Point of View January 28, 2025 – Hour 2 : Energy Policy Changes

[00:00:04] Across America, Live, this is Point of View, with Hannah Dexter. Right at the start here of the second hour of Point of View, I want to open up the phones, 800-351-1212.

[00:00:27] If you would like to talk about what you're observing with regard to the first week and a couple of days of the Trump administration, especially with regard to the dismantling of the DEI agenda, diversity, equity and inclusion, and the emphasis upon merit-based hiring in the federal government and also in the private sector.

[00:00:56] So we're going to talk about that in the next couple of segments. Also, on day one, on inauguration day, between the swearing-in and the inaugural balls, President Trump, as you probably maybe watched yourself or heard about, sat in the Oval Office and signed executive order after executive order and took questions from the press while he did it.

[00:01:20] And many of these were in the energy sector, unleashing American energy and taking some of the strictures and the limits off of producing energy in this country. And we're going to talk about that with Jason Isaac in the final 30 minutes of the program. So you will want to stick with us.

[00:01:42] He's been working on these issues for a long time, and I'm sure he's very happy with sort of the things opening up now. But also to talk about diversity, equity and inclusion. That covers a lot of areas, and it's just kind of a – it's sort of a change in paradigm. It's a paradigm shift in the federal government, making some people very uncomfortable.

[00:02:10] But he signed – President Trump signed an executive order. It was number 14171. This was Tuesday, second day of his administration. It was a sweeping document that aims to dismantle DEI programs in government. The work has already begun. The White House ordered that all federal employees working in DEI will be placed on paid administrative leave, effective immediately. Some people were upset, well, we're wasting money.

[00:02:40] They're not doing any work. But the idea is to remove the philosophy of government. It will end up saving us money in the long run. But as the Trump administration begins dismantling DEI-related offices and initiatives, I think we'll begin to see the freedom from that. It's a little bit oppressive. The executive order also repeals a Johnson-era executive order that forced federal contractors to implement all kinds of affirmative action policies.

[00:03:10] Many in the media are saying this is a blow to racial equality and an undoing of the progress we made in the civil rights era. But that's really not the case. And it really gets closer to the original intent of the civil rights movement, which was to have a colorblind society.

[00:03:32] One that does not treat people according to the color of their skin or even their gender with regard to their opportunities. And the country will be better for this. One thing that's happened is one of the kind of forerunners of DEI, of gender identity and sort of catering to people's thoughts about what gender they are and things like that, is the corporation Target.

[00:03:58] And I stopped setting foot in Target, a store which I frequented probably more than any other, back in 2016. So what is that? Nine years ago. I haven't been in a Target for nine years. And I'm a mom. I'm a grandma. And it's a store that you would go to. But because of some of the policies in the store that I saw, and I could list all of them for you. And some of you could probably list them too.

[00:04:23] As a matter of fact, if you want to talk about Target, you could call us and we'll talk about it. What have you done? Have you done anything special with regard to a boycott or just discontinuing frequenting the store? But the store actually has said now that it is axing all of its DEI policies. Now, this was a store where this is before I even stopped going there.

[00:04:49] But there were lots of there's publicity about the fact that they were not really showing their children's clothing as boy or girl. There was there's just there wasn't a boy section anymore, not a girl section anymore. And then a little bit later, you started the dressing room policies began began to be in the news. And it was if you identified as a gender, whether you were biologically that gender or not, you could use the dressing rooms.

[00:05:18] So there was a lot of confusion in the Target stores. The dressing rooms weren't all that private there anyway. So you had people, you know, upset about that. And then gradually over time, people just began to accept it and adapt.

[00:05:32] And then when we started seeing kids identifying as the opposite gender or, you know, a trans boy, trans girl, you started seeing Target carrying the clothing, the chest binders, the little bathing suits with tux in them. And just the sort of gender neutral androgynous type of clothing. So that's been Target.

[00:05:55] And a lot of Christians like myself have just not wanted to have anything to do with it because it was one of the pioneers in those policies. Others certainly have followed. But now Target is just it's just turned 180 degrees. It seems like it anyway. It says it says it's axing its DEI policies. This is in Washington Post. We've also posted it at pointofview.net. It's concluding its three year diversity, equity and inclusion goals.

[00:06:23] Those are formal, but it's been actually pursuing them for a lot longer than three years. It says it's going to stop its reports to the human rights campaigns, corporate equality index. That's what a lot of corporations try to abide by in order to get the approval of the human rights campaign and get a good report on their index.

