Point of View July 17, 2026 : Weekend Edition

[00:00:04] Across America, Live, this is Point of View, Kirby Anderson. Thank you for joining us, it is the Friday Weekend Edition. We're going to spend some time, of course last night the President spoke about election security, so we'll get into that a little bit.

[00:00:28] We'll talk about these Trump accounts and what that might do for Social Security, as well as the closing down of data centers and some things that we will get to in the first hour. Second hour, the changing face of the United States Senate, very significant changes there, as well as some other very important issues that have been written by Dr. Merrill Matthews and others.

[00:00:50] Dr. Matthews is in studio with us, he's been of course with the Institute for Policy Innovation for a quarter of a century and now is with all sorts of other groups and organizations including Point of View as a co-host. So it is great to have you in studio with me today. Good to be back, Kirby. We will have two different guests by phone and the first one is Petrina Mosley.

[00:01:10] She's been on the program with us many times before, founder and principal at PPM Consulting and an individual that has really been able to articulate a lot of real concerns from a younger person's perspective. So Petrina, thank you for being with us as well. Thank you, happy to be here. Let's, if we can, go around the round table for just a minute.

[00:01:32] The president spoke last night and said tonight I'm announcing the immediate declassification and release of critical intelligence revealing shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure. First of all, I'll just say if you go to the White House right now and look at the website. Yes, there are documents there, but a lot of them are so retracted. Redacted. Redacted. Thank you. I was reading for the word redacted. And that has been such a problem.

[00:02:01] So, Mr. President, if you're going to, you're going to have to declassify some of those as well. But more importantly, he talks about China, the People's Republic of China, and the fact that they were engaged in the largest compromise of election data in history. The deep state protected them and didn't get some of that information out. And there are individuals that have lied about the critical election infrastructure, including voting machines.

[00:02:28] And when he said that, when I was thinking, didn't Dr. Merrill Matthews have to pay Dominion 787 million dollars? 787 million dollars. So be careful what you say, Mr. President, because that court case went the other direction. But your thoughts, and then I'll come to Petrina. What's your thoughts? Well, I was hoping because the president has always claimed that the 2020 election was stolen and that he won by a large number. So I was hoping we were going to get some final evidence of that because he's claimed for years that he had evidence.

[00:02:57] So I was hoping, you know, we found a tranche of votes of 50,000 votes someplace or somebody's come forward and admitted that they dumped a bunch of votes or something. None of that. What he's talking about in part was election interference efforts, both real and perceived of China, Iran, North Korea and Russia involved in that. That's not new. We've known that for some time.

[00:03:22] And in twenty twenty one, the intelligence system, because apparently China was looking at trying to get involved in our elections in twenty twenty. The intelligence assessment from twenty twenty one was that they were considering it. They did not get involved, involved in a direct way in trying to affect votes and so forth. I'm not sure how they would do that. In fact, the assessment went on to say it would be because our elections are so decentralized,

[00:03:49] it would be very hard for them to be able to have a major impact in elections because they're just very, very decentralized. So it didn't really see that. Now, a Russian others have have paid influencers. They've run social media. They've done a range of different things to try to affect how we as people see the president affect how we see view, how we view various incidents that are happening.

[00:04:13] Some apparently Russia was more supportive of Trump and China was less supportive of him. So you had that sort of mixed aspect. But so far we haven't really seen anything in there. And I've been looking at various news groups that have tried to look through these things. We haven't really seen any smoking gun in this yet. Well, again, I know you're going to have John Fund on when you're going to be sitting in here for me.

[00:04:37] I think I forgot to mention is, of course, Department of Homeland Security have found so far almost three hundred thousand. I think it's two hundred eighty seven thousand non citizens registered to vote. And it gets us back to the Save America Act and some of that. But Patrina, I'd love to get your thoughts, because it is something that's been in the news. It's probably something we'll be covering over the next couple of weeks. But any initial thoughts? Yeah. So, you know, we're watching this war in Iran play out or what do you call it?

[00:05:06] You know, encouraging or whatever. But, you know, this was announced that he was going to address the nation shortly after he mentioned having a thousand missiles pointed out at Iran. So I was kind of thinking maybe we would get an update on, you know, are we turning Iran into Mar-a-Lago East here? And then tagging on information about the election and the Save Act. But it was mostly about the Save Act and then about election integrity. And, you know, much like you said that there wasn't really a big smoking gun.

[00:05:35] But I would say it doesn't take a lot of sense to realize that there was something fishy happening in our 2020 election, because no one can win a presidential election from their basement like Joe Biden did. It's just statistically impossible. And you can't come out being the most popular president in history over Obama from your basement. And no matter what math you do, it doesn't math. So, you know, I think that's point number one.

[00:06:02] Number two, you know, I have seen a number of bombshells come from this administration as a millennial. Some very heavy things. I mean, Epstein, you got aliens. You, I mean, so much even with this, but still no one has gone to jail. And I agree with the with the president's last statement and what he's been posting on Twitter that you cannot have a country if you cannot have trusted elections. But I will also add you cannot have a country if you do not have justice.

[00:06:32] So whatever the smoking gun is, the people need to see justice and someone needs to be arrested and prosecuted. One of the things that did surprise me about his he he talked about how he had there were people in the administration who did not inform him there that that seemed that took me a little bit by surprise. FBI agent and a few things like that. And I went back and looked and the director of national intelligence intelligence at the time of the election was John Ratliff.

[00:07:00] Yeah. And if he was upset with him, he sure has found a place here because he's the CIA. He's the CIA. Yeah. And John Ratliff came in in May 2020 and was there until Trump left office in January 2021. But if there were things going on that John Ratliff had seen at D&I, I would have expected that he would have told President Trump about it.

[00:07:19] And if I remember right, Bob Barr, the attorney general at the time, in his book said we went and told President Trump in in the summer that there were because of the things going on with covid. There were some there were some vulnerabilities out there that he need to take pay close attention to. Barr said that Trump really sort of dismissed those as not really a threat.

[00:07:44] And that changed then later on. But there was there were some issues and some irregularities that didn't necessarily change the effect of the election. But when you look back at it, I mean, it seems a problem even at that time. Yes. Again, John Ratliff was there and he's CIA director. So anyway, kind of interesting. But we're going to take a break and we'll move on to some other topics.

[00:08:06] But I just thought I'd mention that if you go to the Web site point of view dot net, we still have posted there the support the save act of the save America act. That is something we'll probably spend some time talking about, especially next week, because this is, again, the opportunity for the Senate to move in that direction. And there's been a lot of frustration associated with that. But I just thought would give you an initial look like Dr. Matthews. We're all looking for other pieces of information. And Mr.

[00:08:36] President, if you would declassify a few things, it'd be a lot easier to read some of those documents on the White House Web site. So we'll take a break. Come back with more right after this. This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson.

[00:09:04] Historian Niall Ferguson begins his PragerU video with a lament that few students graduate from college with any idea of what makes Western civilization different from the rest of the world. In his video with the title, Why the West Won, he summarizes a few key points from his book, Civilization, the West and the Rest. He explains that Western civilization succeeded because of six killer apps, competition, modern science, the rule of law, modern medicine, the consumer society and the work ethic.

[00:09:33] These are the secret sauce of Western civilization. You may not have time to read his book. Therefore, I suggest you take five minutes to watch the video. And since these ideas aren't being taught in the universities today, you might share the video with some young people. These are the six killer applications. The first was economic and political competition. The second was the scientific method. All the major 17th century breakthroughs happened in Western Europe. A third application was the rule of law and representative government.

[00:10:03] This included private property rights and representation of property owners and elected legislatures. The fourth was modern medicine. Nearly all the 19th and 20th century breakthroughs in health care were made by Western Europeans and Northern Americans. Fifth was the consumer society. The industrial revolution took place because there was both a supply and a demand. And sixth was the work ethic. Westerners work harder and save more of what they earned.

[00:10:29] This led to capital accumulation, which in turn led to investment in the wonders of modern technology. These six killer apps made the West successful and have now been downloaded to other countries as well. And that is why the West won. I'm Kirby Anderson. And that's my point of view. Go deeper on topics like you just heard by visiting pointofview.net. That's pointofview.net.

[00:10:59] You're listening to point of view. Your listener supported source for truth. Back once again, Petrina Mosley with us as well as Merrill Matthews and Petrina, let me come to you because one of the articles we've posted, I entitled it. The Supreme Court justices need more protection. The actual article says the price of politicizing the Supreme Court. And the other day you had this testimony that took place where Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett, both justices, were actually talking about this problem.

