Point of View January 14, 2025 – Hour 2 : Tuesday’s Headlines

[00:00:04] Across America, Live, this is Point of View. Jeremy Anderson. Second hour today, let's if we can talk about what is taking place right now and these are confirmation hearings that will be taking place over the next many days. And I wanted to give you a little bit of history. We'll also then go to an article that we've posted here,

[00:00:33] Do Republican Senators Know What Time It Is by Ben Weingarten. And then I'll get back to some of the things happening out in California because it is going to generate some really interesting things in the next couple of days and weeks having to do with policy and the environment and insurance and a variety of others. But I'm holding up right now for those of you watching online a copy of the Constitution. We keep it right here and I get multiple copies. Matter of fact, I got an extra one in the mail the other day. I've got more copies of the Constitution I know what to do with.

[00:01:02] We maybe should just give them out free to anybody who wants to come by the studio here. But if you go to Article 2, Section 2, this relates to the president and it says, I'm reading from it, He, that is the executive officer, that would be the president, shall have the power by and with advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties provided two-thirds of the senators present concur. So that's about treaties. Now the one that's relevant.

[00:01:29] Also, he shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and councils, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States who appointments are not herein otherwise provided for and which shall be established by law.

[00:01:49] It goes on then to say that Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the president alone or in the courts of law or in the heads of departments. Kind of difficult language to follow, but here's the issue.

[00:02:05] If you are going to, as an incoming president, appoint someone to be the head of one of the 15 different cabinet offices, agriculture, commerce, defense, veterans affairs, state department, homeland security, you know, go to all the, I don't want to go through all 15. You get the idea. Then those individuals should be actually brought before the Senate for advice and consent.

[00:02:35] I don't believe that the founders, nor even a lot of other people in Congress or even in the Supreme Court for the last 200 years, thought that what this intended was for senators to sit there and read prepared statements and then to badger an individual who's going to serve in the cabinet over sometimes fairly insignificant issues.

[00:03:02] But that's what it has become today. It's kind of a spectacle. It's a little bit of a circus. Now, the bottom line is it also makes it very clear that the lower offices don't need to go through this process. And so in some respects, that's what the Constitution says. Unfortunately, what is done is not so much done by what the Constitution says, which does give some guidelines in broad sense.

[00:03:30] But the details have been worked out by committee heads and Congress and tradition and Supreme Court and the rest. So at the moment, of course, we have five different departments of the executive branch. Put in perspective, how many did George Washington have when he convened the first executive branch? He had five. We have now 15.

[00:03:57] And the one being debated right now is the Department of Defense, which in George Washington's day was called the Department of War. And again, let me just give you a little bit of a sense of a little bit of the back and forth, because here this article says inside a packed Senate hearing room filled to the brim with spectators, some of who, by the way, were protesters later on and interrupted the proceedings.

[00:04:24] Pete Hegseth pushed back vigorously against critics worried about his lack of credentials and past allegations of personal misconduct. He made the case that a small handful of anonymous sources were used to write negative stories about him. All they were out to do was destroy me, he said, of the left wing media, who he argued didn't care about the truth.

[00:04:46] Now, he actually spent some time talking about his wife, about his conversion and gives glory to Jesus Christ, talks about his kids. Seven kids took a while. At one point, he says, OK, it's going to take a minute to mention all seven of them. And there's some laughter. But then portrayed himself as a change agent, pledged to prioritize the rank and file first and foremost, and then spent some time talking about his military experience.

[00:05:13] If you're not familiar, he served in tours of Iraq and Afghanistan. He was described, even at the time, as an incredibly talented battle-proven leader. And then he deals with the issue that's front and center. He says, it is true that I don't have a similar biography to defense secretaries of the last 30 years. But, as President Trump also told me, we've repeatedly placed people atop the Pentagon with supposedly the right credentials,

[00:05:43] whether they are retired generals, academics, or defense contractor executives. And where has it gotten us? So he says, Pete Higgs says, he believes that as Trump believes, and I humbly agree, that it's time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm. A change agent. Someone with no vested interest in certain companies or specific programs or approved narratives.