[00:06:43] And Target also said it was trashing a program focused on carrying more products from black and minority owned businesses as the retailer has been scaling back its LGBTQ pride collections after backlash from outrage customers over these gay themed kids. And this was actually hurting clothing sales. So what Target is doing is not just pulling back from the LGBTQ, which is what everybody was objecting to.

[00:07:10] But it's trying to make its business operations based on reality and not on the desire to elevate one race over another, one gender over another or one gender identity over another. So Kira Fernandez, who is Target's chief community impact and equity officer, said that many years of data and insights and listening have been shaping the next chapter in their strategy.

[00:07:40] Apparently, it's going to be more realistic and it's not going to be in service of DEI, but instead of Target's growth and quote unquote winning altogether. So Target may be making some changes. There's another piece out of the Washington Stand, FRC Family Research Council, moving target, how Americans pushed the pioneer of woke retail to the breaking point. And another one, eye on the target.

[00:08:09] This is from Heritage Foundation Daily Signal. Major corporation turns on woke and LGBTQ mafia. Wow, that is big. The target is making some changes. If you'd like to talk about it, 800-351-1212. Don't forget later in the program, we will begin talking about unleashing American energy. And of course, that means unleashing prosperity. And I think it's probably one of the best ways to do so fairly quickly.

[00:08:37] We'll talk about that with Jason Isaacs. But give us a call. Join the conversation. We'll be right back. This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson. Pornography and porn sites were on the topic of the Supreme Court earlier this month.

[00:09:06] The key question was whether requiring age verification on a porn site violates the First Amendment. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is the case currently before the High Court. Texas passed a law requiring porn purveyors to start using reasonable age verification methods. Other states like Arkansas, Louisiana, Virginia, and Utah have passed similar porn site age laws. The Texas brief explains that the law does not prevent adults from viewing pornography.

[00:09:32] Instead, the law requires online pornographers to take commercially reasonable steps to ensure that their customers are not children. The lead challenger in this case is the Free Speech Coalition. It is described as an adult entertainment industry group that argued that age verification is too great a burden on First Amendment rights. They also raised concerns about privacy and security risk. Having a 21st century Supreme Court ruling on pornography is important.

[00:09:58] The court's ruling in pornography and obscenity in Miller v. California came in 1973. Texas cites a case of Ginsburg v. New York that dealt with the selling of magazines to minors, but that decision came down in 1968. Technology has changed the world in the last two decades. Young people have access to pornography through computers and smartphones. In fact, the most recent survey found that a clear majority of children have a smartphone by age 11.

[00:10:26] Here are two points I believe the justices should consider. First, children should be protected from the scourge of pornography. We do know the dangers. Second, digital age verification is becoming commonplace. It places no significant burden on First Amendment rights. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view. For a free booklet on a biblical view of anti-Semitism, go to viewpoints.info slash antisemitism.

[00:10:53] Viewpoints.info slash antisemitism. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. It's open lines here on Point of View. I'm Panna Dexter.

[00:11:07] The number is 800-351-1212, and the topics are Target, turning around on its diversity, equity, inclusion programs that were mainly characterized by catering to sort of the transgender identity and transgender ideology for kids. And that's, I think, why a lot of parents boycotted it or just didn't frequent the store as much, but they seem to be changing.

[00:11:35] They've had a lot of – their finances haven't been very good the last couple of years. And so I think this is part of the reason for this, but, you know, whatever the reason, let's get the policies back in line with what makes a lot of common sense. Also, we're talking about the order for the military for transgender troops as we get a new Secretary of Defense who's been sworn in.

[00:12:01] He says those who don't comply with ending diversity-focused initiatives in the military, Pete Hegsest says they will no longer work here. He says there will be an executive order on removing DEI inside the Pentagon. We're taking your calls. So let's go to South Carolina and speak with Loretta. She's listening in on WLTX. Hi, Loretta. Hi there. How are you all doing today? Great. How are you? Fantastic. I'm doing really well.

[00:12:31] Just came out of the vet's office, headed home an hour away, listened to the radio, and said, oh, I'm there. I'm there. Well, good. I'm glad you called. Maybe back in the mid to late 1980s. But we always went to Kmart down here. And it was a really good store, and it had some good stuff in it. And then I learned that they actually used their proceeds to support the abortion industry.