[00:11:29] And I was at the time very concerned about the stories that I was hearing from Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And I think this three page article summarizes some of the danger that the Supreme Court members are in that didn't used to exist. Your thoughts?

[00:11:50] Well, I definitely think that they were smart and strategic to make the case for this by having their two female justices up there, because, I mean, women are always going to be more vulnerable than men to violence and in the need for protection. I agree that there is an increase in violence, political violence, mostly from the left. And I have no problems with increasing their budget.

[00:12:17] You know, however, I do want to add something that was overlooked in that, yes, we want our justices to be secure so they can make judgments securely. Right. But we still have not heard anything about who leaked the Dobs decision in 2022. Where is the security in that? Where is the inner security for our our justices and offices?

[00:12:42] So I would say if we're going to give out of security, let's tack on some procedures for inner security as well. And I think this this builds on what we saw over the last few years as Democrats have habitually complained about the Supreme Court accusing them of being unethical, making bad decisions, hurting people and so forth. And you had Chuck Schumer say something about, you know, that they're going to reap the whirlwind.

[00:13:11] I think it was what it was the this can be this could be a green light to people who feel like they needed a green light to be able to go and be aggressive at some of the Supreme Court justice. As Petrina mentioned, it's mostly from the left. The right does do this some in some cases, but it's mostly from the left. And that's a that is a real problem because of the Supreme Court justice. You need to be able to go leave the court and go down and buy a sandwich somewhere without having armed guards with you.

[00:13:39] And that's I'm not sure they're going to be able to do that. Well, again, I think, Petrina, one of the things I could hear you agreeing, it does seem to me. And what I think was so interesting is there are others that have said we don't remember anything like this before. So for the younger generation, I'm going to have you on today and even later today, I'll have Richard Lim. You represent a younger generation that might say, well, this is typical. No, it's atypical.

[00:14:06] A Supreme Court justice could go just about anywhere in Washington, D.C. and not even think about security. And now when you're actually requiring or asking Amy Coney Barrett to wear a bulletproof vest, something has changed dramatically. Oh, 100 percent. That is such a good point that I didn't even realize until you said it. Like, you're right. We as a generation has just gotten used to political violence.

[00:14:32] I mean, even myself who lives in a nation's capital, I know don't wear a red hat no matter what it says, because you just don't want to attract the possibility of attention and violence or altercation. And you don't realize the hypervigilance that you now carry naturally around political engagement, who you're talking to, what information you withhold about yourself, what you wear, like I just pointed out. You're absolutely right.

[00:14:59] And, I mean, if that's not a sign of revival that we need, oh, my goodness. But, you know, legally and policy-wise, I think this is a good time to also make the case for what do we do when people violate the courts and the trust of the people and leaking information? I mean, we still don't know who this person is and what type of justice they should face. We don't know. We don't know what's in the law and procedures.

[00:15:24] So I'm okay with upping security so that they can get a sandwich, like you said. Like, no one should have to suffer that way. But also, let's make sure we keep in mind a whole wraparound of security for our courts. You know, Kirby, through the 1990s and 2000s, I was in Washington a lot through the 2000s almost every other week. And it was fairly common. You'd go into restaurants there. You'd see a senator over here. You'd see Karl Rove over here. I remember that. They'd just be there eating lunch. There was no security.

[00:15:54] There wasn't any need for security. You could just see a range of different White House advisors and other people hanging around in restaurants, talking over at the Union Station, getting coffee or something of that nature. That has changed. And that's a loss for us. If they don't feel like they can go out in the public, because you oftentimes were able to go up and say, Hello, Karl, good to see you again, and shake hands. Let me mention, are you doing something on this? You sometimes find some information.

[00:16:22] But you can't get past the security now. You certainly can't. Well, you also have pointed out that this isn't just for Supreme Court justices. If you are in Silicon Valley right now, they've got security that's really significant, isn't it? Absolutely. And major tech CEOs and other major tech people, especially if you're working on artificial intelligence, they are having to hire armed bodyguards to go with them anywhere they go,

[00:16:47] because there have been so many protests and pushback against artificial intelligence and the expansion of the data centers and other things. And so it's a growing area of violence and political violence that we just don't want to have in the country. We want to be able to debate these things, but not necessarily go to violence. Well, I just thought I'd keep moving down the road here, because one of the other ones is your article about Trump accounts help privatize Social Security.

[00:17:16] And if you're not familiar, now we have these newly created Trump accounts. And I suspect that some people might not invest in it for their kids because they don't like Trump. I think it changed the name. But this is something that, number one, gives the next generation, including the generation of Petrina and Richard and even the younger ones behind them, a chance in the future. And it reminds me of some other programs that have been implemented in government. But the difference is this one actually invested in the stock market,

[00:17:46] where you can actually get a return on the investment. Yes. Social Security is going bankrupt. It is the trustees say that past about 30, 33, 30, 34, they will only be able to pay something like around 80, 82, 83 percent of benefits. I don't think Congress will ever let it get that. But nobody knows what to do. They don't. So Trump has created this. This is a sort of initiation of Ted Cruz, Texas senator. I love the idea, the Trump account.

[00:18:14] I'm a little negative on the notion of taxpayer money going into $1,000 to any child who's born between the beginning of 2025 through 2028. Will Congress extend that? We don't know. But we're borrowing money, so we're having to borrow money to put the money in the account. I understand. So I'm a little nervous about that. Cruz defends this by saying if we didn't do this, older people would be upset with us.

[00:18:43] So we're setting this up for kids, and we're putting $1,000 in there, and we're doing this as a way to get past to privatize Social Security without getting the older people. He uses a different word in there, but upset, let's say. Petrina, this is, again, one of the concerns. The younger you are, the more likely you are to say, I have a better chance of seeing an extraterrestrial than actually getting anything from Social Security. And this is one attempt to recognize that the younger generation,

[00:19:11] these are the people younger than you, obviously, would have maybe a possibility of some kind of financial resources when they turn 21. Yeah. Can I identify as someone born in 2025 or 2028? I wish I hadn't, as the guy said to Jesus, I'm going to go back in my mother's room and be born again because I want them. They'd be worth $1,000 to you.

[00:19:39] It is funny, too, because Michael Dell and all sorts of other people have been involved in this, so it's done pretty well. And I will mention that our lieutenant governor has suggested that Texas may provide $1,000 or some amount to those accounts for Texans. So there may be some getting on the bandwagon with this. You could have someone like Warren Buffett come up and decide to put a lot of money in there. He says he's not going to give all the money he was giving to Bill Gates.

[00:20:07] So there may be some glom on effect in this, and I think that would be great because when you set money aside, and if you just take that under the law, you invest in the market in very broad accounts. If you invested in the S&P 500 over 30 years, the average return is going to be like 8% or 9%. In NASDAQ, the average return is going to be like 9% and 10%. You start out with $1,000, and you have that increase in interest coming in.

[00:20:34] You can have a significant amount of money by the time you hit retirement. Well, again, I just thought you might want to read this article because, if nothing else, I was surprised to see the Secretary of Treasury spend so much time talking about it, and I just think he recognizes it is one way to address a very significant issue. Dr. Matthews, you and I have spent decades talking about the issue of Social Security and whether it's a Ponzi scheme and it's a pay-as-you-go scheme and what's going to happen and the whole issue of the national debt.

[00:21:04] And so it's a two-page summary, and it appeared, of course, if you would want to find it in thehill.com, but you can also find it on our website at pointofview.net. Let's take a break. We have a lot more to discuss. Matter of fact, we have quite a long list of articles to address today, and we will do that right after these important messages.

[00:21:32] Who can you trust? Years ago, many of us could probably have provided a fairly long list, but today, well, today it seems we almost can't trust anyone. Educators don't even know what a woman is anymore. Many so-called public servants have shown all they care about is themselves. The FBI has been accused of bias, law-breaking, betrayal, and journalism.

[00:21:59] It's largely corrupt, with no Clark Kent standing up for truth, justice, and the American way. All of this is why Point of View Radio is more important than ever, and your part in supporting us is more needed than ever. Do your part today in supporting trustworthy truth. Stand with us and help push back the lies and the darkness. Visit pointofview.net. Don't put it off.

[00:22:27] Take a moment right now and click on that big blue button that says, Donate Now. Or call to invest at 1-800-347-5151. Pointofview.net. And 800-347-5151. Point of View will continue after this.

[00:22:59] 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. Once again, let's see if we can focus a little bit on the Western civilization for just a minute. And first of all, my commentary today is one based on a very good PragerU video done by Niall Ferguson.

