Point of View March 21, 2025 – Hour 2 : Weekend Edition

[00:00:04] Across America, Live, this is Point of View, Kirby Anderson. Second hour today, if you'd like to join us, 1-800-351-1212. We have a couple of calls left over from the last hour. Let me just give you an overview because we do have an article which I do commend to you. Why are they so angry?

[00:00:32] Alan Joseph Bauer actually explains some of that. You get this white hot anger, whether it's towards Elon Musk and burning down some of these electric charging stations and defacing Tesla cars and trucks and everything. But before that, it had to do with Israel and Hamas and a number of others.

[00:00:55] I think he's done a very good job of explaining that some of that goes back to this division in society, which we've talked about before. Kelly and I have talked about the elites versus the rest. It goes in and talks about everybody from John Kerry to Barack Obama to Tony Fauci to Tony Blinken and on and on. So that we may or may not get to. We do have a piece here on Trump may have to save the Constitution from the courts and another piece that Trump and Roberts are both wrong. So we'll get to those in just a minute.

[00:01:23] But let's take some phone calls because the whole issue of education has surfaced some calls and I'd love to hear what you have to say. So, Carol, thank you for joining us today here on Point of View. Well, thank you for having me. And I taught, this goes back quite a few years, I used to teach occupational education for high school students and sometimes adults. So that goes back quite a ways for me in the 85.

[00:01:51] And I had a coordinator that was not a believer. And I was shocked when I found out that he was almost forcing me to use the budget money because he said, no, you have to order for next year because even if you're saying you don't need anything, we're not going to get any more money. Here we go. And that will cut out the money. So just take it home and use it.

[00:02:19] And the other girl was taking it home and I thought, what is this? If I don't need money, I don't need it. I don't need a lot to teach well. And then the next summer I was the same boss I had taken off. I wanted to go sightseeing to Washington, D.C. And I brought him back a copy of the Constitution. I thought he'd be thrilled to put it in his office.

[00:02:47] And he said, no, I'm not interested in something like that. I was just shocked. And I think this was in California, right, when this was happening? Yes, it was. Southern California. It sounds like the Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, doesn't it, Kelly? Yeah. Yeah. You know, I mean, the first thought I had when they said you've got to spend your money is like ice cream for all the kids. You know?

[00:03:09] It's just, but it's exactly, we've heard this story a lot, which is why, you know, which is why the idea of, you know, toning down our federal government is a great idea. Because it's exactly what happens in every single agency. If you don't spend your money, you're not going to do it. Now, how the new administration, what was it that they demanded they look through and see if they could cut? Is some significant percentage, 25% or whatever, that's a totally different approach.

[00:03:39] Sure. Let me take one more call here. We'll go to another Carol, KYCC in California. Carol, what would you add to our conversation today? Hi, Kirby. Thank you for having me on your show. I would like to add, it just doesn't make any sense for us to continue to have a Department of Education when the scores of the students have done nothing but drop over the years since it was taken away from the states.

[00:04:07] To me, it's just common sense that that's just not working. We've got to get rid of it. And in the meantime, of course, we, they, the government, has squandered billions of taxpayer dollars that could have been so much better spent. Yes. Way too reasonable. The idea that you don't get more money if you don't show results, you know, that means you're not allowed to work in government, I think. You know, that's, but you're exactly right.

[00:04:35] I mean, you know, we ought to, you know, how about incentives even? How about put incentives in there? We will look for some more tax money if you can actually improve or, you know, but the incentives probably would need to go towards individual teachers. Right. Right. And see if they, I mean, that's the way life works. This is the whole point to school choice, by the way. Right. I mean, it's competition and goals. And I mean, those things really work.

[00:05:03] That's why every business has them. But it's a great point. I mean, we've just, we've just more and more and more of this federal money for education, you know, when they shouldn't be controlling education. And there's no results. I mean, there's no increase. No. I mean, it's, it's, it's clear.

[00:05:23] And then the unions, which are the big people behind this, the teachers unions, you know, they all, you know, were horrible to the, to all the students during COVID. What it wasn't about the kids during COVID. It was about the unions. And so, you know, that's why they're screaming about all this. So, you know, I think return things to the states. Let's get all the in-between people out. Let's have the parents and the local school districts and the teachers.