[00:13:00] Now, back when I was very young, I made a stupid mistake. And the only way I could see out was to abort my baby. And I did. And that was probably about 50 years ago. And I still am haunted by that. Wow. So this is not a quick fix for anybody. Anybody. You will rue the day. You may not think you will today, but you will. Anyway, Kmart was supporting abortion. And so I said, well, I can't do that.

[00:13:29] So I stopped going to Kmart. And then I found a Target and started shopping at Target. And then I found out what crazy people they were. So I stopped going there. And I've always known about Starbucks, that they support the abortion industry and the homosexual agenda. So I've never been to a Starbucks, if I remember correctly. But just because, I mean, don't get me wrong. I am so glad that they're going back to some sense of sanity.

[00:13:56] But is the same CEO still in place? Are the same decision makers still in place? Because if they are, it's only to get their money back. And as soon as someone else comes into the White House that agreed with Biden and his administration or Obama or Clinton, then we can see those policies coming back. They didn't do it because it was wrong. They did it because it was costing them money. Well, there's two sides to this.

[00:14:25] One is the companies that are unilaterally in their capacity as being good stewards of the company finances and just the health of the company. They're making these decisions. So now some of them are making the decision that DEI is actually not helpful to them, to their public image. DEI programs are very expensive. You have to hire these high-priced people.

[00:14:49] And a lot of times you're not hiring the best because you're hiring according to some sort of characteristic or gender or gender identity, not according to merit. So it costs – but the companies, usually it doesn't involve jettisoning. And DEI doesn't involve the CEO stepping down. Usually it's just a company decision that's made.

[00:15:12] Now, in the government, a lot of times – actually both companies and governments will fire their DEI officer because many companies and certainly governments have whole departments for diversity, equity, and inclusion, making sure they comply with all these things. So if they get rid of the whole department, I think that's a really good sign. Also, the U.S. Congress needs to start weighing in on some of these policies.

[00:15:38] And I'm thinking of the military especially because you're right. As soon as a new White House comes in and appoints a new Secretary of Defense, then the good that you've done in restoring merit to the military or to your hiring companies as a private decision, if you get somebody different with a different idea, then, yeah, it can change. Private companies are free to do what they want to do.

[00:16:05] The federal government, I think our U.S. Congress needs to start building in some protections against DEI requirements because it was really draconian in our federal government. There were so many laws about what pronoun you could use, what you could say about people, what bathroom. You know, all of these things. I feel like there's sort of freedom now in the culture now that these requirements and strictures are being lifted.

[00:16:35] So, no, you're not going to make it the way you want it right away, but I think you support the policies that you think are best and that make the most sense. And as far as Congress making laws about it, talk to your members of Congress. So, I appreciate your weighing in, Loretta. We really do. And I want to now go to Melissa, who's listening in in California. Hi, Melissa. Thanks for calling. Hi.

[00:17:02] Yeah, while I'm driving down five, so it might be a little fuzzy in the background, what I want to say is this. I'm a native San Franciscan. I'm 70 years old. So, all through the mid-70s to where the gay community has gotten to this point, I find these people who are, many of them are my friends,

[00:17:27] I find what they're doing with the children, and I'm going to tell you why I find it wrong. I think a child should determine his or her own sexuality when they're finally too bad. Melissa, I've lost you. I've lost you. Can you repeat what you just said? Because I have no idea what you just said. Something was cut out.

[00:17:56] Oh, okay. What I want to say, I think I'm in a better zone now. Good. What I want to say is I believe that some of the LGBT community that have adopted kids are grooming these children in that direction. They might or might not be a propensity to being bisexual or gay or whatever. I think it's important for the child to make the decision when that child,

[00:18:24] either a male or female, becomes of pubescent age and then feels like, hey, I think I'm gay. So then they make the choice. I don't think it's savvy of any department store to predetermine anybody's sexuality until they get at least 13 years old, 18, to be able to make that decision.

[00:18:50] And it's profiting in the worst kind of way on these young children. I find it exploitive of Target to do what they did. And that's why they had to pull off. I'm thinking, you know, whoa, are these gay parents grooming their children at this age to wear, you know, LGBT clothes? This is a little over the top.