[00:23:29] And in a video called Why the West Won, or if you can maybe go back to his book, Civilization, the West, and the Rest, we're talking about the importance of Western civilization. So that's my commentary. But it turns out that Dr. Merrill Matthews, and of course we also have Petrina with us as well, we posted a piece by an individual whose name I don't know how to pronounce, but I'll say Ixu Diaz is probably pretty close. The West is a superior civilization.

[00:23:56] And in a time when we have spent a fair amount of time, and I'll hold up our issue for those of you watching online, this is the upcoming August issue about socialism and the rise of socialism, we recognize that there's a lot of people that are very critical of civilization. But if we just want to be open-minded for a minute and recognize where did the rule of law, separation of powers, individual rights, the explosion of science and technology come from,

[00:24:24] they seem to have come from Western civilization. And the foundation was the Greco-Roman world. On top of it was Christianity. Christianity came the Protestant Reformation. And we are the inheritors of so much, which unfortunately some of the younger generation haven't been told the value of Western civilization. They've been told that the Western civilization is the cause of all the ills that we have today.

[00:24:49] And what he does, and this is what I really liked about the article, he goes through and he identifies a range of different things, let's say values and history and so forth, that we just sort of embrace and that undergird our culture in the way that we think about things and the way that we approach things. Even our sense of turning around and saying slavery was wrong, you need to be able to accept people of all races and so forth.

[00:25:15] Part of that is back, we may not have focused on it at some point in the culture, but part of that is part of our culture. And so I just really appreciate it. He looks at literature that we embrace that sort of guided some of the things, from George Orwell to Charles Dickens to the Iliad and other things, and incidentally, the Odyssey out in a new movie. I've been listening to reviews. I've got to see this.

[00:25:40] But it's interesting because these are elements that have just undergirded what we think and how we approach things, and it has made us in the West the most innovative, scientific, successful, prosperous civilization in the world. Well, again, Petrina, I want to come to you because there is a tendency for younger people,

[00:26:02] especially if they've gone and taken a series of classes in the university where it used to be those of us around the table a little bit older, you actually might have a class on Western civilization, on the history of Western civilization. If the West is mentioned at all, it's oftentimes in a negative sense. And that's why I thought this piece, as well as my commentary today on the idea of Western civilization being a superior civilization,

[00:26:29] was a very important piece that we need to spread to other individuals. What are your thoughts? Yeah, I think there's a difference between patriotism and believing you're superior. And I'm not sure which of these the author is intently trying to come from, but I think it's good to have patriotism. I mean, look at the children of Israel in the Bible, in the prophets that weeped over their country.

[00:26:56] But we need to remember that patriotism is okay because we need to call our country out to live to the standards and principles of God's word. But superiority, I would not agree. And that's because we are a country who believes in God's laws, God's principles, and those are the things that make us great. Those are the things that make us stand apart from Iran and other dictator and theocracies that are based in doctrines of demons.

[00:27:27] But we have to make that line very, very clear because then we'll have more populists and Republicans or whatever the political party is try to take over and lead things in our country. And then it becomes less Christian and more watered down. So I think this focus always needs to go back to blessed is the country whose God is the Lord. Because when you think about it, it's not technically the West that will outlive anything. It's the godly principles that make us great.

[00:27:57] Thankfully, we chose that. But I also want to point out some other examples is that you've got these African countries who put out a whole letter to Biden rejecting abortion, rejecting his eugenics and the leftist population control. You had Coptic Christians in Egypt get beheaded in 2014. And also Jerusalem is going to be the place of the great king, as it says in Revelation, where we'll all go to. And a lot of the end times, we'll settle on the East.

[00:28:25] So I think we need to be much more clear as Christians and make that distinction about superiority versus paganism. One of the things that's happening right now is we're getting a conflict of cultures. We have the West and we have the East. And the question is, does freedom, religious liberty and other things went out? Or does China, with its restrictions, its restrictions on liberty, its restrictions on economics, its restrictions on personal freedom, does it went out?

[00:28:54] Because there are more and more people who look at China and say, this may be the better way to go. And so you have this, like I said, a clash of civilizations and approaches. And so from my standpoint, it's good to look at somebody who says, here's what the West has produced. Because essentially what he's talking about is what the West has produced in art, literature, economics, and other things, and how well that has worked out. Not without problems. He concedes. We've had problems.

[00:29:24] We haven't been perfect. But it has still managed to produce the best culture that we've seen. You know, one of the people that we've had on the program, and we even have a booklet based on this, is Glenn Sunshine, who's a professor in Connecticut. And he argues that if you want to understand Western culture, it is Rome plus Christianity gave you Western civilization. And I just sort of pinched it that way.

[00:29:49] He says, now that we have the West rejecting Christianity, it brings us back to some of the things Petrina was talking about. And that is, we tend to be less pro-life. We tend to be less likely to believe in individual rights. And so there is a book that came out years ago by a secular author, Are We Rome? You know, and there's a sense in which when you take Rome plus Christianity and take Christianity out, we're looking a lot more like the Roman Empire, aren't we? Well, we are.

[00:30:18] And then you've got to throw in some of the Greek aspect to it because the Romans adopted God's Greek philosophy. You became a – one of the things that high-class Romans wanted was a Greek philosopher to teach their kids. So you had that intertwined going in there, but then you had the spread of Christianity, which integrated in all those things. So, Petrina, again, if we want to come back to – let's, again, focus on the Christian ideas.

[00:30:42] It does seem to me that that is sort of bringing us back to something we've been talking about this 250th anniversary because, indeed, many of the individuals that were part of the founding of this country or the framing of our Constitution were Christian. And they were quoting other Christians of John Locke, for example, and a variety of others.

[00:31:05] So it seems to me that if we, on this 250th anniversary of this country, want to come back to something that has led to human flourishing, it is to come back to those Christian ideas and back to your concept just a few minutes ago of the need to pray for revival. Absolutely. Absolutely. And that's something that we need to, I believe, fight for. We are gaining some ground when it comes to life. More people are pro-life than ever.

[00:31:32] We're seeing, as Tony Perkins put it, the receipts come in on gay marriage, and you see a lot of people rejecting different points of the alphabet agenda, as I call it. And that's a good thing. But I would also tag on to that, as we get these wins, let's push for lighting the candle in the darkness. We're talking about our Christian founding, talking about our Christian history, passing legislation that will tell the truth about America's founding in the classroom.

[00:32:02] So much has been whitewashed with lies. And people go to these 250th anniversary events that are held by patriots and things like wall builders, and they've never heard this, so this is the first time that they're hearing it. So I'm a policy gal. You know, I'm all for what legislation can we put in an enactment that will produce righteousness, because you always got to have a law to tell people don't do something, and to have a law to tell people please do this.

[00:32:30] And so I look forward to that. I think we can do it. I think we are gaining a lot of ground, though, slowly. And that's what the focus needs to be on. What was our history and our Christian founding and letting people know that and be proud of that, that that is what should make Christians proud, that we have a country that was intentionally created on the back of religious freedom. People wanted to worship God and be left alone. I mean, it's beautiful. It's amazing.

[00:32:58] Let me just mention again that the July issue, which you probably have received in your mailbox, is the one on understanding America's Christian heritage. And so one of the ways in which you can do that and learn more is to certainly look through that magazine that we've sent off to you. Also, of course, we have a link to the particular piece that has a link to the, was it, I guess it is actually the particular video that is available through the Prager University, as well as this particular article.

[00:33:28] Lots of things to talk about today when we come back. Just thought for a few minutes we'd talk about data centers. That's one of the more controversial issues, as we've mentioned just a minute ago. We'll get into that right after this.

[00:33:59] Minsterot with an executive order President Trump issued early last year. The White House has just released a sweeping report, the result of its audit of the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. The report details examples of the museum's distortions of our history, expressed through various exhibits and even the words of the museum's own leaders. The President's March 2025 order, entitled Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, calls for a review of selected Smithsonian museums.