[00:06:07] That is, of course, the thing that he will try to ride through this confirmation process. If I were a betting man, and I'm not, I don't think he's going to make it. But we will see. And I certainly haven't exactly had the best track record with Donald Trump. Never would have thought that he would have been the nominee back many years ago. I certainly wouldn't have predicted he'd be the nominee again. And then he would be twice elected to the presidency.

[00:06:37] So take anything I say with a, maybe not a grain of salt, but a whole bag of salt. But nevertheless, we'll see how that goes. There are some other nominees that are going to be controversial as well. Tulsi Gabbard, top of the list. There are some people that have been very concerned about the way she has gone about the process of getting advice and consent. Treating it more like just a meet and greet rather than a job description.

[00:07:05] Robert F. Kennedy, a couple of others certainly fit into that category. Which brings me to a piece that we will spend more time on after the break. But it's by Ben Weingarten. Republican senators can prove they know what time it is by confirming Trump's nominee's stat. And his question that he begins with is this. Do Republicans know what time it is?

[00:07:30] This week, with the kickoff of confirmation hearings for President-elect Donald Trump's nominees, the new Senate majority will have an opportunity to answer that question. And his argument is the Republicans in the Senate can demonstrate an understanding of the stakes of the confirmation fights by decisively winning them, neutralizing Democratic attacks,

[00:07:55] then going on offense against them and standing unified behind Trump's nominees. Winning the confirmation fights is of transcendent importance because the argument he makes is personnel is policy. And I'll be the first to say that he says this with a lot of arm-waving. Even if one or two of the nominees are not confirmed, that's not a defeat for the incoming Trump administration.

[00:08:25] But if this gets drawn out and lingered, and we have situations like we did last time where you have to wait until February for some of these individuals to get into their positions, that would be a defeat. So we'll look at that a little bit more right after these important messages.

[00:08:58] This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson. Throughout the 2024 campaign, President Biden and his administration argued that the economy was doing well. Many voters did not agree with their assessment. And even in the waning days of his administration, President Biden has argued that he is handing the Trump administration a robust labor market. E.J. Antony of the Heritage Foundation replies,

[00:09:24] I'm sorry, I think the Biden administration's own data contradicts that narrative. He explains that the post-pandemic economic recovery wasn't as robust as Biden argues. There is actually fewer native-born Americans working today than there were before the pandemic in 2019. Instead, the net job growth has gone to foreign-born workers. Douglas Carr provides another example of economic misperception by posting numerous charts illustrating the impact of Bidenomics.

[00:09:53] For example, his first chart illustrates that many more American families were worse off than a year ago, and this was worse for young adults. Of even greater concern was his chart that documents that the financial well-being of high school-educated Americans versus college degree holders, and his chart shows that the financial situation for Americans with just a high school degree has fallen to its lowest point in a half a century. Inflation over the last few years dropped average earnings for most Americans.

[00:10:22] He also quotes from a study from the Brookings Institute that the effects of rising prices have been more pronounced for poor families and especially families of color. President Biden and his administration may believe the economy was good, but Americans were feeling pain at the pump, in the grocery store, and in their wallets. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view. For a free copy of Kirby's booklet, A Biblical View on Critical Race Theory,

[00:10:52] go to viewpoints.info.crt. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Back once again, let me just for a few more minutes take your way through this particular article, and we have it in its entirety by Ben Weingarten. Again, Republican senators can prove they know what time it is by confirming Trump's nominees, and he makes the case, which we've talked about before, personnel is policy.

[00:11:21] If indeed the American people want some changes, then it seems to me that these individuals who are wanting to be change agents should be put in their position, and we shouldn't let that linger for such a long period of time. And after seeing what took place about eight years ago, and then comparing to how much quicker many of those individuals four years ago were confirmed, although in some cases it did take some time,

[00:11:50] because I think the confirmation process has become too bureaucratic. Matter of fact, the Secretary of Energy was supposed to be part of a confirmation day, but they didn't have all the paperwork. And I'm thinking, okay, how much paperwork do you need from an individual who is the governor of North Dakota, has been in the public eye, even ran for the presidency for a short period of time, and now you need more paperwork? Please. I think we can maybe speed this up a little bit, don't you think?

