Point of View June 27, 2024 – Hour 2 : Critical Issues and Discussions in the News

[00:00:00] All the news at the Point-of-View Radio Talk Show. a call 800-347-5151. But tonight is the televised presidential debate. Now some people say there will be a lot of people watching it, and in some respects it'll look like that

[00:00:55] because there won't be too much else, even though it is sponsored by CNN. You can certainly watch it on CNN, almost all the other network channels will carry it as well. We have never

[00:01:07] had a debate this early. We've never had a debate in the modern times between two individuals who have already served as president, and so this is significant. We've had debates really since the 1960s, although we did not have them in 64 and 68, did not have one in

[00:01:25] 72, but really since then we've always had debates, 76, 80, 84, all the way down to of course the present time as well. And what is at stake are first of all, reaffirmation of those who have already made up their minds, but again that certainly gives you the conviction

[00:01:47] that you will go out and vote for that particular candidate. And then the second aspect is supposedly there are 10% of U.S. voters that say that they are undecided. Let me tell you a little

[00:02:02] bit of a secret. If they're undecided in June, after having four years of Donald Trump and three and a half years of Joe Biden, I got a feeling they're so undecided that they

[00:02:13] won't vote, but we will see. There may be a little bit of a tip left-right, we'll see where that goes, but the editor at large for the Wall Street Journal, Gerald Baker put

[00:02:24] it this way, there has probably been no occasion in the modern era when the stakes of a presidential debate have been so high and the competition so close, or the candidate's performance

[00:02:37] so unpredictable, by the way I happen to agree with that one, the direction of the long campaign, its outcome and even the ultimate identity of one of the party's candidates could hinge on the 90 minute encounter in Atlanta. Now as we've mentioned the other day with Gary

[00:02:53] Bauer, many of the concessions that Donald Trump was willing to make probably helped Joe Biden a little bit. One of those is in a 90 minute debate you're going to have two breaks, really? I mean that's, 90 minutes is not that long and again when you have the

[00:03:12] introductions and all the rest, that's again helpful for a person who might be older and fatigued and again both of those candidates are older, whether one faces as much fatigue as the other I don't know, but that is certainly significant. So let me roll into this conversation,

[00:03:34] some of the material or conversation we had a little bit with Robert Knight, more so with Chuck Bantley and into this presidential debate because my first article is by David Malpass and he, basically I renamed it just basically what I call the economy and the presidential

[00:03:51] debate. He is an individual that is at Purdue in the Mitch Daniel School of Business, he actually served as the World Bank and he was also the Undersecretary of U.S. Treasury. So he comes from what some people might call slightly right of center, don't know his political

[00:04:10] background but he reminds us that the economy is an important issue and may be the most important issue because back all the way to 1992 when Bill Clinton, candidate Bill Clinton was running, one of his chief campaign workers basically came up with the mantra, it's the

[00:04:32] economy stupid and change is better than more of the same. And so again what you think about the economy is really important. If the economy is how people judge these two presidential candidates, I think we have a pretty good idea of where it's going. But let me quote

[00:04:49] from David Malpass because he says the Biden administration argued against change, at first it said inflation would be transitory, that idea was supported by the Federal Reserve he says but like so many of the Feds inflation models that didn't pan out and the administration

[00:05:05] then blamed the supply chain or shrink inflation or corporate greed or of course Donald Trump on all of that. Well shrink inflation didn't work out very well because the CPI takes smaller packages into account. The corporate greed complaint wasn't supported by the data and

[00:05:25] if anything you could see that people weren't convinced necessarily that these markups were due to anything other than the fact that as the cost of everything goes up, of course

[00:05:35] the cost of products have to go up as well. And so then you have the claim and we hope that it doesn't come out tonight. If it does we hope that at least the moderators will clarify

[00:05:47] that otherwise of course Donald Trump will need to clarify it because the claim has been made by President Biden that he inherited a 9% inflation rate which is not true. Year over year the inflation rate in January 2021 was 1.4%. I may not know a lot about mathematics