[00:34:27] This 162-page report put out by the White House Domestic Policy Council, says the American History Museum's leadership has explicitly adopted an ideological framework that no longer treats the American story as a shared national inheritance to be taught or celebrated, but as a political instrument to divide, dispirit, and discourage our citizens. Indeed, Gary Bauer, who headed up the Domestic Policy Council in the Reagan White House,

[00:34:54] says if you visit the National Museum of American History, you walk away depressed and demoralized. All you get are smears of the Founding Fathers and how bad America is. The report's release, as the nation marks its 250th birthday, which the museum refuses to celebrate, will hopefully prompt Congress to re-evaluate the nearly $1.1 billion it appropriates for the Smithsonian Institution every year. The Heritage Foundation calls on Congress to act,

[00:35:22] stating that the report clearly documents how the museum has shifted its mission from history to woke activism. Senior Fellow Mike Gonzalez says it helps to explain the rise of Marxist politicians who despise America's history and heritage. A National History Museum can be an honest showcase of a nation, but the anti-American left has a hold on our schools and institutions. You may hear cries of censorship. This White House is calling for honesty and a dose of patriotism.

[00:35:51] For Point of View, I'm Penna Dexter. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Back for a few more minutes on this hour, and then we will get into some other topics in next hour with Richard Lim, but we are still privileged to have with us Petrina Mosley. And one of the things we talked about just a minute ago, Dr. Matthews, is if you mention the word AI, and you're a speaker at a college graduation,

[00:36:20] there's boos, there's people shouting and all the rest. And this particular article we have by Walter Kim, and we may just get him on to talk about a Christian vision of the future of AI. It's something, of course, Liberty McCarter has been working on. But this article just caught my attention because you have the governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, saying, you know what, we're just going to, she issues an executive order that places a one-year moratorium on the construction of data centers.

[00:36:47] Now, if you want to start an argument, just go to a city council and talk about data centers. Yes. And I understand that. And maybe the long-term solution, I'm going to sound like Elon Musk for just a minute, is to put them in space. You know, right now we have Starlink, which puts many of the, SpaceX puts Starlink up there. And they're about 1,000 pounds, I understand. It's like a grand piano. And you can put those up on the Falcon 9 rocket. But if you're going to put these data centers up there, which is going to be good because you get solar power. Right.

[00:37:16] And if you're worried about heat, well, it just goes out into the vacuum. You're going to need the Starship rocket, which they don't even have actually distributing those. But in the meantime, we're putting data centers down here. And there's a question about power. We certainly do need power, whether it's for data centers or just for the Internet. Jobs, well, it supposedly creates a lot of construction jobs. And then, of course, the issue of water.

[00:37:42] Although it turns out, as I've been able to research, some of the use of water in the old data centers in Virginia isn't as necessary. But you mentioned that we're going to put a data center in Utah, West Virginia, Texas. And there will be a lot of people that will show up to the city council, right? And that's happening in Texas even as we speak. That's right. And it wasn't over the last couple of years because of the power challenges that we have in Texas with so many people moving into Texas.

[00:38:13] They've been at times on the local news showing here's the power grid and it looks like we're going to get really close, but we'll probably be okay. And you take that and you say now we're going to put in some data centers which use a lot of power. Four or five years ago, there was Bitcoin mining centers which were using a lot of power. I don't know that they're doing that anymore on Bitcoin because it's down to about half of what it was. And these are just using so much more power.

[00:38:40] I mean, just – I think what they say is if you use a typical Google search and then you do an AI search, it uses ten times as much. So, yeah. And I'm trying to be in the middle on this, which is I think we're going to want the data centers. We need the data centers. I want to make sure we're not just sort of jumping into something where we don't have the power to do that yet.

[00:38:59] And then you create power problems for people in the hot 100-degree Texas summer or in a really cold winter because we had that in 2021, people may remember. So, yeah. I think it needs some careful examination, but we're probably going to be moving forward on this at least until Elon Musk can put them up into space. That's right. Petrina, I wanted to come to you because you live in Washington, D.C., right there in Virginia. They're developing data centers, of course, just to the north of you.

[00:39:28] New York, we have the governor saying, I don't even want to place a data center in upstate New York, which, again, I think there's lots of room. But it almost seems like the younger you are, the more likely you are to have real strong concerns about AI. And I know you've probably been on the program with Liberty, who's really become kind of our expert on artificial intelligence. But I'd love to get your thoughts about this.

[00:39:54] I mean, again, Kirby, millennials get the brunt of everything. I don't understand God's timeline of the demographics. But because of these data centers, my electric bill just went up by $8 a month. So, no, I am not pro data center because we can't catch a break. We don't have a nest egg that we've already taken hold of. We're trying to build nest eggs, pay bills, do investments. I mean, it's so much.

[00:40:24] So, no, personally, I'm a 90s kid. We could have stopped at Google. Just give us a search engine where I don't have to go to the library and open the box and pull out the card and go find my. Yeah, some of us remember that. Oh, yes, indeed. The card catalog. We don't need any more. Exactly. We don't need any more technology. And I know I probably sound like an old fogey on that one.

[00:40:49] But I guess, you know, we can't have so much AI to where we replace the dignity of work. I would say that's the line. And, you know, Kirby, I think some of the tech CEOs have been a little tone deaf on this. Don't you think? Yeah. Not taking into consideration the concerns of people. Because you can have protesters out there who are just – they're on the left side and they're going to protest anything. But you do have some concerns about how are we going to meet the energy needs?

[00:41:18] Do we need water needs? They're trying to address some of these issues here. And maybe they'll be able to do that. But you – I don't think – the data centers and the companies that are supporting these, Amazon, Meta, and others, they need to be able to look at this and be able to come out with a plan that sounds reasonable to most people and not just sort of say you're just being reactionary. Yeah. There's a little too much hand-waving here, which brings me to another piece here, and that is, Petrina,

[00:41:47] I'd love to get your thoughts because we've had Walter Kim on this program. He's the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, and he put forward this idea of a Christian vision for the future of AI. And it does seem to me that Christians should be on the forefront of thinking about the ethics of what artificial intelligence provides, but also the downside. And it does seem to me that these are the kind of conversations we need to have more of in the Next Generation Roundtable. What are your thoughts?

[00:42:17] I absolutely agree. We need Christians in every sect of influence possible to make sure that the Spirit of God and His wisdom is leading that area. So 100%. I'm just probably not the person you want on that because I'm going to say no. So we do see those people. And, you know, I would definitely add that it seems to me that possibly AI plays a role in the end times,

[00:42:46] you know, where the vision takes place of the beast that was able to be made alive, and everyone could see it at the same time. That does imply some type of technology that is indicative of AI, of something being turned on with electricity and given the power to speak and to give out commands. So I think it's something that we definitely need to be involved in and watch.

[00:43:10] But like I said, you know, too much AI to the point where we're moving people's dignity to work is a problem. And also these data centers contractually, what are they really doing for states? I mean, it seems like Virginia in particular has become the data capital of the world. We have over 100 just over in Loudoun County and is ruining people's property lines. I know for my particular community, our power goes out just when the wind blows too hard

[00:43:36] because you've got electric cars and you've got data centers taking up all the energy at the same time. But no need to worry. We'll just charge you $8 more on your bill. That's already too high. And there will be make sure. Yeah. Well, since you live in Virginia, I wanted to get your thoughts. And I thought I was going to get a reaction, and I did. I'm surprised it's not more than $8, I mean. We'll cover you on the $8. The plan on some of these, especially the one in Utah, and we'll follow on that one in some detail,

[00:44:04] is to create enough power so that it actually gives some back to the grid because this is, of course, the question. Cost, power, jobs, water, those kinds of things. But we will certainly focus on it again. But I just thought since we've had a conversation about AI oftentimes at the Next Generation Roundtable, since we had one of the participants, Petrina, I thought I'd do that. And Walter Kim is with the National Association of Evangelicals. We'll see if we can get him on and talk about how Christians should think about AI as well.

[00:44:34] So, Petrina, thank you for being with us, and look forward to the next opportunity. Thank you. Have a great weekend. Everybody have a great weekend. I think some of us are going to be watching soccer, or as the rest of the world calls it, football. And we are going to take a break. And then when we come back, Richard Lim is going to be with us. We're going to talk about the changing face of the U.S. Senate. Boy, a lot of things changed this week. And then, of course, Dan Pilla's piece on whether or not to confiscate AI company stock,

[00:45:03] which you've been talking about. And Dr. Merrill Matthews, Trump Securities and the Laws. We'll talk about all that right after this. Where does moral truth come from? According to 58% of Americans, individuals determine moral truth. A quarter of Generation Z says society determines moral truth, and morality can even change over time. Only 42% of Americans believe that truth comes from God.

[00:45:33] I don't know about you, but I find these numbers extremely troubling. It really is a crisis of truth, and that crisis has consequences. Look at society. Evil is called good. Good called evil. People with biblical beliefs are called bigots. Or worse, they're canceled. But there is hope. The Bible promises the truth will set us free. And that's why Point of View is relentless in our commitment to the ultimate source of moral truth, God's Word.

