools really politicized? Most of us know the answer to that question is yes. But many progressive writers don't agree. One of those writers is James Traub, who has a book coming out next year on civic education. In an article in The New Republic, he wrote preview in his book, He declared, I've visited dozens of civics classrooms. The rights attacks are wrong. Who is right? Stanley Kurtz believes that left-wing partisanship is a serious problem

[00:09:33] and has put out model legislation to take partisanship out of civics education. James Traub visited many classrooms and found them to be viewpoint neutral. Both individuals can see that much of the civic curriculum today is written from a liberal viewpoint. Traub, for example, acknowledges that the academic literature I'm teaching, statements about educational administrators, and social studies standards in blue states are all pervasively leftist. But then we're to suppose that none of that makes its way into the classroom.

[00:10:03] Stanley Kurtz doubts whether putting a famed reporter in a classroom is the best way to expose politicization. Teachers facing a reporter are bound to be on their best behavior, and highly politicized teachers are unlikely to host such an observer at all. By contrast, Stanley Kurtz provides numerous examples of what he describes as K-12 politicization. It may be difficult to detect because many teachers work to hide it from parents and administrators. There surely are teachers who try to be politically neutral in civics classes,

[00:10:33] but you aren't going to find those who are politically biased by sending in a notable author. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view. For a free booklet on a biblical view of Israel, go to viewpoints.info.com viewpoints.info.com

[00:10:58] You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Back once again, let's see if we can get into some of the strategy, and then we're going to move on to some other topics. And we don't spend a whole lot of time here on Point of View talking about, well, this side's going to do this, and this side's going to do that. But when you come to something as large as a government shutdown, or when you come to a time in which you have a must-pass piece of legislation, then I think that warrants some attention.

[00:11:25] But to get into the intricacies of parliamentary procedure and what happens in Congress, we'll leave that for someone else to cover if they'd like, especially given the fact that over the next few days we're going to be rolling out some take-action items, one which will have to do with the issue of funding abortion, and then some others having to do with the issue of DEI, because recognize no matter what Donald Trump does with an executive order,

[00:11:54] the next president could change that with another executive order. And if indeed some of these actions deserve to become permanent, well, the quickest way you can make them somewhat permanent, nothing ever is permanent in Congress other than the Constitution, you would hope, is that you would pass a piece of legislation. So next couple of weeks, you might want to start watching the website. We will be rolling out some of our take-action items.

[00:12:23] We're going to highlight some of the pieces of legislation. Now looking like they're starting to move maybe first for the House of Representatives, then into the Senate, and we'll give you some opportunities to contact those individuals. Which brings us back to the fact that the Democrats are kind of flailing right now to figure out what their strategy is. And this brings me to the second article we've posted, because the picture that goes along with this shows two individuals,

[00:12:52] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was a Democrat from the state of New York, and that also shows Representative Eric Swalwell, who is a Democrat from the state of California. And these two individuals have been suggesting one possible strategy, which even some of the Democratic leaders are saying, this could really backfire. Well, let's let the article speak for itself. It says,

[00:13:37] And so the argument is, even though we don't have the requisite number of votes to stop you in the House, we're going to try to use other strategies to do what we can to stop you or at least slow you down. And one of those is leveraging a federal government shutdown before funding runs out on March 14th. By the way, I might just mention that next Monday is the commentary I've already recorded,

[00:14:06] and it talks about some of the challenges that Donald Trump faces. And one of those is that there is the possibility of a government shutdown March 14th if there is no increase in the debt ceiling. There already is a challenge right now in that, actually we have exceeded the amount of money that the United States can borrow. And so as a result, that exceeding of the amount

[00:14:35] just so happened to arrive on the day Donald Trump was inaugurated into office. So essentially, we can't, as a government, theoretically, borrow any money. So there have been some extraordinarily creative ways to keep this going. So we're kind of in a risky area anyway. And as you've heard me talk about before, you don't have a majority of Democrats,

[00:15:02] and you have the slimmest of majorities of Republicans in the House. But nevertheless, let's go back to Alexandria Ocaso-Cortez, in which he said, if Republicans want to shut down the government because they're not able to get their house in order, that's their business. But the idea that we're just going to hand over the keys to a Republican majority as they attempt to dismantle, and she uses the Department of Education, and raid the Treasury, which is, again, just hyperbole,