[00:06:07] but I know 9% is larger than 1%. Are you with me on this? And so this is a claim that even I underscore again, even the New York Times asserted was false. So we'll see whether or

[00:06:21] not those kinds of claims will come out. Of course I talked about some others and that would be of course the claim that some of these other actions by Donald Trump caused

[00:06:32] the issue and of course that was not the case. The piece that I posted by Arthur Laffer reminds us that under the Biden administration what has been called Bidenomics, it has been a very clear example, maybe even a glaring example of what you might call MMT, that's

[00:06:52] Modern Monetary Theory. I talked about the fact that you had an economist from Australia, Bill Mitchell, that came up with the idea that we often times have argued under John Maynard Keynes or Keynesian economics which you would study if you went to an economics

[00:07:09] class at a university that sometimes you have to stimulate the economy during a war or crisis but then eventually you go back to normal spending and debt levels after the crisis. But under MMT the crisis never ends and so as a result, the article reminds us that some

[00:07:29] of this started quite frankly under Donald Trump during the COVID relief spending spree but most of that, about $4 trillion for social welfare programs and a number of other things that came out afterwards happened under Joe Biden. And so the economy might be a really

[00:07:50] big issue and so when we come back from this break, I thought I'd pick out one other piece because some people are saying that if indeed we're not convinced that Joe Biden is going

[00:07:59] to make it through four years, shouldn't Kamala Harris be on the podium? Shouldn't she be on the debate stage? Maybe not there but more people should know what she thinks because she would be the next president. Very few people think Joe Biden will last the next

[00:08:16] four years. We'll see. So we'll come back and talk about that, get into some other issues but again as we go to a break, perfect time for you to join with us as we have a match

[00:08:24] on the table. That number is 800-347-5151. I noticed that some of the phones were ringing and some were not so if you have been waiting to talk with an individual, give us a call.

[00:08:37] That number is 800-347-5151. Of course at any time you can go to the website pointofview.net. We'll be back right after this. This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson. How effective will the political campaigns this fall appeal to young voters? Most don't like the fact that 2024

[00:09:10] looks like 2020 and as one of my radio guests explained, I'm 28 and I'm not excited about having a candidate running who is the reverse of my age, 82. New polling from democratic firm Blueprint shows how skeptical and disillusioned young voters are about their choices for president

[00:09:27] and members of Congress and the state legislatures. Registered voters 18-30 years old were polled by asking them to respond to a series of questions. Nearly a majority agreed to some extent that elections in this country don't represent them and a majority agreed to some

[00:09:42] extent that the political system in the U.S. doesn't work for people like me. These comments match what I mentioned last month when I quoted Scott Galloway who reminded us that the last two generations are making less money on an inflation adjusted basis. He argued that

[00:09:56] the social contract in America is broken because for the first time in U.S. history a 30-year-old is no longer doing as well as his or her parents were at 30. An even more significant finding from the survey was the fact that nearly two-thirds agreed that America

[00:10:10] is in decline. The same percentage agreed that nearly all politicians are corrupt and making money from their political power. We shouldn't be surprised at the answer. Just read one of the many books by Peter Schweitzer like Profiles in Corruption, Clinton Cash,

[00:10:25] Red-Handed, Blood Money. He's been on my radio program for the last few decades documenting corruption at every level of government. It appears that candidates this fall will have a major challenge to convince young voters to elect them. I'm Kirby Anderson and that's my point of view.

[00:10:47] For a free copy of Kirby's booklet A Biblical View on Inflation go to viewpoints.info slash inflation. That's viewpoints.info slash inflation. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth.