[00:46:02] At Point of View, we know that God's truth is eternal. And if we stand together, we can help more Americans apply His truth in their daily life. Help Americans find truth again by giving at pointofview.net. Or call 1-800-347-5151. That's pointofview.net. And 800-347-5151.

[00:46:31] Point of View will continue after this. Across America. Live. This is Point of View. And now, Kirby Anderson.

[00:46:59] Second hour today in studio with us, Dr. Merrill Matthews. And by phone, Richard Lamb, who was on yesterday but also is with us now for this second hour. He is, of course, an individual who's a writer, speaker, historian. You probably know him best through this American President podcast. And, Richard, welcome back to Point of View. Thank you. Always good to be on with you guys. Well, I thought for just a few minutes we'd talk about the obvious. And I postponed it an entire hour.

[00:47:26] The loss of, of course, one very significant member of Congress, Lindsey Graham. But the piece I've posted here, and I think you've seen it as well, by Byron York. Dr. Matthews, we're not just talking about the loss of Lindsey Graham. We're talking about Mitch McConnell's decline and what's going to happen there. We certainly talk about the defeat of John Cornyn, Bill Cassidy, Tom Tillis resigning.

[00:47:55] You also have the possibility, for example, of a number of other individuals who are retiring. This goes through this long list. Johnny Aarons, Cynthia Lummis, as well as others. And then you've got Tommy Tuberville, as well as Marsha Blackford, maybe even running for governor. So you could come up with 10 or maybe even 11 new Republican faces, assuming all Republicans are replaced by Republicans. This is a remarkable change in the U.S. Senate.

[00:48:23] And this is a lot of the institutional knowledge of the Senate. Just so people, Senate doesn't work like the House. And it takes some time to sort of get the feel of how it works, all the rules that are available. And some of these people were very good at being able to manage these rules in order to be able to get legislation passed or to keep bad legislation from passing. So it's going to be a change. Well, again, one of the reasons I wanted to wait until, Richard, you were on is you're a student of history.

[00:48:53] You've seen the presidency. You've seen Congress. And it does seem to me that there are going to be some significant changes in the U.S. Senate, not to mention there will probably be some changes in the U.S. House. And this is, I think, something we have not seen in a long time. Absolutely. This is a moment of generational change. It is a shift.

[00:49:16] It marks the end of an era dominated by Republican leaders who came into power from the 80s to the early 2000s, a Republican Party dominated by President Reagan and both Bushes. I was thinking back to the first time I heard of Lindsey Graham. I remember it was during the impeachment of President Clinton in 1998. It doesn't seem that long ago, but it was a quarter of a century ago.

[00:49:42] And I think it signals the rise of a new generation whose politics have been shaped by the Trump era. And generational change is inevitable. If channeled correctly, it can be healthy.

[00:49:56] And I think many people are hoping that it signals a change away from the establishment and more to a group of leaders who are being – who are more in touch with the people right now and what the Republican voters desire. And, you know, one of the things – and I've mentioned this, like Ken Paxton, who will now be the Republican nominee, who's a Republican nominee in Texas as opposed to John Cornyn.

[00:50:24] And Ken Paxton has made a name for himself filing lawsuits and other things. Some were serious lawsuits. Some might have been frivolous or message lawsuits. But when you go to the Senate, you're not the lone person. I mean, you have to work with 99 other people or at least the people in your own party. And that's where it's different in the Senate. You've just got to be able to work with other people in order to be able to get things moved. And it's not – some of these people were very good at being able to work with other people.

[00:50:53] Mitch McConnell, several years ago, I think probably four years ago, I wrote a piece, Mitch McConnell, Politician of the Year, because he is the one who managed to get three Supreme Court nominees through, especially one – the first one being Gorsuch – where he decided not to take Barack Obama's nominee for that and waited until we had an election in 2016 and got somebody else through.

[00:51:17] You had to have people who were masters of the Senate, and a lot of times that meant working with other people, and it sometimes meant not listening to other people because you're running the Senate. We'll just see how this works out. But we're losing a lot of institutional knowledge there. Yeah. And we haven't even talked about the filibuster. But let me just mention for a minute, you and I were talking off the air that the South Carolina governor, Henry McMaster, said,

[00:51:41] Well, I will put the late senator's sister on because then you won't have to deal with people saying, here, put me on because I'm going to run. Well, she now has announced she might – and, of course, I want to put the word might actually in the primary, and that kind of ruined that idea, didn't it? It did. And I wondered when they named her if she might change her mind and decide to do this. Senators make good money.

[00:52:09] And being a senator is something that's special, and you could imagine that people in South Carolina with their special love for Lindsey Graham might end up voting for her. I don't know that that's the case, but they might. Well, we might hear from our South Carolina listeners because we have quite a number there as well as others in nearby states, North Carolina, Georgia, and others. But I thought I'd come back to you, Richard, because this is, as you point out, something different.

[00:52:33] We have oftentimes said that the Senate is more the institutional type of organization. It is one that has a very significant number of rules, not the least of which, of course, we'll talk about is the filibuster. But if you bring in a lot more people that are more of the progressive type, and that is possible, that's a very different kind of Senate than we've had up until this last year, right?

[00:53:02] Oh, absolutely. And, you know, the Senate is often where bad ideas die, and that's the design. You know, there have been a lot of metaphors to describe what the Senate is, whereas the House is, you know, often heated and charged with the latest fads from the populace. It's a Senate that cools that down.

[00:53:27] You know, it's one of those things that the fact that the Senate has staggered terms right there shows you that it's meant to be a continuous body. And so, yes, in many ways, you know, let's hope that a lot of that legislation, you're seeing the fact that a number of progressive socialists are being elected to high office, and it's the job of the Senate to put a stop to all of that.

[00:53:51] You know, I wrote a piece something about the filibuster here recently about why they shouldn't eliminate the filibuster, and I had somebody respond to that saying if they had eliminated the filibuster, they could have ended Obamacare back in 2017. Yes, they could have. And they could have brought it back in 2021 without the filibuster. And they might have made it even worse. Yes.

[00:54:12] So you would have this, if you eliminate the filibuster, you could have this back and forth once a party has control of the House and the Senate and the White House. They can change and move anything they want to. I did have an article that we posted the other day by former Senator Lamar Alexander, and he reminded us that, my goodness, you know, when we had the filibuster back then, you had to have 67 votes, not 60. He said we still passed Medicare, Medicaid. We passed welfare reform.

[00:54:39] We were able, actually, in many cases, to balance the budget. And he even talked about a particular piece of legislation. He worked with a fellow Democrat that actually was passed unanimously by everybody from Rand Paul to Bernie Sanders. So you can work through the filibuster. But nevertheless, it was just, I think, sort of a passing of the guard, and I thought it would be interesting for you to see.

[00:55:05] It is one of the articles we've posted here on the changing face of the U.S. Senate. But I thought, Dr. Matthews, when we come back, something I talked about the other day, but you have written about it as well. Investing in Trump securities involves the risk of a huge loss. And we'll come back to that issue and then some other very important topics right after these important messages.

[00:55:39] This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson. Historian Niall Ferguson begins his PragerU video with a lament that few students graduate from college with any idea of what makes Western civilization different from the rest of the world. In his video with the title, Why the West Won, he summarizes a few key points from his book, Civilization, the West, and the Rest. He explains that Western civilization succeeded because of six killer apps.

[00:56:06] Competition, modern science, the rule of law, modern medicine, the consumer society, and the work ethic. These are the secret sauce of Western civilization. You may not have time to read his book, therefore I suggest you take five minutes to watch the video. And since these ideas aren't being taught in the universities today, you might share the video with some young people. These are the six killer applications. The first was economic and political competition. The second was the scientific method.

[00:56:34] All the major 17th century breakthroughs happened in Western Europe. A third application was the rule of law and representative government. This included private property rights and representation of property owners in elected legislatures. The fourth was modern medicine. Nearly all the 19th and 20th century breakthroughs in health care were made by Western Europeans and Northern Americans. Fifth was the consumer society. The Industrial Revolution took place because there was both a supply and a demand.

[00:57:03] And sixth was the work ethic. Westerners worked harder and saved more of what they earned. This led to capital accumulation, which in turn led to investment in the wonders of modern technology. These six killer apps made the West successful and have now been downloaded to other countries as well. And that is why the West won. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

[00:57:28] Go deeper on topics like you just heard by visiting pointofview.net. That's pointofview.net. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Back once again in studio with us, Meryl Matthews, as well as by phone, Richard Lim. And this is a piece, Dr. Matthews, of course, you wrote in The Hill. And I did talk about this a couple of days ago.