[00:19:19] Yeah, some of it can be gay parents, but sometimes it's parents that I think it's a false compassion. And, you know, it's come through the medical community, psychological education. Everybody's been on board with this, just saying, well, if the child, you know, is suffering mentally somehow, maybe it's because they're struggling with their gender identity. Let's let them, you know, take puberty blockers or just identify as the opposite sex

[00:19:47] and wear the clothes and, you know, this is just all of it is misguided. It's not doing the children any favors. And you're right. I mean, I disagree with trying another gender at any age, but I think with children, adults have a responsibility to, number one, protect them and not facilitate it or pay for it.

[00:20:07] Well, you know, our Constitution has a book protecting our children. It's a whole list of how to protect children. It was written during the time of the Constitution, and that should be republished and put out in front of everybody. But here's something that I do know, and I'll put it in perspective. We only have a couple, like we only have 30 seconds.

[00:20:36] Okay, really quick. My girlfriend's daughter wasn't born with the right uterus, so she tried to commit suicide because she wasn't maturing like all of her friends. So she finally did go gay because she didn't have the female part to make it work properly as a female. So she made that decision in high school. Yeah, I've got to let you go. I've got to let you go.

[00:21:05] I think you made your point, and there's some of those medical cases that take place, but the exception to the norm should not dictate our policy. Let's put it that way. Well, ladies and gentlemen, next up we're going to talk about unleashing American energy and some ways that we're probably going to make our country more prosperous. We'll be back with that.

[00:21:31] 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. 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.

[00:21:58] 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, 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.

[00:22:23] 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. Pointofview.net and 800-347-5151. 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 Tana Dexter. Wall Street Journal today published an opinion piece by Bernard Swaim.

[00:23:21] Why climate ideology is dying. Boy, you never thought, I mean, really, this came kind of suddenly, this kind of a switch. But he says, momentous social movements begin to die the moment adherents figure out their leaders don't believe what they say. He says the climate ideology was alarmist and in no way settled. And that should have been obvious.

[00:23:49] It wasn't really obvious to a lot of people. I think a lot of people thought that at least among the elites, that climate change or the fact that humans were hurting the climate with their energy policies and things like that, that that was settled and that we needed to deal with that and that all our laws and policies needed to support that. But that's certainly changed.

[00:24:16] And we've seen President Trump issue many, many executive orders to sort of reverse some of those things that we thought we had to do for, quote, unquote, climate change. But what has finally convinced ordinary people, says Bernard Swaim, that the doomsdayers are wrong, it's not any misrepresentation of climate framers.

[00:24:44] Instead, it's the palpable sense that very few of the doomsdayers believe what they say. And he just cites some of the wealthy people that go to places like Davos in their own private jets and, you know, the way that they consume energy in their own homes and in their own lives. And he says that, you know, he doesn't really think the elites ever really truly believe this. I don't know if that's true. I'm going to ask my guest.

[00:25:09] My next guest is Jason Isaac, and he is Senior Manager and Distinguished Fellow of Life Powered at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. He's also founder and CEO of American Energy Institute. He's a fourth-generation native Texan, and he was elected four times as state representative for Hayes and Blanco Counties in the beautiful Texas Hill Country. Jason, thank you for joining me. No, it's great to be on. Thanks for having me. It's good to have you.

[00:25:36] I'm excited because I'm coming down to Austin to the Texas Public Policy Foundation Policy Conference next month. And I love just learning so much there, and I've learned a lot about energy from you speaking there and some of your colleagues. But, you know, watching President Trump on that first day issue all the executive orders, many of which had to do with energy policy. I mean, how are you feeling that day? I'm feeling great.

[00:26:05] Like he'd accomplished more in 100 minutes than the prior administration had accomplished in four years, pulling us out of the Paris climate cartel, which is just fantastic. Not a single large country is meeting their commitments. I mean, even France isn't meeting the commitments of the Paris Climate Accord, which is laughable. The country it's named after, Paris. France can't even meet their own commitments.

[00:26:31] And they're just proving that decarbonization is a political agenda that does nothing to mitigate a changing climate. You talk about these elite globalists that are heading off to Davos that live a high-carbon lifestyle but don't want anybody else to. And I live one, and I think the rest of the world should, too. It's one of the reasons I said that in front of Congress that Jamie Raskin, the progressive congressman from Maryland, called me Carbon King. It's now my nickname. It's on my license plates, my business cards, my name tags.

[00:27:01] I embrace it. I hope the rest of the world gets to live a high-carbon lifestyle and get clean air and clean water, things that we take for granted here in the United States. President Trump recognizes that, and he is peeling back the awful layers of the climate alarmism that was in the prior administration.