[00:15:29] they're going to have to do that with their own coalition. And so there have been some that have suggested that maybe what we could use is a government shutdown as a bargaining tool. Hence, we come now to the next individual, Representative Eric Swalwell, who actually, in the past, has voted in favor of a Republican-authored stopgap funding bill in order to keep things going, and that would be, of course,

[00:15:59] keep things going with a continuing resolution. But this time says, look, Trump is, quote, and again, I'm quoting him, firing government workers, freezing federal aid, forcing resignations, making us less safe or paying more. There's hyperbole there. But it goes on to say, shutting down the government, and so we shouldn't enable a further shutdown of services. So the argument is simply this. If you are going to head in that direction,

[00:16:27] in which you're reducing the size and scope of government, one of the last tactics we might have as a minority party is to shut down the government. And so, again, his argument is, if Speaker Mike Johnson's stopgap funding bill is just a continuation of further shutting down the government, you're not going to see me, at least, participate. So the real question is, you've got two issues. You've got the debt ceiling, and actually, there's a third one,

[00:16:56] because I just mentioned the fact that we have to address that, but we also then need to have a budget for the rest of fiscal year 2025. So it gets pretty complicated. I won't get into all the details there, but it is a strategy that is certainly one that Republicans have occasionally used. It doesn't work very well, because oftentimes the particular party bringing the shutdown usually gets in trouble.

[00:17:21] But the media is much more willing to criticize Republicans for doing it than Democrats. But nevertheless, you're starting to see, for example, some people that are thinking this is pretty risky. As political columnist Rachel Boddy observed last week, Democrats may be walking into a trap if they follow through on this threat. If they do not work with Republicans to avert a shutdown, Democrats, she says, would be embracing a tactic they've long shunned, holding the government hostage until they get what they want.

[00:17:51] They're also challenging the message of explaining to the Americans, you're shutting down the government down in order to save the government. Not working so well. And, of course, all of this is while the Trump White House is looking at this saying, you know, if you want to keep digging a hole, we're not going to stop you digging. Just keep digging the hole. But that isn't going to work well at all. And last week, the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee sent an email to Democratic lawmakers in Washington

[00:18:20] advising them against making light of the rapidly approaching March 14th funding deadline. Do not suggest Democrats can or are making unilateral decisions on government funding. So, it will be interesting over the next couple of weeks to see how that unfolds. And at the core of this is the argument being used right now by some of the leading Democrats that this has been going too fast. So, this show surfaced the other day on CNN.

[00:18:50] And in this particular case on CNN, Kevin O'Leary, you remember him, Mr. Wonderful from Shark Tank, basically said this, and I'm giving you a direct quote from Kevin O'Leary. By the way, he's a Canadian, so maybe he can look a little bit more from an outsider's point of view. But here's what he said. I think the issue is they're not whacking enough. That surprised everybody around the table. I don't think it's happening fast enough. They're not cutting enough. Keep slashing,

[00:19:18] keep hacking while you have a 24-month mandate. Cut, cut, cut. More cutting, more cutting. Believe me, it's going to work out just great. Now, the implication he made her explain was, yeah, they're going to make some mistakes, but incrementalism hasn't worked and it won't work, so it's time to actually begin to cut. Interesting enough, an editorial I just came out here asked a very good question. Don't let the perfect be in the enemy of the good.

[00:19:47] Yes, there's probably going to be some mistakes made. There's probably going to be something announced that should be cut that shouldn't. There might be an individual along the way that is removed, and later on we have to bring them back because we see how vital he or she is. That's the case. But right now, at least the editorial says is that the people that are criticizing the Department of Government efficiency are, and this is their words, premature, hysterical,

[00:20:17] and perverted by a particular or peculiar legal theory that has no footing in the Constitution. And so they recognize that there could be some damage done, but at the same time they argue that by ensuring the federal agencies are staying within their legal bounds, by shining a light on spending and policymaking that would never have gotten through Congress and be consented to by the voters, and by removing rogue staff whose intention is to make trouble for the elected boss,

[00:20:46] Doge can strike a blow against the extra-constitutional fourth branch that President Trump has so often promised to curtail. They end the editorial with the word, Godspeed. So, again, there aren't everyone that is happy with what is happening right now, but the polls seem to show that even individuals that might not like everything that's happening are pleased that something is happening,

[00:21:14] and maybe that was the biggest message of the 2024 election. If you'd like to read a little bit more, I've only gone through the first two articles. We have some more to cover before we get into Prophecy next hour. Go to the website, pointofview.net. 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.