[00:12:17] But I'll leave that to the people in Congress. Anyway, Ben Weingarten says, Look, knowing what time it is means understanding that the attacks lodged against President-elect Trump's nominees will not actually be about fitness or qualifications, but rather about power. We know this because all the truly unfit and unqualified nominees, Democrats have abided in previous nominations and administrations. And I was thinking about that.

[00:12:45] Not to be overly critical of one person or another, but did anybody seriously think that Pete Buttigieg was the best pick for Secretary of Transportation? Transportation. I really could go through quite easily, and I think you could as well. I just picked him because he's probably a little better known to you. I could go down the list, and some of you would go, I've never heard of some of these people. But in some respects, really, was that the best person that we could pick?

[00:13:12] A person that really has had no experience in transportation? And I think it's worth an issue there. And, of course, he goes on to talk about the fact that we also had the lack of any fitness for the current President of the United States, and things like that. So he goes on to explain, though, the aim of some of these Democratic senators is to personally and politically destroy Trump's picks,

[00:13:41] particularly those hostile to the administrative state and ruling class orthodoxy, and therefore unlikely to play ball with the uniparty as part of a comprehensive effort to stymie, sabotage, and subvert what is taking place. And that's the other issue. One of the booklets we produced a while back was on the issue of the deep state. Now, there's a conspiratorial aspect of the deep state, but there's a reality to it as well.

[00:14:10] So don't get caught up on some of the really bizarre things that a few people have said about that to recognize that we really do have an administrative state. We do have a ruling class, a group of individuals that have been in the administration year after year, decade after decade, that really don't want to bring about some of the changes that need to take place.

[00:14:33] And even this ongoing battle with Pete Hegseth, whether he's the individual or someone else is, to begin to change some things that need to take place. And I think almost all of us know need to take place in the Defense Department, in the Pentagon, in the military, in our various academies, and the rest are all part of that.

[00:14:55] And so, again, the confirmation hearings, he says, are the first chance to delegitimize and destabilize the incoming administration, to grind its first 100 days to a halt, and therefore set it and the party on a path to failure, which, again, I think seems on the part of some of them to be the goal. Again, there can be some obvious ways that this will be done.

[00:15:21] One is to maybe highlight some of the past policy differences between Donald Trump and some of the appointees. We've had even that with J.D. Vance. Some would be to dredge up some old comments. I saw that today with Pete Hegseth about something he said about mothers. And one of the senators was saying, are you saying mothers cannot serve in the military? I'm not sure that's what he said, but okay. Some are going to engage in ad hominem invectives.

[00:15:47] And anyway, in many cases, just to simply manufacture unfounded narratives or even to begin to portray some of these nominees as evil, conniving, stupid, incompetent, corrupt, or even unethical.

[00:16:03] And so the point, he says, is these Republican senators should plan for all of these shenanigans from Borking, that goes back to Robert Bork, to the high-tech lynching, that goes all the way back to the current Supreme Court justice, or the Kavanaugh caper, that goes to another Supreme Court justice. These tactics have been used in the past and probably will surface again.

[00:16:28] He also goes on to say that it's also incumbent upon the appointees to persuasively explain why their skills, their experiences, and worldviews have prepared them to execute their office on behalf of Donald Trump and the American people. So far, so good. That needs to take place.

[00:16:49] They need to be able to calmly and confidently explain that, and in some cases, fend off any kind of misrepresentation of their words or of their character. When necessary, they will have to deconstruct, he says, the false premises, the innuendo, the strategy behind the narratives being weaved to expose the cynical, scorched-earth political warfare for what it is.

[00:17:14] Neither they nor Senate Republicans can shrink or show weakness in face of this intimidation. And then finally, he says that they should put some of these Democratic senators on defensive for making clear that the attacks on the nominees are about thwarting the peaceful transfer of power and obstructing an agenda the American people overwhelmingly supported.

[00:17:38] They ought to make clear that the nominees represent change agents who will prioritize common sense and realism over ideology and idealism, merit over politics, ingenuity, and vigor over bureaucracy and stagnation. And he goes on with some other comments as well.