[00:57:55] Maybe it's been more than a week because at the time, a lot of people have been saying, where is the future of some of these legislative issues related to cryptocurrency? You have the Genius Act and you have the Clarity Act and all that. And I made the argument that when we had the report come from the White House, $2.2 billion that the Trump family has made,

[00:58:20] that just gave people like Elizabeth Warren 2.2 billion excuses why not to pass the Clarity Act. And we just mentioned Cynthia Lummis a minute ago trying to get that passed. And it relates to a bigger issue because there were people during the campaign that when they heard about the fact that they were going to create a Trump coin, and then later they created a Melania coin. I think I even said on the air, that's probably going to be a really bad investment.

[00:58:50] And I don't claim to be a financial investor expert, but it was pretty obvious. And that's exactly what's taking place. Yeah, he created a meme coin. The meme coin is different than the new coin that's coming out from the Treasury, which has this picture on it. It's apparently a gold coin worth a dollar. So it's a dollar coin. It's not gold. It just looks gold. It just looks gold. The meme coin is something that is just a cryptocurrency coin. I mean, it's just there's no value. It's just something you create.

[00:59:19] And he created this and released it right before the inauguration. It went up to $75 at one point. It is now down to about $1.57. And the problem with this was that a lot of people went and invested millions of dollars in this thing. And so they had a reception for at the Trump Golf Club in May of last year,

[00:59:45] and the biggest investors were invited. The media were excluded from this. And so you had people who invested millions of dollars in the Trump coin. And a lot of these are fairly sophisticated investors. And you have to ask yourself, why were they doing that? Did they hope to get that money to go up? And so the concern is that these are wealthy people, many of them foreigners,

[01:00:12] who wanted to have a meeting with the Trumps in a closed-door kind of thing where there's no media around. And I raise the point, you know, if the coin had gone up in value, it would have been valuable for them. But if it hadn't, you got to change phone numbers and email addresses and so forth with the Trumps, both the sons and the president. And the one who invested the most in the meme coin got to sit next to the president at the dinner.

[01:00:42] And so this is a curious thing. And I think my guess is that when Trump is out of office and the investigative journalists, and if the Democrats take over the White House, excuse me, the House of Representatives, they're going to start investigating this, this may end up coming back to be something that bites the president because of so many financial things that he and his sons have been involved in, including his sons, if a new company comes up and they're making a drone,

[01:01:12] Don Jr. or Eric are on the board of those, and then they get a bid from the Pentagon for millions of dollars. Is there influence in that? We don't know. But it just looks unseemly in many cases. Well, again, one of the individuals we've had on this program many times is Peter Schweitzer. And he's documented certainly some of the concerns with the Clinton Foundation and the Obamas and even Biden and has also been an equal opportunity grief giver.

[01:01:39] I can remember some of the things he said about some of the Republican speakers of the House and all that. And Peter Schweitzer probably right now is already working on a book because this is, first of all, unprecedented. It's unseemly. And even the Wall Street Journal the other day said, you know, the only difference between the Biden family and the Trump family is the Trump family has been more overt about it. They're much more successful and overt about it. And I'll say this.

[01:02:06] Well, nobody thought Hunter Biden had any specific skills in the things he did. I would argue that the Trump family has been much more successful in doing this and maybe had arguably had some more justification and reason being able to do it. The Trump's kids are smart kids. They manage businesses. They manage a lot of money. But they've also taken a lot of advantage in that. Yes. Well, I'd like to come to you, Richard, because, you know, when we talk about scandals, you know, some people might remember Watergate. But you can go back to Teapot Dome and a variety of others.

[01:02:36] There are times in which people have said the president did something that was not appropriate. And I think you're starting to see even people who were Trump supporters. Matter of fact, the people that got rug pulled in many cases were mega people because, let's face it, there is not a Democrat out there that would have bought the Trump coin. But a lot of the people that did buy the Trump coin and maybe spent a fair amount of money got rug pulled on that.

[01:03:04] And so he rug pulled some of his closest supporters, I would think. So anyway, Richard, what's your thoughts? Yeah, absolutely. You know, accusations of conflicts of interest are definitely nothing new. They go back to the founding of the country. Even George Washington was attacked at times. You look at people like Robert Morris, whose public and private interests were often scrutinized.

[01:03:29] I would say that you look at Trump and he's had a history of basically saying, look, these are the rules. I'm just good at taking advantage of those rules. And that's the system. You created it. And I'm going to take advantage of that. And he's been able to say that for a long time. I think as Christians, we know that it's important for leaders to avoid even the appearance of corruption.

[01:03:56] Proverbs says, by justice, a king gives a country stability. But those who are greedy for bribes tear it down. So honesty and integrity does matter, especially for those in authority. I think we should be careful to make accusations that Trump or his family has done anything unethical or illegal.

[01:04:16] But at the same time, if financial arrangements create real conflicts of interest or the appearance that public office is used for personal enrichment, we should be willing to call that out and criticize it. And it shouldn't be based on political party. It should be based on principle. The other real problem, of course, is the World Liberty Financial, which Trump and Steve Whitcoff created in September of 2024.

[01:04:43] My guess is he knew by then he was probably going to get elected over Joe Biden. But they created this, put it in the hands of Eric Trump and Zach Whitcoff, Steve Whitcoff's son. And why is the president of the United States or future president creating a cryptocurrency exchange thing? Why is that?

[01:05:05] And it turns out one of the investors from the United Arab Emirates put in, I think, nearly, what, was $500 million in this? And you have to wonder, again, this may be perfectly legal, but if you're putting tariffs on all these countries and somebody comes and invests $500 million in one of your cryptocurrencies, are you more likely to give them a benefit on the tariffs or whatever's going on?

[01:05:31] Plus, Jared Kushner is out with Steve Whitcoff. And they are out. Jared Kushner is doing luxury hotels and centers, you know, spas and so forth around the world. He's got one trying to do it in Albania. Trump says he created a peace deal in Albania. The Albania government wants to create one of these golf courses, but the Albanian people are pushing back on that.

[01:05:59] So there's just a lot of – it raises a lot of questions that I think Trump doesn't answer right now. The standard thing for the White House is Donald Trump would never engage in conflict of interest and has never done that. He's working for the American people. But when investigative reporters get looking at these things, we may find out more than we thought was just not appropriate. Yeah, you were talking about Jared Kushner as well as I mentioned Steve Whitcoff because I was going the other direction in terms of the fact, aren't they the ones that are actually trying to negotiate all these deals?

[01:06:27] Yeah, they're not even employees. They're special government employees. And SGE, I was a special government employee as a member of the – as the chair of the Texas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. I was a special government employee. I had to take ethics training to make sure there was no conflict of interest in what I was doing. And it always struck me that when Trump was going to create in Gaza the Mediterranean paradise, I think, or the river coast or whatever – Hamas, yeah. Yeah, on the –

[01:06:57] Trumpistan. Trumpistan. Trumpistan. There we go. Jared Kushner is a real estate developer. And my guess is he would have had some say in who gets to develop in Gaza. That hasn't moved forward like he had hoped, but they would have some say. And there could be a lot of money in the person who is the gatekeeper of who gets to develop various types of hotels and other things in Gaza. Well, while we're talking about investments, we're going to take a break. But when we come back, you have, of course, a piece by our good friend Dan Pillow.

[01:07:27] You've had him on the program many times. I have as well. The plan to confiscate AI company stock. We were talking about AI last hour with Petrina. But it turns out that Bernie Sanders wants half, but I think Donald Trump wants a piece, right? Have I got that right? Typically, yes. Yeah, so we will see if we can kind of speak to that issue as well. By the way, I might just mention that before we wind down the program today, we're going to bring in our good friend Steve Miller,

[01:07:55] who's been certainly the producer for many years, want to maybe have a formal send-off for him. But let's take a break. We'll come back with more right after this. At Point of View, we believe there is power in prayer, and that is why we have relaunched our Pray for America campaign,

[01:08:20] a series of weekly e-mails to unite Americans in prayer for our nation. 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 e-mails. Just go to pointofview.net and click on the Pray for America banner that's right there on the home page.

[01:08:50] 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.

[01:09:17] That's pointofview.net. Let's pray together for God to make a difference in our land. Point of View will continue after this. You are listening to Point of View.