[00:21:43] God gives us a next step. He says we need to pray. But sometimes even knowing what to pray can be difficult, 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,

[00:22:08] 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. 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.

[00:22:37] 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. You are listening to Point of View.

[00:23:02] 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. I thought we'd change topics now and get into the issue of censorship. Let me hold up my booklet on censorship. This one came out in October, or no, actually it came out in November, I bet.

[00:23:28] And so it is a resource to really think about the issue of free speech. We've done some things before on social media censorship, but I wanted to broaden this. And we will in just a minute because we're going to talk about, in a sense, both the speeches given by J.D. Vance, one in Paris and one in Munich, both of those really got into the issue of censorship. Then we also have a piece, which I hope we'll be able to get to by Stephen Moore,

[00:23:57] about how there's almost a problem of censorship that is coming really from the economic realm, primarily from some of the people in Europe and also in this country wanting to break up some of these big tech companies. And then if we have time, a very good piece that appeared in World Magazine by Emma Frere, who's been on the program with us before. I'd hope to get her on again about just, again, the censorship taking place in the tech world. So that's kind of our theme for half an hour.

[00:24:26] The next hour we're going to get into a prophecy and some of these other great articles I was going to share with you. Maybe we'll just have to postpone them until tomorrow. But, again, it is important to recognize that when we talk about censorship, there's two issues. Number one, there is the censorship that governments do, and much more of that is happening in Europe. Why is that the case? Because they don't have a First Amendment.

[00:24:51] And so that is something that J.D. Vance was really addressing in large part. Then you have the censorship that happens in this country where, up until now, the federal government said, well, we can't really censor these people if we want to, so we'll work through the tech companies to have them de-platform individuals.

[00:25:13] We'll make up words like disinformation, misinformation, and say that that's the justification for why you can't say certain things on a public platform. And so that's kind of how the game is played. But let's, first of all, look to Europe because it also relates very much to the piece I have by Stephen Moore. And that is J.D. Vance gave a Friday speech at Munich, but the day before had given a speech, actually a couple days before,

[00:25:42] at the Paris AI Action Summit. But let's focus on the one in Germany. And Dominic Green puts it this way. By the way, you might say, well, who's Dominic Green? He is a contributor to the Wall Street Journal and a fellow of the Royal Historical Society. As a matter of fact, a little bit later, I won't read the section where he goes into what's happening in England, because I think the broader issue is what's happening in England, what's happening in the rest of the EU. This is very significant.

[00:26:10] Anyway, Dominic Green puts it this way. Vice President J.D. Vance's Friday speech at the Munich Security Conference was the most significant American address in Germany since 1987, when President Reagan declared, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. The U.S. saved Europe from itself three times in the last century, in World War I, World War II, and Cold War. Mr. Vance offered to save Europe from itself again, but this time the cavalry won't be coming.

[00:26:39] And again, I gave you kind of a point-counterpoint. Some people think it was inappropriate for a president, especially this vice president, or any member of the president's cabinet to go to Europe and say the kinds of things that he was saying. But as I think Dominic Green points out, friends don't let friends make big mistakes. And so let's get into it. He says in Munich, the historic byword for appeasement, remember that's where, of course, the appeasement of Hitler took place,

[00:27:08] Mr. Vance issued a call to arms. He said the most worrisome threat to Europe isn't from Russia or China. It's a threat from within. By the way, don't misread what he's saying. He recognizes the threats from Russia and China, so don't take that the wrong direction. But he actually was talking about the fact that the ruling class, the ruling elite, actually have, as he said, eviscerated the fundamental values that Europe shares with the United States.