[00:27:18] So what this has all been in service of, well, I mean, I think the emperor has no clothes, but what they've said it's in service of is a so-called climate crisis, which is sort of a hoax, isn't it? It really is. If we're living in a climate crisis, we're living wonderfully well. That deaths from weather-related events over the last 100 years have decreased. They're down 99 percent, while our population has quadrupled.

[00:27:44] We're feeding more people than we've ever fed before, and we're using less land to do it. When you have access to affordable and reliable energy that's dense, these things are amazing, and this is the economic prosperity that we've experienced here in the United States. I was listening to the confirmation hearing of Department of Energy Secretary nominee Chris Wright and talking about how there's a billion people on the planet that live in prosperity, that have access to affordable and reliable energy. Only a billion.

[00:28:14] Now, there's a billion that have no access whatsoever, and he understands the connection to this great life is energy. Energy poverty is poverty, and here in the United States, we stand over the key to eliminating global poverty with the energy that we produce more responsibly than anywhere else on the planet. So if there is a climate crisis, I love it, and I want more of it.

[00:28:39] Yeah, but Trump has declared a climate emergency, so I'm not exactly sure what that is. Maybe you know, and I'd love to hear if you do know what that means. I mean, I know that a lot of policies are being changed in service to a climate emergency and declaring that, but what's our climate emergency? He declared an energy emergency, contrary to what the Biden administration was. Yeah, yeah, that's all right, that's all right. I don't want people to get confused. Yeah.

[00:29:09] But it was the Biden administration who was under so much pressure to declare a climate crisis, a climate emergency, and use every facet of the government at its disposal and mobilize the military to get rid of our gas-powered vehicles and come by our homes and make sure that we're installing solar panels. An energy emergency, to the contrary, is saying that we have way too many regulatory hurdles to get energy to market.

[00:29:36] He lifted the pause on LNG export terminals. That's liquefied natural gas. It's as dense as you can make natural gas so that we can transport it on the seas and get it to our allies so that they can get our American energy, they can experience our clean air, and reduce the cost and their dependence from countries that really don't like us very much, that don't like liberty very much.

[00:29:59] And so this is a great move to just eliminate the regulatory hurdles because they are way too high. They're driving development to other countries. As soon as the Biden administration issued a pause on LNG export terminals, within weeks you had new terminals being announced in the Middle East, in Qatar, in Saudi Arabia. We should be exporting our natural gas here via LNG export terminals, and that's going to start happening.

[00:30:29] We're going to see significant investment in American energy production, and that is what is behind this energy crisis, the regulatory hurdle that these companies face that just drive investment to other countries. Do you think European countries, I mean, all things being equal, if they can get as much energy as they need from us, are going to get it from us? I think they're going to. You look at Germany, they're facing two years of a recession and very close to a depression.

[00:30:58] Half of their automobile manufacturing capacity is idled. They're the number one economy, or I should say they're the largest economy in the EU right now, and they are deindustrializing rapidly. Companies like BASF, a world-leading chemical manufacturing company, is shutting down and idling operations in Germany. That's where they're headquartered, and they're moving operations to China, and they're citing energy costs as the reason. It is crushing their economy.

[00:31:26] Their electricity, in some cases, are ten times more expensive than it is here in the United States, ten times. That's why freezing deaths are on the rise. I remember the Biden administration talking about heat deaths being the number one killer. I couldn't be further from the truth. It's actually cold-related deaths are 40 times more prevalent than they are heat-related deaths. And people are freezing during the winters in Europe because they can't afford to heat their homes.

[00:31:54] It's absolutely appalling that first-world countries are experiencing this, but this is what China has been pushing with their climate propaganda through nonprofits here in the United States to scare us, to scare children, to scare people into action for something that just isn't the case. And I think that's why people are rejecting the climate alarmists screaming. Not a single prediction has come true over the last 50 years from the climate alarmists.

[00:32:23] Yeah, I think people were already kind of onto it because it didn't seem like it was very much of an election issue, the climate itself. I mean, I think the damage from the climate change agendas was more of an election issue than the climate, which, I mean, that, you know, it used to be more of an issue. But if you put it, if you made a list of the election issues, it was at the bottom or not on there. Yeah, you're absolutely right.