[01:09:43] 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. We have in studio with us Dr. Merrill Matthews as well as Richard Lim. And a piece by Dan Pilla. First of all, I might just mention, Merrill Matthews, that we've had Dan Pilla on this program many times. Long time friend of view. He's usually talking about IRS and all sorts of other things.

[01:10:09] But he wrote this piece that appeared in National Review about the plan to confiscate AI company stock. And I have a smile on my face because you and I only know so well that the other day I was watching the vice president talk about the fact that the president's kind of interested in having the government invest in AI stock and AI companies. And I thought, okay, the only difference between Bernie Sanders, 50%, and Donald Trump, maybe 10% or 20% is a percentage. We're just haggling over the price, right?

[01:10:39] Right, yes. He's done that for two or three companies that he wants 10% of their in order to be able to allow them to do certain things. And then with U.S. Steel, he's got a golden share. That's a special kind of share where they can nix certain things that the company that U.S. Steel wants to do. So, yes, we've got a vested interest in many of these companies, a financial interest. Richard, let me come to you for just a minute because when we had Petrina on last hour, we already mentioned the fact that the younger you are,

[01:11:09] the more likely you are to be skeptical about AI in the first place, and she played that pretty well, very concerned about everything from data centers to AI. But this is another part of this because if we believe in a free market, of course, Bernie Sanders does not, obviously, all of a sudden this idea of investing and having an American AI sovereign wealth fund,

[01:11:33] which is the act that Bernie Sanders is putting forward, hard to imagine it passing right away. But then again, you already even have people on the other side of the aisle talking about, well, maybe we should invest in AI companies a little bit. So your thoughts? Yeah, you know, I think it comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of property rights. You know, private property is a fundamental right, one that the founding fathers believed was granted by God.

[01:12:02] And aside from the fact that a wealth tax is just another form of double taxation, the government owning stakes in private companies creates, as we've been talking about, you know, conflicts of interest because now the government becomes both a regulator as well as an owner. And it comes from a lack of understanding that innovation comes from entrepreneurs, not the government.

[01:12:26] Government ownership would likely discourage entrepreneurs from creating the next generation of technology. And, you know, we're now going into the idea of state-directed capitalism, which I think is just fundamentally un-American. And let me add, you mentioned the sovereign wealth fund that Bernie Sanders wants to create here. At least, I guess, with the sovereign wealth fund he'd be creating, it would come from private sector assets in there.

[01:12:53] And so Donald Trump has also suggested a sovereign wealth fund for the United States. But we don't have any assets somewhere. We were running about a $2 trillion deficit this year. We ran about a $2 trillion deficit last year. The Congressional Budget Office expects we'll be in five, well, I guess eight years or so, we'll be looking at about a $4 trillion deficit each year. So we don't have any money to be able to put in a sovereign wealth fund.

[01:13:20] And if we had extra money, I would be paying down the debt. So, again, and, of course, I'm talking about a Bitcoin wealth fund, but, of course, that would be from things that have been already captured. But I want to just for a minute come to you, Richard, and just talk about the irony of some of this, because, again, it gets back to our view of political science, because Bernie Sanders, on the one hand, gets upset about the eight richest Americans.

[01:13:45] These are the oligarchs, as he talks about it, have a combined wealth of $2.9 trillion. And so he's really upset about these eight individuals in the private sector, which control a substantial amount of American wealth. But Dan Pilla says, instead, what Bernie Sanders wants to do is substitute seven unelected bureaucrats

[01:14:09] and political hacks exercising control over the operation of private businesses. So it's not right to have eight rich people having indirect control of our finances, but it's more than preferable to have seven of those individuals, unelected bureaucrats, determine what the future of an AI company is. Any concerns? Oh, yes. And, you know, it's one of those great tragedies that, you know,

[01:14:38] socialism has been able to market itself as something that is, quote-unquote, compassionate and, you know, helps the poor, creates equality, et cetera. It exacerbates wealth inequality even more so. It's one of the great schemes propagated by people to, you know, by a small group of people to, you know, concentrate even more wealth in their own hands. So, yeah, it's incredibly hypocritical.

[01:15:08] And let's point out that several years ago, Bernie Sanders would have been against multimillionaires. Now he are one. So now he's against billionaires. Yeah, now he's against billionaires. But his books have made a lot of money for him. I think if I remember right the last time I saw him, this was a year or two ago, he owns three houses. Bernie Sanders has done very well for himself by his creative intellectual property. That is, he writes books and he's made a lot of money off that.

[01:15:37] Well, again, I just think it's something to be thinking about. And since we only have a few minutes left before, of course, I want to bring in our producer, I thought I would hold up our August issue of Outlook. And, Richard, I want to get your thoughts because it's on the rise of socialism. And whether you look at this with the government investing in AI companies, which strikes me more as the classical definition of fascism, although that term has been redefined,

[01:16:03] or just this idea of socialism taking over the means of production, it does seem to me, and I'd like you to speak to that, your generation and the generation behind you are much more sympathetic to socialism. The most recent survey said about two-thirds of those under the age of 30 in particular believe that socialism is preferable to capitalism. So it does seem to me that we need to be involved in the education of the value of free markets,

[01:16:33] the value of private property, and the dangers of having just a few unelected bureaucrats making all the decisions for you. Well, yes, and the fact is that communist movements love to erase all history. It's just like what they did in Cambodia with year zero. And that serves the convenient function of eliminating all the horrible history that is associated with communism and socialism.

[01:16:59] And we know that young people today are completely devoid of any knowledge, thanks to the education system, of any history. I remember growing up, they didn't teach us history. They taught us social studies. And that, unfortunately, has been the direction we've gone, and people don't know the true history of socialism and communism. And I think it's true that you could say socialism and communism have been responsible for more people being killed than all the wars put together

[01:17:28] because of the people who were in charge of it. Stalin would, at night, go after he'd had a dinner or something like that. He'd go home and he would mark off all the people he wanted his people to go and execute. Chairman Mao, 40, 50 million people, just because of some of his plans to try to socialize China and ended up starving millions and millions of people.

[01:17:53] And, again, I've said before, Richard, that it's actually Marxism and Leninism have given us new phrases like gulags and a variety of other terms that have all surfaced out of that. And Ben Shapiro, the other day I quoted him, said, you know, it's not that socialism leads to terrorism and tyranny, but that actually socialism is tyranny and terrorism

[01:18:21] because in some ways the very structure, once you give power to a few individuals and there are no checks and balances, it's only a matter of time before human sin nature really takes over. Yes, absolutely. And, you know, I think it's one of those things, you know, Calvin Coolidge said, had one of the greatest insights. He said that this idea that you can progress from, you know,

[01:18:49] fundamental principles like all men are created equal, that doesn't make any sense at all. The only place you can go from there is to go back from that era where all men are created equal to an era when people weren't created equal. And that's what socialism and communism do. They're not progressive. They're actually regressive. And Milton Friedman one time wanted to point out, he said, you think capitalism is guided by greed?

[01:19:15] He said, you don't think that people who are politicians have greed? You don't think that there's greed involved in those individuals? And do they just abandon greed when they become head of a country? It's just, it's amazing the kind of foolishness that some socialists will just accept. I remember that quote on the Phil Donahue show where he made that comment. Let me just mention that we're going to take a break, but if you are interested in some of the great material that Richard Lim is about,

[01:19:43] go to thisamericanpresident.com. You don't even have to remember all that. Just click on the picture of him, and that will take you to this website. We have a link to Facebook and also X, and we also have his profile, and also where you can read many of the articles that he has put together and podcasts that he has developed. Let's take a break, though, and we, when we wind down here, did want to recognize that the individual that's been producing this program for nine years,

[01:20:11] Steve Miller, is on his way to being teaching in a Christian school. We'll talk about that right after these important messages.

[01:20:39] Commencement with an executive order President Trump issued early last year. The White House has just released a sweeping report, the result of its audit of the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. The report details examples of the museum's distortions of our history, expressed through various exhibits and even the words of the museum's own leaders. The President's March 2025 order, entitled Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, calls for a review of selected Smithsonian museums.