[00:17:57] So, in some respects, you might say, why did you think it was appropriate that we might actually send a letter or an email to our two U.S. senators? And the reason for that is pretty clear. That is back to our favorite line that we use from here, and that is personnel is policy. And it's going to be important that this particular government right now is functioning very quickly.

[00:18:26] We have lots of threats. We have overseas, of course, a Ukrainian war. We have China saber rattling in ways that are very concerning. And we talked a little bit about that yesterday. Locally and domestically, we have everything from national debt to some very significant economic issues.

[00:18:48] On the border, we have the issue of a border that is not actually protected and a problem with all sorts of people that are here illegally. And the desire, I think, on the part of most Americans, if you look at the surveys, most Americans agree with the idea of deportation, starting first with those individuals that have committed a crime and don't really have a legitimate right to be here.

[00:19:17] So those are some reasons why I think it is worthwhile for you to go to our website, pointofview.net. You will see that we say, do you believe the president has the right to choose his cabinet members? Of course, there are many ways in which a president can achieve certain kinds of policy goals. One of those will happen, I guarantee, in the afternoon of Monday, January 20th,

[00:19:43] when I think then now elected and actually confirmed and actually sworn into office, President Donald Trump will sign a number of executive orders. But to achieve much more, he needs these 15 individuals first, as well as other individuals, to be part of the executive branch. And again, you see that we give you quotes from both Republicans and Democrats,

[00:20:10] one from a former senator, Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire. I think the president has a right to choose his cabinet as long as those members have integrity, haven't misrepresented things, or haven't done things which were improper. But we also quote from Chuck Schumer, who in 2021 was calling for this very same thing, because now, of course, these were Biden nominees, in which he said, we need qualified Senate-confirmed people, not in an acting capacity,

[00:20:40] in key national security positions on day one. That includes the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary of State, Attorney General, and others. That's what he said four years ago. I've got a feeling he's going to be saying something very different now. But we give you an opportunity, then, to simply put in your zip code. It pops up all the information necessary. We give you a suggested letter, which then you can modify any way you would like.

[00:21:08] And then we give you the opportunity to contact your two United States senators. It's time to get to work. The American people have spoken. Donald Trump won the electoral vote. He won the electoral college vote. He won the popular vote. It's time to put his nominees in those positions and get to work. We'll take a break. We have a lot more to cover right after this. In 19th century London, two towering historical figures did battle,

[00:21:36] not with guns and bombs, 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.

[00:22:03] Spurgeon understood Christianity is not just 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 signup.

[00:22:27] 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 pointofview.net slash signup right now. pointofview.net slash signup. Point of View will continue after this.

[00:22:51] You are listening to Point of View. The opinions expressed on Point of View do not necessarily reflect the views of the management or staff of this station. And now, here again, is Kirby Anderson. Back once again, if you'd like to join the conversation, 1-800-351-1212. Let's, if we can, spend just a little bit of time talking about California.

[00:23:20] We probably will have some time the rest of this week to get into some other details. But one of the things I like to do from time to time on Point of View is alert you to a phrase or an argument that you're going to run into that maybe isn't all that it seems like if you really dig into it. And the phrase I'm going to talk about is hydroclimate whiplash. I know that's a big one. Hydroclimate whiplash.

[00:23:48] And if you find yourself saying, well, I want to read about what you're getting into, this actually comes from the editors of the Wall Street Journal. They call it California's wildfire climate excuse. Now, let's recognize that we've had fires in California for years. We've had wet seasons. We've had dry seasons.

[00:24:12] One of the things I like about this, if you print this out, it takes you through the last 120 years of the annual precipitation in California. So you can begin, once you start getting that kind of, if you will, meteorological record, to see that a lot of things that you're going to hear over the next few weeks,

[00:24:34] as justifications for why this fire got out of control are really not easily justifiable, maybe not justifiable at all from the actual record. But this idea of a hydroclimate whiplash is something that you're going to start hearing the media talk about. So let's say you probably heard it first here on Point of View.