[00:11:04] Back once again let me just mention that before the hour is up we want to talk about a Supreme Court case that came down yesterday, one that came down today on the issue of abortion and

[00:11:15] we might get to a few others. If not we will postpone some of those until Friday. We'll have Kelly Shackelford and Dr. Merrill Matthews already put together some of the articles that

[00:11:23] we'll be talking about and I think that will be good. But before we get back to of course the fact that we are raising funds I thought I'd pick up one other issue that I thought

[00:11:33] was very interesting. Jim Garrity who we quote from every once in a while said if you remember this old quote, if something can't go on forever it will stop. Of course that's intuitively

[00:11:43] obvious and what he says is the presidency of Joe Biden cannot go on forever and there are really only two possible ways it can end. The first is defeat in November. This comes to pass many Americans, particularly many Democrats will have a severe hangover and

[00:11:58] ask themselves how possibly they convinced themselves that an 82 year old man who had initially pitched himself as the bridge president in the 2020 cycle could have beaten Donald Trump in a rematch and wonder how he lost again. But the second option is probably very

[00:12:13] likely and that is indeed if indeed Joe Biden is re-elected in November Vice President Kamala Harris will be taking over sometime in the next four years. We are not saying that because we wish the current president ill but the latest New York Times poll has 70% of Americans

[00:12:36] agree with the statement Biden is just too old to be an effective president. That's 77 more than 70%. By the way you might say what about Trump? Well you couldn't even get 39% to agree with that for Donald Trump so that is the case and I think anybody, I don't care

[00:12:55] if you're Republican or Democrat, liberal, conservative, you have got to say that probably sometime between January 20th 2025 and January 20th 2029 the current Vice President Kamala Harris would be President Kamala Harris and seated behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval

[00:13:17] Office. And so he's raising a very good question that the American people would deserve to know what that might look like and if it doesn't come up tonight in the debate, and I don't think you could avoid the obvious question, then again do the American people deserve

[00:13:35] a right to really see what the current Vice President would do as President and are individuals that are maybe favoring Donald Trump maybe less favorable to Kamala Harris. So those are some issues that I thought I might just put on the table for us to consider as well

[00:13:53] and we may cover some of those tomorrow in our weekend edition but also let me just mention that a Supreme Court case did just come down from Idaho versus the United States and this involves what is called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act which requires hospitals

[00:14:12] that participate in Medicaid or Medicare to actually provide necessary stable treatment in an emergency. And the argument being used by the Biden Administration is that means that abortions have to be provided and the court actually dealt with this issue six to

[00:14:32] three. You have of course dissents from Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch but I thought it was so interesting that the people that have really reacted to this are the people we've interviewed on this program. For example, Katie Daniel is with Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life

[00:14:50] and she said that this whole discussion is a PR stunt to spread the lies that pro-life laws prevent women from receiving emergency care. Marjorie Dannenfelser, who of course is the head of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life said the Democrats will stop at nothing to overturn

[00:15:08] pro-life protections in every state and impose all trimester abortion on demand as national law. And then Igrid Skop who will be on the program with us soon, she's a board certified OBGYN, also the director of the medical affairs at Charlotte Lozier Institute said I'm disappointed

[00:15:27] that the Supreme Court has not rejected the Biden Administration's attempt to hijack a law that protects mothers and babies. Throughout my 30 year career this emergency requirement has never confused me or my obstetric peers when providing emergency care, especially

[00:15:48] considering 90% of obstetricians do not perform elective abortions. And so again, there are some people now that are simply upset that the Supreme Court did not deal with this attempt to interject the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. But in the next couple of weeks,

[00:16:06] as we always do, we'll talk about this issue of abortion and how that is being manipulated because if you don't have the ability, as we've talked about just a few minutes ago, to run on the economy, if you don't have the ability to run on border security and

[00:16:21] immigration and you have a number of other very significant issues ranging from transgenderism to the rest, well then you come back to the issue of abortion. And I think we're going to keep hearing abortion mentioned a lot tonight in the presidential debate. We'll get back

[00:16:38] to that in just a few minutes, but again I wanted to bring Warren Kelly into the program to remind us as we are coming to the end of our fiscal year that we've got some wonderful statements and stories and illustrations from individuals that have actually been so appreciative

[00:16:54] of what we do in point of view. Yes, we do. And let me just say real quickly that we've had about $18,000 come in toward the match and we want to thank every one of you who have given. We appreciate that very

[00:17:05] much, but that means we have another $55,000 that we still need to reach so we could use your help. But I did want to share this, it's a little bit long but it's such a great