[01:21:07] This 162-page report put out by the White House Domestic Policy Council, says the American History Museum's leadership has explicitly adopted an ideological framework that no longer treats the American story as a shared national inheritance to be taught or celebrated, but as a political instrument to divide, dispirit, and discourage our citizens. Indeed, Gary Bauer, who headed up the Domestic Policy Council in the Reagan White House, says if you visit the National Museum of American History,

[01:21:37] you walk away depressed and demoralized. All you get are smears of the Founding Fathers and how bad America is. The report's release as the nation marks its 250th birthday, which the museum refuses to celebrate, will hopefully prompt Congress to re-evaluate the nearly $1.1 billion it appropriates for the Smithsonian Institution every year. The Heritage Foundation calls on Congress to act, stating that the report clearly documents how the museum has shifted its mission

[01:22:06] from history to woke activism. Senior Fellow Mike Gonzalez says it helps to explain the rise of Marxist politicians who despise America's history and heritage. A National History Museum can be an honest showcase of a nation, but the anti-American left has a hold on our schools and institutions. You may hear cries of censorship. This White House is calling for honesty and a dose of patriotism. For Point of View, I'm Penna Dexter.

[01:22:38] You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Back once again, let me just mention that we have also posted here the piece by Penna Dexter. And if you are listening on the computer, heard it right now. She calls it the Un-American History Museum. And a lot of that has to do with the Smithsonian Institution. And the other day, as I spent some time talking about the President's Order, Restoring Truth and Sanity in American History, and then the most recent survey,

[01:23:08] I have been in the past a member of the Smithsonian. And when I lived in Washington, D.C., went to Georgetown, there are some perks that come when you're a member. So it's not like I'm against the Smithsonian, but it has in some cases, just as universities have been taken over by some progressive ideas. And I think it's very appropriate that Penna wrote this piece. And Dr. Merrill Matthews, you're a student of history. I know Richard Lim is as well. And when we're telling the sad starts and parts of this American history,

[01:23:38] there are some really dark chapters of American history. We need to tell them truthfully. But right now, some people are thinking that all we do is talk about the negative and never talk about the positive. Yes, and I've been to the Smithsonian many times, especially the Air and Space Museum. But you have the American History Museum, you have natural history and other things. So there's various parts of it. But the concern is, and, you know, if you're a Smithsonian and you've got President Biden in and you've got a Democratic Congress, trying to make sure you please the president,

[01:24:09] you can adjust some of the programs that you have and some of the exhibits that you have to try to make sure the president's pleased because you're subject to Congress and the president. And then now we've got a new president in and he's trying to get us back to a little more traditional view of American history, let's say. So again, if you want to go to the Viewpoints section, you can see her piece. But Richard, you've been following that as well. And we need to tell all the history of America. We don't need revisionism on one side or the other.

[01:24:37] We need to really just, if we can, be like an umpire and actually call balls and strikes, right? Absolutely. And, you know, it's one of those things where this isn't just about saying, this isn't a debate between one side that only wants to talk about, you know, the good and, you know, the other side only wants to talk about the bad. What this is, is a side, one side wants to tell the truth of America, good and bad,

[01:25:06] and the other side wants to push this notion that America is nothing, like nothing less than a purely oppressive place. And it's interesting. I saw an article recently that said that there's a difference between one side that says that America has ideals and because of those ideals, we fall short of them. And another side, the left, which says that those ideals are a lie, that they weren't real to, you know, to begin with,

[01:25:34] and that America is nothing but hypocritical. And that's what we're fighting here. And I think that they're constantly framing any side that portrays America as good in any way as whitewashing history, which is just not true. I don't know a single person that loves this country and its history that assumes that America is perfect or that the founding fathers are perfect. And it's really a straw man argument to say otherwise. Well, well said.

[01:26:02] Well, I didn't want the day to end without talking about the fact that for nine years, Steve Miller and I have worked together, and it has been just an incredible pleasure. And he's been the producer, and I thought I'd bring Steve in to talk about what's the next step in your life. Thank you. Thank you so much, Kirby. Good to have you, Meryl, sitting here with you and Richard on the line here. And I've been on two days in a row now. I need to quit more often. I don't know.

[01:26:29] No, I'm going on to teach at a local school, a classical Christian school. I'll teach drama and theology, which is what I did before I came here. So the opportunity has come up to do that and excited about it, kind of bittersweet, leaving you fine people here. But you're going to be in good hands with Derek. And I'm always interested to see what's going on around the table here. Yes. Well, when I heard that he was leaving, I said, oh, no, say it ain't so. Say it ain't so. I didn't like telling you that.

[01:27:00] Yeah, yeah. You were not happy. Richard, you worked with certainly Steve Miller a long distance, but I thought maybe you had some comments. Yeah, absolutely. You know, it's one of those things where you just kind of assume that Steve's just going to be there forever. And in the years that I've been a part of this, he was, you know, the constant that was always arranging everything and making things as easy as possible for us, keeping us informed.

[01:27:29] Everything has gone so smoothly, and I think that's a testament to your work, Steve. And so having you leave is obviously sad for us, but it's great for the people that you're going to work with moving forward. And so we're just so grateful for all the work that you've done. Well, thank you, Richard. And it's good to hear that. I appreciate that. I appreciate those good words.

[01:27:50] And it makes me feel good to know that you guys who have the bulk of the heavy lifting with actually providing content are having a little easier time of it just because I've kind of put some ducks in a row. I'm going to say yours is not an easy job. Derek will have a challenge for him coming here. Because you've got all these guests that are gone. Sometimes the guests change. Sometimes things change. Sometimes the technology doesn't work well.

[01:28:20] And so forth. And then plus, you get all kinds of books and other things from people who want to be on. So you've got to sort of go through that. It's just a big job. Yeah, you're juggling a lot. You really are. And I appreciate that. I will also, though, defer or say that Kirby has quite the ability to tap dance when those changes occur and when those last-minute cancellations come about. Yes.

[01:28:47] One of the things that I've enjoyed over the years also is watching you in acting different ways. I've seen you most recently in Hamlet. Before that, Charles Babbage. People can go to YouTube right now and see you on the planet, which is one. Oh, yeah. I saw the planet. Yeah. Very, very well. Good. That's a science fiction piece. And I know I'll see some others.

[01:29:07] And you'll probably tell me from time to time when at Cambridge College, not college, Cambridge School, where you'll be teaching is where you will actually probably have some plays and say, hey, you ought to come down and see this or see one that your wife has at Covenant or something like that. So this has been just a lot of fun to get to know you in that regard. And if you look at some of our booklets, Dr. Matthews, he wrote one on the whole issue of creativity and imagination. And we sometimes have brought him in front of the microphone here to talk about some of these issues.

[01:29:36] It's just you'll be missed. Yes. Thank you. Appreciate it. You have been very flexible. Warren and everybody here has been very flexible when I say, you know, hey, hey, Warren, I got a gig. Can I fly out to San Francisco and shoot a film? He's like, yeah, just get get everything set up and get your work done and we're good to go. So it's been it's been very gratifying to to have that sort of flexibility.

[01:30:01] It has been good to have the continuity because you've heard me say this and I'm sure others have heard me say this, that for a while when we did not have a producer, we had a good friend, Reg Grant, who would suggest somebody who was in the media arts program. And Buddy Matthews, they would last about 18 months and they go on somewhere else. The most recent one we had went to work with James Robison. And so for a while I had my daughter in here and then, of course, I've had you here for nine years. That's the only continuity I've had.

[01:30:31] Everything else has changed out. And that's probably a good thing. And, of course, now Derek will mention more about him in the future. We'll not only be orchestrating what I'm doing, but also what Liberty is doing. And, of course, Dr. Matthews, you sit in this chair sometimes as well. Occasionally do back on August the 6th. So there we go. Well, just wanted to wish you the best. And April and you certainly have really had a great celebration as well because your son just got married, right? He did. He did. He got married last June 23rd.

[01:31:01] So, again, we're just about out of time. So let me just encourage you that if you'd like to send in a note of encouragement, you're welcome to do so. Of course, we're at pointofview.net. But also we have posted all sorts of articles today. Didn't get to all of them, but you know what? We'll get to them next Monday and certainly throughout the week. So if you found yourself saying, I would like to go find some of those articles, especially the two by Dr. Merrill Matthews and some of the others, feel free to go to the website pointofview.net and you can do that as well.

[01:31:30] And as always, I'd like to thank Megan for help engineering the program. Steve, thank you for producing the program. And Derek, thank you for producing it on the other side of that glass. Have a great weekend. You might watch some soccer or, as some of the world says, football. See you back here on Monday right here on Point of View. It almost seems like we live in a different world from many people in positions of authority.

[01:32:00] 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. As Winston Churchill said to Britain in the darkest days of World War II, never give in. Never give in.

[01:32:28] 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. We can't do it alone, but together, with God's help, we will overcome the darkness.

[01:32:53] Invest in biblical clarity today at pointofview.net or call 1-800-347-5151. Pointofview.net and 800-347-5151. Point of View is produced by Point of View Ministries.