[00:27:35] It's also reneged on its military contributions to America, to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, and some of the rest. And so the argument, I said, is to evade the electoral reckoning that would come, because populism has not just been breaking out here in the United States. It's been breaking out in Europe. You might want to go back to another one of my booklets.

[00:27:59] It just came out a month ago, and that was on the whole historical cycles, which I pointed out from about 2016, 2016 on. You had Brexit in Europe. You had the Yellow Jackets in France. You had the farmers in Amsterdam and all sorts of protests, populist protests there. Of course, you had the election of Donald Trump in 2016 as well.

[00:28:24] And so the point is, as he was saying, that the Munich speech came three days after the equally devastating address at the AI Action. We're here, if nothing else, I've got to say, J.D. Vance really showed that he had spent some time in Silicon Valley, really understood the promise and the perils of artificial intelligence, understood the problems that were being created by European regulation, and was very articulate indeed.

[00:28:55] And so basically, Dominic Green says, if you take the Munich speech and the Paris speech together, it was the classic, as he said, one-two punch, which I thought was interesting. Economic and individual freedoms support each other. Innovation, competitiveness, and risk-taking are the natural partners of liberty, free speech, and democracy. If you start cutting down and stopping free speech, that same kind of totalitarian temptation also causes you to control

[00:29:23] and to even manipulate markets to shut down all sorts of innovation. And so the two really are hand-in-hand. And I thought this speech in this particular article was very good. But finally, he does make the statement that friends don't let friends drift into the strategic twilight, nor do they censor American social media companies, as British and European politicians frequently do.

[00:29:51] If nothing else, Mr. Vance in Munich said, No democracy can survive by telling millions of voters that their thoughts and concerns, their aspirations, their pleas for relief are invalid or unworthy of even being considered. And so it's a very helpful look at speech that I think is going to still have some consequences for many years.

[00:30:16] And it either was roundly criticized by saying all he did was support the far right in Europe, nothing further from the truth, or that they simply just ignored it. And I thought it was worth at least one more mention. Which brings me to Stephen Moore, because he also recognizes that some of the things that are being done in Europe are making their way over here as well. And he begins by talking about America's magnificent seven tech firms.

[00:30:47] I'm kind of in the economic realm right now. I've been doing more research. So I know when you talk about the magnificent seven who they are. But if that's a new term for you, the magnificent seven companies are, are you ready? Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, which is, of course, Facebook, Microsoft, NVIDIA, and Tesla. And so those are the seven, if you will,

[00:31:11] companies that have a combined net worth that are greater than all the companies in Europe. So just seven of our companies here in the United States have more net worth. They have a larger market cap, however you want to say it, than all the companies in Europe. And he refers to that as a chiefs versus eagles dominance. Actually, I would have put it the other way, eagles versus chiefs dominance. But nevertheless, you get what he's getting at here. And then he says,

[00:31:39] at a time when this has provided so much affluence, and really kept the stock market moving, he says, the mystery is why many regulators in Washington view these digital age companies, whose continued rocket ship growth have created hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs, are as villains, not heroes. Now, to be fair, I mean, the Democratic Party has embraced some of them, but not Tesla, Tesla, and maybe not a few of the others now, certainly not X,

[00:32:08] because of that. So that is certainly the case. So it goes on that there's this real push right now to break up some of those individuals. A lot of that comes from lawmakers in Europe who are trying to stifle these companies. Some coming, he says, both from the left and the right, wanting to break those up. when you recognize that there are not only the big tech, but the little tech. What do we mean by that? Well, if you go to Silicon Valley, or really if you go to other places around the country,

[00:32:39] for example, you go to Austin, Texas, you go to Salt Lake City, Utah, you'll see some of these, if you will, little tech companies that might eventually be big tech companies, and these startups may eventually emerge as the next generation of Googles or Apples. I was actually having lunch today with an individual that used to work with IBM. Let me ask you a question. How many of you have an IBM computer sitting on your desk? I'm waiting.