[00:17:14] story. Just one of the examples of how your giving makes an impact when you give to point of view. This comes from Diane, it says, I don't remember how I first found point of

[00:17:23] view, but I do know that it was early in the broadcast history. I would sit in my car to listen because my car radio picked up the station better than my clock radio inside

[00:17:32] the house. I became more interested in politics as I continued to listen and learn. And when my husband was transferred to the DC area, one of the first things I did was to find a station that broadcast point of view. Well soon after moving, I realized that finding

[00:17:47] a reliable way to keep up with how our elected officials were voting was crucial to keeping this nation from sinking into the swamp. So I called the radio station and told them they

[00:17:56] needed a program that would give us this information. And they agreed and asked me to stop by and do a trial show. Not what she was expecting, but as she goes on she says, I balked having

[00:18:08] never been involved in radio, but I finally agreed to give it a try. And because my husband and I gave to the station to sponsor point of view, my new program aired during one

[00:18:18] of the point of view station breaks. It soon rose to the top ten programs airing and usually was in the top two for that station. We were able to oust some really crummy legislatures

[00:18:30] both state and federal, and we were also able to replace them with more family friendly candidates. This program aired for 20 years. I moved to another state, ended my local broadcast, but I am still involved in politics. That's the wonderful thing about knowledge. You can

[00:18:46] use it for a lifetime. Thanks point of view for educating us and keeping us informed. This is just one example and there are so many of what your investment has done. And Kirby, I want to go back to something you said yesterday. You talked about paying it

[00:19:01] forward. There are a lot of you out there that have listened for a very long time. You have benefited from what others have given so that you could listen to the show. So let

[00:19:10] me encourage you if you're one of those people, it's time to pay it forward. It's time for you to invest in point of view so that others can learn, that others can get involved, that

[00:19:20] others can make a difference in our communities. One of the things I appreciate is that you've collected some of these comments. One that I see surfacing from time to time is, I appreciate your prayers for our nation because that's another actual update that we have. Each week

[00:19:37] we send out, and if you haven't signed up for that, that's still available to you on the website, Pray for America on the right hand side. So again, that's one of the other things that you're supporting. And again, it's an opportunity to think about one of the issues

[00:19:50] we've talked about this week and to pray for this nation. Pretty soon we're going to have an election central, and that again is something that your support is going to. So people sometimes

[00:20:00] say, well I love the radio program, but I reminded people of the fact that we have these booklets, we have Outlook magazine, we have the videos, we have so many other aspects. We have the podcast, we have the highlights of Point of View on Spotify, all sorts of

[00:20:14] resources that when you go to the website, that's what you're supporting when you support Point of View. There are so many things that you've come up with and created and put on the website and make available. It's amazing how much content

[00:20:27] this man puts out, but these are resources that you can use to make a difference in your community and there are hundreds of thousands of others like you that are making a difference in their communities across the nation. And we have listeners now in virtually every country

[00:20:42] around the world. So your gift literally reaches people across the country and around the world. It is amazing when I look down that list. We ought to mention that sometime, but we're

[00:20:51] coming to a break and some of you say, well I don't want to miss the content, so I only want to call during the break. Well that's coming up right now. And so again, that number

[00:20:59] is 800-347-5151. Of course you can go at any time to the website pointofview.net, but I brought my wife and daughter in here today, so if indeed there's a rush, they can answer

[00:21:14] the phones too. So rather than sit around watching the phone, they'd like to answer it. So again, give us a call 800-347-5151. It's a dollar for dollar match and it's on the table right now. We'll be right back.

[00:21:28] Have you ever thought to yourself, you know, I should support Point of View, but then you never got around to making that donation? Well now is a great time to make it official

[00:21:42] and partner with Point of View. Any donation will make an impact, truly. But when you give this week, your gift will be doubled thanks to a limited time matching challenge. Again, anything you give by tomorrow, Friday June 28th, will be doubled. When you give to Point

[00:22:03] of View, you are directly involved in equipping more people with a biblical worldview and that is exactly what this culture needs. Will you help restore a biblical worldview in America? Whether you're a first time donor or a long time supporter of Point of View, give today.