[00:25:00] It's a term that people that are part of the left, part of kind of the environmental left, part of those who are climate promoters, you know, I don't, you know, the opposite of a climate denier, however you want to say it, climate change advocates, extremists, whatever phrase you want to use, have been using lately to try to explain the wildfires that we've had in Los Angeles.

[00:25:28] And it's really, if you think about it, the way to change the subject from some of the political failures that are unfolding before our very eyes. I've heard some people say whether it's going to happen this year, next year, the next two years, next three or four years, sooner or later, there is a change probably coming,

[00:25:52] not only to the mayor's office in Los Angeles, but maybe even to some congressional seats, maybe even the governor's office, we will see. But let's get back to this issue. The theory of hydroclimate whiplash is this, that climate change is the reason. Okay, well, we're going to hear that forever. But it happened because of a unique set of circumstances, because California had two very wet winters.

[00:26:21] That would be 2023 and 2024, in which you had two very wet winters compared to others. And that's sort of true, not exactly, but it's close enough to be willing to acknowledge, if you look at the chart. And so this led to a lush vegetation and growth. Some of the underbrush, which we've been talking about, necessarily needed to be cleared out.

[00:26:49] And you even might remember there were some statements about wildflower explosion and a blooming desert and all that. And then, according to the theory, then the climate change, which gave us two wet winters, gave us a dry spell. Thus, it provided an opportunity for all that vegetation now to turn to tinder and then turn to fires.

[00:27:18] Ultimately, then you get the hydroclimate whiplash. So, as the editors of the Wall Street Journal put it, climate change explains wet and dry seasons, which follows the progressive line that climate change is responsible for every natural disaster, except perhaps earthquakes, although I've even heard people say that. In today's climate orthodoxy, bad weather is always man-made. Now, the editors don't put up with this.

[00:27:45] They say this ignores that California's climate has long been variable with dry years following wet years. And one of the things I appreciate about the individuals that put this together at the Wall Street Journal, for those of you looking online, you can see that there is a chart. And that chart gives you California's annual precipitation from 1895 to 2023. So, really, even more than 120 years.

[00:28:13] But I just rounded it off to close enough, about 128 years. But, again, you can see there are highs and lows. And you can see there are some times where there's two highs and then a low. And we've had this for some time. And, again, if your argument is this is brought about by the amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere, all you have to go back to is, let's go back to the 1910s and the 1920s,

[00:28:40] when carbon emissions were definitely much lower than they are right now. And you can see that what you really have here is, guess what? Climate has been changing. And that is maybe due partially to human activity, but it's probably due to a variety of others. And the argument I would make is, if indeed you are convinced that climate change is the reason for all of the weather that we have now,

[00:29:07] and I'm not convinced that it is, I believe that it's part of it. No doubt about that. I don't think you can deny that human activity doesn't have a part to play. But to say that that's what is the driving force is really pushing it, I think, quite a bit. But even if you accept that argument, so let's accept the argument, then you should be working overtime to make sure that some of the kinds of problems that have unfolded would not take place.

[00:29:34] That's why when you get to the third page of this piece by the editors of the Wall Street Journal, they point out that even though you're having right now Governor Gavin Newsom making a point for the fact that we really need to do a lot more work in this regard, if you look at the budget that has just been proposed and was introduced by the governor on Friday,

[00:29:57] the proposal actually, as they say, skimps on wildfire prevention while boosting spending on Medicaid, green energy, and things that will ultimately be a payoff to the teachers unions. And so, for example, the coming fiscal year will actually cut what's called CAL FIRE's resource management program by half from what was that amount in 2023.

[00:30:26] Then you have what is called a climate bond spending that includes $36 million for sequestering carbon and reducing emissions, which, again, are based on the assumption that if we can reduce the amount of CO2, we'll have less climate change. And we have climate change before we had the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere right now.