[00:33:07] I don't see any hands going up. IBM was so dominant, but they're probably not the computer sitting on your desk as well. Is it possible that little tech could overshadow big tech? Well, yes, it could. And that's why we're finding a lot of the little tech are housed, not just in Silicon Valley, California, but in places like Austin, Texas and Salt Lake City, Utah, and a variety of other places. Actually, just down the road here in Dallas as well. And so,

[00:33:33] it's a reminder that this desire to actually control only affects, not only affects free speech, it affects startup companies. Good article. We'll come back with more right after this. You're listening to point of view, your listener supported source for truth. Right for a few more minutes. And again,

[00:34:02] let me just as a program note mention, we're going to be talking about prophecy next hour. And again, that oftentimes generates a lot of questions. And Todd Hampson has been with us in studio and by phone before. I think you'll appreciate his approach. There are some things in here that I think are so interesting that aren't necessarily prophecy, but maybe other ideas that surface in terms of how to interpret scripture and how to really make the case for the reliability of the Bible. So, whether you're kind of interested in prophecy or not,

[00:34:31] I think you're going to find this to be a good conversation indeed. And we're not just going to be talking about end times prophecy, because when you start with Genesis and work your way through some of these others, you have chapters of the Bible, you're going to be obviously talking about things other than end times prophecy. I think you will appreciate the conversation, and I'm looking forward to it as well. Let me just wind down with the last article that we have here. It's by Emma Frere. She's been on with us before. She's a writer for World Magazine. This one actually is, again,

[00:35:01] entitled Crushing Dissent, but it's about big tech censorship. Now, just a minute ago, I pointed out the fact that big tech wants to censor, but she also gives some other examples that we don't think about as big tech. And one of those is Wikipedia. And a couple others are some of the things that we've learned from the Twitter files. This is a much longer article. You can certainly go to World Magazine to read it. We also have posted it here on the website.

[00:35:29] And I'm hoping that we'll get her on to go into this in some detail, because it's quite lengthy. And I'm basically giving you, at best, the Cliff Notes version of it. But she points out something very interesting. As we went through the presidential election, a few weeks before the 2024 election, Elon Musk and other prominent users of his social media platform, X, shared an electoral map. Depending on your perspective, either was your worst nightmare or dream come true,

[00:35:58] and you've seen the map, because we've posted it before. It showed that Donald Trump would be winning the election, probably with 312 electoral college votes, Kamala Harris taking 226. The map was produced by Real Clear Politics, which I've always identified as a little bit more of a left wing, but pretty balanced. They try to be fair. A new site, you're going to see that some are going to say, no, that's not the case. But, okay.

[00:36:28] But interestingly enough, what happened next was really interesting, because many people said, you're already, in a sense, predicting he's going to win. And so you're disseminating misinformation. No, I mean, how many of these maps have we seen over the years? But all of a sudden, when your chosen candidate isn't looking like, in this case, she's going to win. Now, this is misinformation.

[00:36:58] And on October 31st, Halloween, as scary as it was, New York Times published an article suggesting that the Real Clear Politics average was part of an effort to deflate enthusiasm among Democrats. Harris might be poised to have a surprise landslide when, by the way, we now know many of the internal polls, even for the Harris campaign, did not believe that. And so, as a result, then Wikipedia jumped in,

[00:37:27] and decided to remove their Real Clear Politics average poll, and chart from their site, and from their various poll aggregators. And one of the editors there accused, and this doesn't really pass the straight face test, Real Clear Politics as having a strong Republican bias. And even the publisher of the Real Clear Politics poll average, Sean McIntyre, said, wait a minute, whoa, whoa, whoa, stop that.

[00:37:56] It was interesting that the people of Wikipedia chose to basically censor and remove us when we were the original poll average, and the best historically performing poll average. So, again, you can get into this. Now, to her credit, Emma Frere gives you some of the background, and I'm going to just summarize it, because it goes on for quite a while. But she says, Wikipedia's decision to remove the Real Clear Politics poll is actually unsurprising,

[00:38:25] because earlier in the year, a video emerged showing the former Wikipedia chief, who later became CEO of NPR, talking about how Wikipedia gave up its free and open mantra. She said, you realize the approach resulted in too much emphasis on this white male westernized construct around who matters. So, we've seen some of this before, and she provides some very interesting documentation, including a very good speech by Mike Benz,

[00:38:53] who is the director of the Foundation for Freedom Online. I'll let that be something you can read, because it goes on for quite some time, and also points out that, you know, really after the Cold War, and we were dealing with the issue of terrorism. By the way, I might give you a note. I just held up my little booklet on censorship. The one on terrorism will be coming to you in the future. So, another one of the benefits of supporting Point of View, for as little as a dollar a day, $30 a month, you can be a Truth Team member.