[00:32:50] When you look at some of the top ten issues, some of the cases, it wasn't even in there. And so that tells me that people are waking up. The U.N. constantly pulls this from people around the world, and they get angry when it doesn't show up even in the top 20. You know, you'll list 24 items, and that will be the 23rd. People want to know that they're going to be able to get food. They want to know they're going to be able to have energy. They want to survive. And places that have affordable and reliable energy have the highest survival rates on the planet. Yeah, better lifestyle. Yeah, absolutely.

[00:33:20] The people that live the high-carbon lifestyle, they have high CO2 emissions per capita. They are living incredibly well lives, and the rest of the world should get to experience that, too, and not worry that their emissions are doing anything to change the climate because more and more research is showing that those CO2 emissions aren't affecting the climate or temperature whatsoever. We'll be right back with more of Point of View.

[00:33:42] You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. My guest is Jason Isaac. We are talking about the lifting of restrictions on energy production. It makes for cheaper energy.

[00:34:09] It benefits the U.S., our businesses, our citizens, and really the whole world. One of the, I guess, swords that was hanging over us was the EV mandate. California, very strict requirements to have all sales of cars be electric vehicles very soon, and the U.S., the federal mandate that was kind of coming off of that.

[00:34:35] It was already very apparent that it wasn't going to work, that we're not ready for anything like that. But it's gone. It's just gone, Jason. And, you know, it's kind of exciting. It really is, and we've got some work to do because there are so many ways that we are mandated to drive and that automobile manufacturers are mandated to make EVs. People think, oh, there's no EV mandate. I can go buy whatever car I want to buy.

[00:35:05] But the automobile manufacturers are transitioning to EVs, and they're doing it because they have to in order to comply with federal requirements from the Department of Transportation, namely the corporate average fuel economy, where they mandate that cars get up to 59 miles per gallon. By the end of the decade, it will be up at over 90 miles per gallon. Well, it's really hard for a gasoline car to make that kind of gains. It's hard for a hybrid to make that kind of gains or mileage.

[00:35:34] But what they do is they give electric vehicles this arbitrary number of equivalent to 114 miles per gallon. And then they give them a multiplier. It's this illegal multiplier that I've researched and studied about that they get over 700 miles per gallon credit, and they trade the credits. And it's the only way that they can make their fuel economy requirements is to either buy credits, and that's how Tesla is making their profits,

[00:36:04] selling credits. They break even selling cars, but it's the selling of the credits where they make millions of dollars. Every single internal combustion engine, gasoline, or diesel vehicle that's sold, about $2,000 of the price of that vehicle is subsidizing electric vehicles. You look at the electric vehicles that are sold, it's nearly $100,000 per EV that it's receiving in subsidies and credits

[00:36:29] and ratepayers that are paying higher costs for utilities to invest in infrastructure to charge EVs. If that goes away, cars are going to be a lot more affordable, electricity will be more affordable and more reliable, and the consumers will win, and our automotive industry manufacturing will flourish and take off making cars that people really want. So do you think this will take a long time for this to sort of turn around the Titanic

[00:36:55] because these car manufacturers have had to get on board with this agenda, they thought, to survive? So, I mean, do we need more directives from the federal government? Do we need business just to make different decisions? What do we need? Yeah, we absolutely need businesses to make different decisions, and it's the reason why Ford is coming out and saying, please don't get rid of the EV mandate. They waste billions of dollars every quarter making electric vehicles, but there they are saying, don't get rid of the mandate,

[00:37:25] which is just incredible. But they have. They spend a lot of money on manufacturing them. They buy Chinese components to make the EVs, which is really unfortunate. But I think you will see new automobile manufacturers come into existence if they don't have these burdensome corporate average fuel economy requirements in making more efficient vehicles. I think you get rid of the illegal multiplier, you're going to see companies start to make hybrids, and that's what customers really want.

[00:37:52] You know, with the exception of Tesla, their owners are very brand loyal. They're the only manufacturer that if you buy a Tesla, typically right at over half of their owners are going to go buy another one when it's time to get a new car. Every other manufacturer, over half of the buyers are going back to gas or diesel vehicles. So Tesla has brand loyalty. They're the only ones that do, but people, by and large, don't want electric vehicles. They're, in most cases, cars that are owned by people that are making over $100,000 a year,

[00:38:21] and in most cases, they're a second option. They're another vehicle for short commutes. I refer to them as fancy golf carts. Yeah, really. And, you know, I mean, I don't really want to get into how much pollution they cause, but let's just go, because we don't have a lot of time, to some of the other policies. For instance, Joe Biden, you know, he stopped some pipelines and things, like the Keystone pipeline,