[00:22:24] While your generosity has the greatest impact, it will be doubled. To give, visit pointofview.net or call 1-800-347-5151. That's pointofview.net and 1-800-347-5151. Point of View will continue after this. You are listening to Point of View.

[00:23:03] 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 for the final half hour and let me just as a program note mention tomorrow is our Friday weekend edition

[00:23:19] and Kelly Shackelford and Dr. Meryl Matthews will be in studio. Penna Dexter was with us on Wednesday. She's saying that it's getting harder and harder because of some of the things going on in her life and her husband's life and family's life to be with us on Friday.

[00:23:32] So, we'll see if we can find some ways to bring her in on other days in the week because certainly we benefit so much from her expertise. But again, you will get a chance to hear and see her commentary because we always post that on Friday.

[00:23:45] And of course, we send it to you on Saturday. One other benefit I might just mention to actually supporting Point of View, even if you don't support us and you just sign up to get the Viewpoints commentary,

[00:23:57] that is the case. My Viewpoints commentary today is about young voters and it will be interesting to see once they get the so-called Nielsen ratings down,

[00:24:07] how many young people actually watch the debate tonight because if you are going to actually want to understand what is happening in our culture, you might want to read my commentary because this is about young voters.

[00:24:22] And there is a polling firm called Blueprint which is pretty much a Democratic firm, but they were trying to get a sense on how many young people would vote Democratic, both for the presidency and for the Senate and Congress and everything else.

[00:24:36] And so their poll, if it has a bias at all, is towards maybe the left or towards the Democratic Party. But again, they actually did a very reputable poll of registered voters ages 18 to 30. So this would be the youngest voters out there.

[00:24:56] And they found that a majority or nearly a majority agreed to some extent that the elections in this country don't represent them. And a clear majority agreed to some extent or a lot of extent that the political system doesn't work for people like me.

[00:25:12] We went on to mention some other things and that is, of course, the fact that two-thirds, 64 percent, agreed that America is in decline. Even more of a percentage said that nearly all politicians are corrupt and make money from their political power.

[00:25:27] So you're dealing with a group of individuals that are fairly skeptical about the political process. You're dealing with some who maybe are a little less likely to vote anyway. The younger you are, the less likely you are to be registered to vote.

[00:25:42] The younger you are, the less likely you are, even if you're registered to vote, to vote. That has been traditionally true. But nevertheless, youth votes almost always go towards the Democratic Party.

[00:25:55] And this has changed dramatically in part because, well, at the top of the ticket you have two people in their 70s soon to be in their 80s. Well, actually one is already 80, will be 82 by the time he was re-elected and be in office. So that is very significant.

[00:26:12] And so again, an important issue to pay attention to. And so we'll pay attention to it tomorrow night, actually tonight and then tomorrow, actually I should say, when we look at some of the numbers. It might take until tomorrow night to actually find out what the breakdown is.

[00:26:28] But it will be interesting to see how many young people took the time to watch the debate. And we'll talk about that, of course, next week as well.

[00:26:35] Just before we move on, I wanted to get to one of the other articles because yesterday the Supreme Court, as you know, ruled 6-3 in a case known as Murthy v. Missouri.

[00:26:49] And it was where you had two states and a number of plaintiffs who were actually calling to the attention of the Supreme Court, earlier to the Fifth Circuit Court, about the fact that the federal government has been having an influence,

[00:27:05] maybe a negative and maybe overwhelming influence for social media. Now government cannot restrict free speech. But the question is, can the government in surreptitious ways, in maybe hidden ways, influence free speech, influence the ability of people to communicate by actually putting pressure on social media?

[00:27:32] And of course, even though it went 6-3, the argument which was made even by some of the conservative justices was, well, these individuals lack standing. I'll come back to that in just a minute.