[00:30:52] And so they come to the very obvious conclusion that none of this spending will mitigate future fires, droughts, or floods, and really will have no significant impact. It will have negligible impact on global temperatures. In any case, Democrats have other priorities than preventing fires or better managing its scarce resources. Which, of course, brings me to something else we've talked about before,

[00:31:20] and that is if there's anything that people are starting to learn, it goes back to the quote I gave you yesterday in which you had one of these authors who predicted years ago that one of the biggest problems with a lot of Democratic leaders, especially the mayors and governors that have that responsibility, is if they really do their job well, it's really kind of boring because you're talking about fixing potholes.

[00:31:48] You're talking about making sure that the bridges are safe, making sure that the robes are plowed, all the kind of boring things that just really need to take place every single day to keep people safe. But it's much more exciting to talk about fighting racism or any kind of poverty, trying to deal with the homeless issue, which I think deserves a focus. I'm not saying that it doesn't.

[00:32:14] But all these other kind of DEI, ESG, woke kind of ideas are sometimes much easier to run on and certainly are the kind of individuals that are going to be more likely to be elected in the state of California. I was thinking it was interesting. Larry Elder, who, by the way, ran for governor and is a talk show host with Salem News, has said,

[00:32:41] I don't understand why people are giving a pass to all the voters. Because in some respects, if you're convinced that these policies that come from the governor, city council, mayor, various people in the bureaucracy are a problem, the reason those people are in those positions is because the voters voted them in in the first place.

[00:33:07] And so he's much less forgiving of some of the voters that probably are the reason that you have some of those individuals traveling around now doing all they can to try to focus attention somewhere else so that they can win re-election in the next campaign. Anyway, we are going to come back. And one of the other very good articles is by Charles Cook. We've quoted from him before. He asked a very good question.

[00:33:36] Are Californians near the tipping point? We'll talk about that right after this. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Back for a few more minutes, and I thought I would read this piece by Charles Cook or just give you kind of the highlights,

[00:34:06] because it's kind of a developing debate that is already unfolding. Now I recognize it is much too soon to even begin to predict what could happen two years from now in the election, for example, for people in the Texas House, Senate, in the California Assembly or Senate, the election of the governor in New York or in Illinois, or in this case California.

[00:34:32] But in some respects, you can kind of see some trends unfolding. And I thought it's kind of interesting because Charles Cook asked the question, are Californians nearing the tipping point? And his implication is maybe so. Another piece of evidence in that direction comes from all people, Megyn Kelly. Now Megyn Kelly's been on kind of mainstream media, but now has her own podcast.

[00:35:02] And I watch an occasional clip. I can't re-show those or play those here. She's kind of, now that she's not on mainstream media, has developed kind of a mouth. And I wouldn't want Megyn to have to keep hitting the swear button while we have something like that. But she tells the story of an individual that is a good friend of hers. They're really close friends, but she's as woke as she can be in California. The friend is.

[00:35:28] And so she says, even though we get along, and I love her a great deal, we just don't talk politics. She says, my woke friend in California is saying, we've had it. We are going to now vote for whoever we can put in the Republican Party in office. Okay, we'll see. But it's interesting that she says, I can't think of anybody I know, and she's got all sorts of friends who are definitely DEI type woke and all that,

[00:35:53] that are certainly not happy at all with what has transpired there in California. On the other hand, you have a number of others that are saying, I'm not so sure. Adam Caroli has said that. But Michael Knowles, who we've had on the program, says, yeah, I'm a little more skeptical about this. And the reality for that is that the party will figure out very quickly how to blame,

[00:36:21] and we're already seeing this, climate change or the hydro climate windfall and all the other kinds of things, and maybe distract attention. So we'll see. But it is, I think, telling that here I've got a picture of this would be, I guess, Assemblyman Robert Rivas, who is the Speaker of the California State Assembly.

[00:36:49] And here he's actually speaking in which they're going to hold, as you've already heard us mention, a session to fight Trump while the fires are still raging in Southern California. This is known as being brain dead or certainly having bad optics. Another one here, California becomes first state to offer health insurance to all undocumented immigrants.

[00:37:16] That's about 700,000 adults between ages 26 and 49. That one unfolds. Here's a piece here. This is a real good one. No, really, why is Gavin Newsom governor of California and goes through all the faux pas of the governor? But since we broadcast in many other states in California, I won't go through that. But you've heard enough to know that there are people in California that really are beginning to wonder. Well, Charles Cook put it this way.