[00:38:49] and I saw that you were quoted in an article about the Canadian premier saying she might want to discuss bringing back the Keystone pipeline. What do you think? No, it would be incredible. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of investment to do it right now, but if you start to get rid of some of these regulatory hurdles, which are called for in the energy emergency executive order that President Trump signed, and you can get rid of some regulatory hurdles in Canada,

[00:39:17] there is a possibility to expand that pipeline. It's mostly complete, but what happened is during the Biden administration, they said we're not going to do Keystone, and so China came in and said we'll take the oil, and they built a pipeline heading west through Canada to the port, and China is now refining that oil. For the first time in China's existence, they're exporting energy. They've always been net consumers, but they've been buying oil from Iran, ignoring decades,

[00:39:45] if not longer, years of sanctions against Iranian oil, sending $5 billion to Iran every month. They've been buying oil from Canada, and they don't care about pollution control technology like we do here in the United States. They don't care about human rights. But it would be great to have that oil come into the United States, into our refineries that actually use pollution control technology. It would lower the cost of food.

[00:40:10] That heavy, sour, crude oil in Canada is really high in sulfur, which is a primary component in fertilizer, which would reduce the cost of food fertilizer. This is how President Trump is going to bring the cost of food down. He's talking about reducing the cost of energy. Well, as Chris Wright alludes to, energy isn't part of the economy. It's the heart of the economy. Yes, it really is. I think President Trump, it's wonderful to have a president that understands that and is acting on it.

[00:40:40] What other policies can you see change fairly quickly with regard to energy coming up under this Trump administration? I think you're going to see fewer regulations out of the federal government. I'm really most excited about this social cost of carbon, and this is where it gets a little wonky, and I'm sure people are going to talk about it at the Texas Policy Summit that you mentioned earlier.

[00:41:05] But this is really essentially applying a cost-benefit analysis to regulation. And the leftist governments have said, oh, well, we have to consider the catastrophic climate crisis, again, that we're all living wonderfully well through, and they put in this social cost of carbon. And President Trump is undoing that, and I think it's a great thing. There's actually a benefit to CO2. It's necessary for life on Earth. It's a trace gas in the atmosphere.

[00:41:35] Man is responsible for an incredibly small percentage of it. I tell people to embrace the high-carbon lifestyle and wish the rest of the world gets to do the same. Well, we could begin living according to science again. Amen. Amen. You know, it was a great communicator there in Dallas that taught me don't repeat the negative. It was Mary Spaeth. She's a great communicator from the Reagan administration and taught me don't repeat the negative. And it was Al Gore that just came out talking about environmental justice.

[00:42:04] He said, environmental justice isn't some imaginary woke agenda. Why would he say that? Of course it's an imaginary woke agenda. He repeated the negative. It's poor communication. He did. He repeated the negative, and now everybody thinks, wait a second, environmental justice is a woke imaginary agenda. And that's exactly what it is. Well, may it be banished. Jason, thank you so much for joining me today.

[00:42:30] I love talking to you about the sort of the happy future we have with regard to energy. I know there's a lot to be done. There's a lot to understand. I'm glad you're on the case and doing that. Maybe I'll see you in Austin next month. And thanks for joining me today. Thanks for having me on. See you soon. Ladies and gentlemen, there's a lot to understand. And, you know, some of these things won't turn around in a moment. It will take some time.

[00:42:59] It will take some understanding and some involvement. So I hope that you'll continue to listen to Point of View to understand these things and be part of it if you can. Thank you so much, Megan, for all the work you did today. And you too, Steve. Have a great evening. We believe there is power in prayer. And that is why we have relaunched our Pray for America campaign, a series of weekly emails to unite Americans in prayer for our nation.

[00:43:26] Imagine if hundreds of thousands of Americans started praying intentionally together on a weekly basis. You can help make that a reality by subscribing to our Pray for America emails. Just go to pointofview.net and click on the Pray for America banner that's right there on the homepage.

[00:43:49] Each week you'll receive a brief news update, a specific prayer guide, and a free resource to equip you in further action. We encourage you to not only pray with us each week, but to share these prayers and the resources with others in your life. Join the movement today. Visit pointofview.net and click on the banner Pray for America right there at the top.

[00:44:17] That's pointofview.net. Let's pray together for God to make a difference in our land. Point of View is produced by Point of View Ministries. Point of View Ministries withNIS Learning Thank you.