[00:27:45] But you had the three dissenters, which would be Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. And the dissent was written by Samuel Alito, actually argued that the majority's decision, quote, permits the successful campaign of coercion, in this case, to stand as an attractive model for future officials

[00:28:09] who want to control what people say, hear and think. And the argument was, well, sometimes the government's suggestions were acted upon, but sometimes they weren't. And that's where Samuel Alito says, well, that's just bad logic. Yeah, just because Facebook sometimes declined to take up the government's suggestion

[00:28:29] doesn't mean that they weren't exerting an undue influence on Facebook. Because he said, the Facebook emails, quote, paint a clear picture of subservience. He goes on to say, the Facebook's response resembled that of a subservient entity determined to stay in the good graces of the powerful taskmaster.

[00:28:51] When criticized, Facebook representatives whimpered that they thought they were doing a better job but promised to be doing better going forward and then denounced as killing people. Facebook responded by expressing a desire to work together, collaboratively with the accuser.

[00:29:07] That has to do with the fact that if you allow some of this misinformation, which turned out to be accurate information, out there, it will result in killing people during the COVID lockdowns. And of course, we know a lot more even that we did then.

[00:29:22] One of the individuals, by the way, who is quoted in this article we have available for you was actually quoted in the Media Research Center, and that's Jonathan Turley. And it has a partial quote there, but I dug out the full quote here.

[00:29:38] And Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University. He is an individual who certainly would not vote for Donald Trump, and has always, as far as I can tell, always voted for the Democratic nominee for president.

[00:29:53] But he also said that even though this ruling he felt was frustrating, maybe there was something that was positive because he says, while this isn't the outcome we were hoping for, this case is a huge win for Americans and for the whole country because, here's what he's saying,

[00:30:09] it exposed nearly every part of the Biden administration's vast censorship enterprise. He says, I'm extremely proud to have filed this case as Missouri's attorney general. That comes from Eric Schmidt. Many knew this censorship was happening before this case, and so goes on to talk about this.

[00:30:29] And of course, many people have referred to this as the censorship industrial complex. And one of the individuals that so often is quoted in that regard is Matt Taibbi. Now, again, I've pointed out that here is an individual that wrote for Rolling Stone

[00:30:49] on probably a number of issues Matt would disagree with many of the comments we make around this table. But his piece yesterday came out and simply said, the Supreme Court punts on censorship

[00:31:03] and points out that actually there seemed to be a lot of jubilation, a lot of celebration, when you had the White House press secretary, Corrine Jean-Pierre, saying, well, this helps the Biden administration to continue our important work with technology companies

[00:31:19] to protect the safety and security of the American people. He just smiled at the important work where they've actually shut down individuals. And so, again, just reminds us that the court actually looked at this issue and simply dismissed it on the basis of standing.

[00:31:38] And so as a result, he said the problem with this is that they assumed that just because there was influence, maybe that wasn't influence enough, what's called traceability. And so the court, and that is under Amy Coney Barrett, said,

[00:31:57] well, even though the government played a role in some of the platforms, the evidence indicates the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercise their own judgment. So the implication is that since they didn't take 100% of the recommendations,

[00:32:15] maybe only say 50%, well, that just shows that the government didn't have that much influence. Would we allow that kind of silliness in any other court case? I don't think so. It's just, I think, a good example of a number of justices that were conservatives along with liberals

[00:32:33] that just simply didn't want to have to make a decision. But Matt Taibbi stops his whole comment by simply saying, you know, the Supreme Court, irrespective of its partisan construction, has been shrugging at the outrages to the Bill of Rights since 9-11,

[00:32:52] going all the way back to some of the actions that took place, the Patriot Act and others. He says the national security establishment increasingly becomes a black box during that time, has made these challenges higher and harder.

[00:33:07] And he says, first of all, hats off to the plaintiffs and the lawyers. But again, the sad implication is this just maybe gave a green light to an administration that has been all too willing to censor things on social media.

[00:33:23] So again, just wanted to get some comments on the table about the Supreme Court decision yesterday. I'm sure our guests tomorrow will have some things to say about that. But as we go to a break, let me once again remind you, you can give us a call.