[00:39:21] You'll receive the Outlook magazine, and the booklets every month. And I was just with two individuals. One said, he reads three-fourths of the books, or I guess it's seven-eighths of the books. The other person said, I read every one of the booklets. So, obviously, they are well-received out there. But, again, you have to begin to get some of the historical perspective. And, again, Emma Frere takes you to that as well. Going all the way back to 2017,

[00:39:47] the outgoing Obama administration's Department of Homeland Security, that was Jay Johnson, announced that election infrastructure would be designated as a critical infrastructure. And this began to be a way of allowing the Department of Homeland Security to then begin to monitor that. And, of course, you might remember that they had created a cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, Congress had.

[00:40:16] And then you're going to have some of the actions that were taken and justified because they wanted to make sure that no misinformation or disinformation would come, especially since, at that time, they are making the argument that Donald Trump was elected because of Russian disinformation. And so, the censorship got pretty significant. But I thought I'd mention one other one in her article, and that is,

[00:40:44] what happened to PragerU? You're familiar with Dennis Prager, and you might pray for him because he's had a spinal injury and doesn't look good. But the talk show host and Dennis Prager started PragerU, and they produced all sorts of videos. One in particular called, Dear Infidels, A Warning to America, a Palestinian man shared his experience growing up in Gaza when he was seven years old and how a teacher came to his school and said, listen, children, you must kill the Jews.

[00:41:13] Jews have three legs and an eye in the middle of their forehead. Well, as soon as that video made its way out there to the Internet, this was labeled hate speech. And then, of course, you had all sorts of individuals in big tech removing that, even though it was giving an accurate story. And then, of course, we come to the fact that Elon Musk purchased Twitter, now named X, and you had people like Michael Schellenberger, who we've had on,

[00:41:42] or we've quoted on this program, working with Barry Weiss, who we've also quoted on this program, beginning to uncover the Twitter files. And as we well know, the censorship that was taking place at the time by social media was encouraged in large part by the federal government. And as we even talked about with Kelly, the Supreme Court actually had a chance to address that issue of censorship,

[00:42:06] but it simply decided not to decide and postpone the issue, I think, to the future. So if you do want to understand some of the issues of censorship and what is happening in Europe, this piece by Dominic Green, I think is a very good summary of the speech by J.D. Vance. If you understand why we don't want to limit the various big tech companies, because we want to have the little tech companies grow,

[00:42:36] that piece by Stephen Moore is very good. And if you really want to understand the phenomenon of crushing dissent and big tech censorship in a variety of different areas, this piece by Emma Frere is good as well, and it comes from World Magazine. Let me again encourage you to go to the website, find all sorts of articles, including my commentary today on politicized schools. We're trying to be your source of news and information, your trusted source.

[00:43:04] Hope that you'll join with us in a couple weeks when we have our Truth Team Week. We need to take a break. I'll be right back. It was not that long ago that censorship appeared to be almost inevitable. Free speech was being attacked and strangled in many places. And some of us wondered if this was the end. But now, many feel a new sense of hope, a chance for a fresh dawn. Let me caution you.

[00:43:31] Now is not the time to relax. It's a time to press forward, to use this fresh opportunity to proclaim and learn how to apply truth to current issues. By the fact you're here, listening right now, that tells me that you recognize the vital role Point of View plays as a voice of truth. For more than 50 years, we've informed and equipped people who have made a real difference. And when you give to Point of View today,

[00:44:00] you breathe life into what can be a new golden era for the truth. Please, take a moment right now and invest in truth. Visit pointofview.net or give it 1-800-347-5151. That's pointofview.net. Click in now or call 1-800-347-5151.

[00:44:27] Point of View will continue after this.