[00:37:45] I love California. He said, I'm not just saying that because it's about the rude, about the fact I'm going to be rude about the government. But I truly love California. And he talks about it in some length. California is beautiful. It has sublime weather. The people are inventive and unusual. It's full of roller coasters. Why that's in there, I don't know. Food is good. Produces wine. It's the center of the world's technological innovation. But it's had a really bad run.

[00:38:12] And there's absolutely nothing to be gained, he says, by pretending otherwise. He talks about meeting with some students at UCLA, and they're just griping and complaining and bellyaching and everything about the problem with the state. So I asked the group whether or not they were planning to leave, and the kids just all go, leave? Look outside. You know, this, you know, no, we're not going to leave. He says, well, that was then and this is now. And I suspect some of those people have indeed left.

[00:38:42] He says, lest I be misunderstood, when I propose that California is really badly run, I do not mean that it is run by people with whose politics I disagree, although that is undoubtedly true. I mean it is run by people who are incompetent at the tasks of taxing and spending and passing and enforcing laws, representing their constituents, dealing with emergencies.

[00:39:08] He says, look, Massachusetts is full of people with whose politics I disagree, but on the whole, it's pretty solidly governed. Sure, I don't want to live there, but by the same token, a lot of Bay Staters don't want to live where I live in Florida.

[00:39:23] So the point he's making is, I'm not just saying this because I disagree with the politics of the Democratic Party, which is a single-party state in California, or that I disagree with the policies of the mayor of Los Angeles, or the governor of California, or the speaker of the California Assembly. This just is not well run.

[00:40:15] It's not well done.

[00:40:45] Nothing. Whether it be power stations or reservoirs or high-speed rail or housing estates, nothing ever seems to get built.

[00:40:55] And so finally he says, the fires that have terrorized Los Angeles over the past week have many causes, but reasonable observers might be able to at least agree that none of these causes are Donald Trump, the Republican Party, Christian nationalism, or any other of the boogeymen that are typically trottered out to explain why figures such as Gavin Newsom, the governor, Karen Bass, the mayor, should remain in the city.

[00:41:26] Even climate change, he says, that villain represents a weak excuse for the state's poor preparation for wildfires, given that if one truly believed that the circumstances were as dire as California officials repeatedly insist that they are, one would presumably end up being more prepared for the consequences of climate change, not less. Well, we'll see.

[00:41:55] But there are many of these kinds of podcasts being surfacing very quickly and being produced that are saying, I think there is possibly a tipping point. Now we have some others that have said, no, some of these individuals have no bottom, so there's never a chance for people to bounce back. We'll see. And it may be too early to talk about some of this, but I just thought I would end with this one.

[00:42:25] Are Californians near the tipping point? Charles Cook thinks maybe they are, and there's some very good reasons for it. And these are, again, lessons for people in other states to learn so that they don't make some of the mistakes being played out every night in front of our television sets. Well, that's all we have. I'm looking forward to some great interviews tomorrow. And most importantly, as always, I want to thank Megan for her help engineering the program. Steve, thank you for producing the program.

[00:42:53] If you find yourself saying, I'd like to read a few of these again, simply go to the website pointofview.net, and you can also go back and listen to the interview once again at pointofview.net. But stay tuned. We'll see you back here tomorrow right here on Point of View. It almost seems like we live in a different world from many people in positions of authority. They say men can be women and women men.

[00:43:20] People are prosecuted differently or not at all depending on their politics. Criminals are more valued and rewarded than law-abiding citizens. It's so overwhelming, so demoralizing. You feel like giving up. But we can't. We shouldn't. We must not. As Winston Churchill said to Britain in the darkest days of World War II, Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never. Never yield to force.

[00:43:49] Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. And that's what we say to you today. This is not a time to give in, but to step up and join Point of View in providing clarity in the chaos. We can't do it alone, but together, with God's help, we will overcome the darkness. Invest in biblical clarity today at pointofview.net or call 1-800-347-5151.

[00:44:19] Pointofview.net and 800-347-5151. Point of View is produced by Point of View Ministries.