[00:33:36] 800-347-5151. We'll come back for our last segment. Perfect time to call, though. 800-347-5151. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. For a few more minutes while we're talking about that case that came down yesterday,

[00:34:05] you know, when I first heard about it, I think it was bad. And now as you really study it, you realize it's even worse. We talked about the issue of traceability. You know, if you only took 50% of the ideas and the threats that came from the federal government,

[00:34:20] well then I can't really trace that, which is really bad. As somebody said off-air just a minute ago, if somebody's told to steal both bubble gum as well as candy and they only steal bubble gum, well then that means they didn't steal anything.

[00:34:34] No, they steal. Anyway, it's a terrible one. But the bottom line is traceability. The other one which is kind of puzzling is the Supreme Court lots of times uses as an excuse so it doesn't have to make a decision that you don't have standing.

[00:34:49] And we heard that the other day with the abortion pill. You don't have standing. And yet here, if you go into the decision and especially the dissent written by Justice Samuel Alito,

[00:35:02] this particular article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal reminds us that we have a Supreme Court that has had little problem with standing on other cases. Justice Alito, for example, points to one of the cases having to do with the Department of Commerce versus New York in 2019.

[00:35:26] I mentioned the one yesterday in terms of how the Supreme Court ruled in the case in favor of the National Rifle Association compared to New York State simply because of that. And you would say, well, who had standing? Well, I guess maybe NRA has standing.

[00:35:44] Then they even go back to one in 2007 where the court even stretched its standing participation in principles in a case known as Massachusetts versus EPA because it had to do with whether or not you could regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

[00:36:02] So the bottom line is, is that oftentimes when you're talking to a case having to do with preventing somebody in the case of the Voolo case

[00:36:15] of being able to have access to insurance or banks, or in the case of the Massachusetts case, the issue of greenhouse gas emissions, or in the case of commerce having to do with censorship of census and citizenship. Well, standing really wasn't a problem then.

[00:36:34] But when you have the power of big tech, then maybe we say you don't really have standing. And so I suspect there will be those who are championing First Amendment rights who will find a way to find someone who does have standing to challenge this again

[00:36:53] because of anything that seems to be sending a green light, if you will, to any federal government agency that would want to censor ideas. And don't take my word for it.

[00:37:07] I quoted from Matt Taibbi just a minute ago in his piece that goes on for pages, and I didn't read all of this to you. He talks about the fact that after this case went to the Supreme Court and it went from the Fifth Circuit Court,

[00:37:22] we saw some of the influence taking place again in social media. So right now you can say, well, we don't see a lot of influence on social media. Well, yeah, we're not in the middle of a question about the issue of election integrity.

[00:37:36] We're not dealing necessarily with the issue of COVID or vaccines or anything else. But wait till we get into the fall and all of a sudden certain statements won't be allowed.

[00:37:49] And again, I've tried to remind you that these are the same big tech companies that even though the New York Post, which is the second oldest newspaper in the country, I believe, even when they had clear information that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden

[00:38:06] and raised serious questions about the involvement of not only Hunter Biden but his father in various deals in Ukraine and China, those particular pieces of information were not even allowed on these various social media platforms. So something to think about as well.

[00:38:27] Just before we go back to Warren Kelly, I thought I'd just mention one of the other articles I've posted here talks about the national debt crisis. You're probably only going to hear a little bit in passing about the national debt tonight.

[00:38:41] And you will get a lot of hand waving, either assured from Biden that it's not an issue or maybe some hand waving from even former President Donald Trump that we can grow our way out of the debt. But this particular article is by William Galston.

[00:38:58] And the reason I bring it up is he is, again, left of center. As far as I know, he's probably always voted for a Democrat for president. He's with the Brookings Institute. You can read his latest book, Dealing with Populism, which is pretty much aimed at Donald Trump.

[00:39:15] But here he's talking about the national debt crisis is coming. And so even some issues that need to be covered, we cover here, even though I doubt it will come up very much in the debate. You won't hear a lot of candidates talking about the national debt crisis.

[00:39:34] And you certainly won't hear the two candidates talking about it tomorrow, tonight or even over the next couple of days in the campaign. Just one more example of the kinds of topics we think you need to know about because they affect your family and your freedom.

[00:39:49] Warren Kelly with us one more time. I think you got an update on how we're doing. Yes, we have 22000 that has come in toward the match. So that means we have about 51000 left. So there's still plenty of time for you to get your gift matched.

[00:40:03] But this does expire tomorrow at midnight. So we really do need to hear from you. And again, your gifts do make a difference. They impact lives. People all across the country listing hundreds of thousands of people. I'm going to share one from Elizabeth in New Hampshire.

[00:40:21] She talks about loving the updates that Kirby brings and all the information. She says, as a matter of fact, I'm taking some of that information this Thursday at 1 p.m.

[00:40:29] I'll be meeting with our school superintendent to discuss our concerns for the students, the parents, the curriculum and so much more. Prayerfully entering into God's will for this meeting.

[00:40:39] Thank you again, Pana Kirby and all of you for your hard work to keep us listeners informed and inspired by your fruitfulness. Very good. I might just mention, as I said before, that if you are a donor, regular donor, you receive the Outlook magazine.

[00:40:53] We've got an issue coming up in the future on this subject of education. Yes, we do. As for all of our monthly people, if you're contributing a monthly or at $30 a month, you also get the booklet that Kirby puts out every month.

[00:41:05] Again, those are just tremendous pieces that we have so much, so many compliments about, so great feedback. So great resources available to you. If you're supporting Point of View, your opportunity to make a difference in our culture. It's a great deal. Let us hear from you right now.

[00:41:23] My commentary today is about young voters and fits very well, if you think about it, to the conversation we had yesterday with Liberty McCarter. Because she is doing a podcast for young people, educating them as well.

[00:41:35] We have a Millennial Roundtable, so if you're concerned about the future of America, and I think there's reason to be concerned about the future of America, especially with the younger generation, we let you hear from some of the best and brightest as they join us around the roundtable.

[00:41:51] And just one more ministry. Absolutely. Again, let me go back to the concept of paying it forward. A lot of you have benefited from, even if you haven't benefited tremendously from the program,

[00:42:01] let me say you have benefited from the impact the program has had through so many others. So let me encourage you, pay it forward, help us reach that next generation.

[00:42:11] Help us keep this going so that we're continuing to reshape our nation for the future to bring biblical values back into our culture. I know you're going to want to listen to the program tomorrow,

[00:42:20] because we'll have Kelly Shackelford giving us an update on a number of the Supreme Court decisions. A number of articles we've already got ready to post by Dr. Merrill Matthews, and of course we'll give you an update on that as well.

[00:42:32] But just to remind you once again, we're going to go off the air in just a minute, and just before we do so, you might want to write this number down, 800-347-5151. Even though we're going off the air, we'll still answer the phone calls. 800-347-5151.

[00:42:48] Of course the website is pointofview.net, and we're getting a little closer. Still about 50,000, and we'll give you a little bit of an update tomorrow. But I hope that you will take the time to visit the website, get the articles, make a donation, or give us a call.

[00:43:04] 800-347-5151. Megan and Steve, thank you for your help. See you back here tomorrow. Have you ever thought to yourself, you know, I should support Point of View, but then you never got around to making that donation?

[00:43:19] Well, now is a great time to make it official and partner with Point of View. Any donation will make an impact, truly. But when you give this week, your gift will be doubled thanks to a limited-time matching challenge.

[00:43:36] Again, anything you give by tomorrow, Friday, June 28th, will be doubled. When you give to Point of View, you are directly involved in equipping more people with a biblical worldview. And that is exactly what this culture needs. Will you help restore a biblical worldview in America?

[00:43:57] Whether you're a first-time donor or a long-time supporter of Point of View, give today while your generosity has the greatest impact. It will be doubled. To give, visit pointofview.net or call 1-800-347-5151. That's pointofview.net and 1-800-347-5151. Point of View will continue after this.