[00:05:52] And, and let's look at what percentage of the money is actually going to teaching and what's going to bureaucrats. And I think you could solve a lot of problems with this. Exactly. I mean, Carol and Carol made great points that we have seen a lot of corruption in this agency. And if you're not seeing results, then why are you going to keep doing the same thing over and over again? Something needs to change. Doing the same thing again and again, expecting different results. And we know what that leads to.

[00:06:21] Let's go around the round table real quickly because I think both of you probably have some thoughts about this. But just the idea of destroying Tesla cars and ruining the lives of individuals that make the cars, that have them in the showrooms and everything else, and then destroying even the way in which you can electrically charge those cars.

[00:06:52] And, and, and, and, and, and designating it appropriately as what it is, is domestic terrorism. And, and again, like you say, I mean, it's like, I mean, Elon Musk has what $500 billion. I mean, I mean, you know, it's not going to hurt him, but you're shooting bullets into play and into, you know, dealerships. Yeah. And, and if you are causing damage to Tesla, which, you know, Tim Walsh was bragging about how their stock went down.

[00:07:22] I mean, again, it's not going to make any difference as far as, you know, affecting Musk, but it's, it's the most American. I mean, it's one of the only places where a automobile dealer, automobile dealer, that's all American. You know, it's, it's American workers, American families. And, and it's ridiculous what they're doing. And I wonder, I do hope one of the things I know the justice department is doing is investigating where the money's coming from.

[00:07:51] And the, the, the fact of how much of this is coordinated is like a, for instance, a George Soros type thing. Um, I hope they find out, uh, because that would be significant and that would be, I think, significant criminal activity. It'd be a criminal conspiracy and really connected to terrorism.

[00:08:11] Uh, so, but I, I appreciated even her saying that, which will discourage people who aren't a part of the criminal conspiracy to go, you know, maybe I don't want 20 years in jail. Yes. Uh, so I don't think I'm going to go do that. So, uh, it's, I mean, praise the Lord. There's, there's actually law and order and not sort of a different system. We don't care whether they're attacking a conservative or a liberal is wrong. This kind of terroristic activity is wrong.

[00:08:41] Let's take a break and we'll come back. Um, the constitution of the courts deportation, we have a lot to cover. We'll do that right after this. This is viewpoints with Kirby Anderson. For decades, progressive professors and politicians have been promoting universal basic income known as UBI.

[00:09:08] It is a fiscal program to pay a regular income to everyone without conditions. Proponents argue that we all benefit from technological advances and thus deserve a steady income, especially as we enter into a world where AI might take away many of our jobs. Chuck Bantley, CEO of Crown Financial Ministries, has been warning about the perils of UBI in his articles and in a chapter in his book. He says, Giving money to everyone doesn't make sense economically, nor does it make sense theologically.

[00:09:37] People benefit from working and enjoy the fruits of their labor. Now, the National Bureau of Economic Research published a study that was summarized in a lengthy thread, and they found that giving people in Compton, California at least $500 per month in free money did little to help them. The participants only ended up $100 richer and smoked more cigarettes. Here's a summary of some of the findings. For example, receiving guaranteed income had no impact on the labor supply of full-time workers,

[00:10:04] but part-time workers had a lower labor market participation by 13 percentage points. The researchers discerned there was no overall effect of indices of psychological or financial well-being. The results should not be surprising. Many studies show that happiness and fulfillment come from earned success. People who work hard and receive the benefit of their work are much happier and fulfilled than people who, for example, win the lottery. Proverbs 13.11 says,

[00:10:30] Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers it little by little will increase it. This recent study merely confirms what the Bible teaches, and most of us know. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view. For a free booklet on a biblical view of genetic engineering, go to viewpoints.info slash geneticengineering. viewpoints.info slash geneticengineering.

[00:10:58] You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Back once again, let's, if we can, try to pull all this together. In some respects, we have the two Ds. We have Doge and all the questions about corruption and that issue. Then we have the deportation. And in some respects, these are different spokes which all go to a hub, and that's the courts.

[00:11:22] And as I shared just the other day, both Liberty and Kelly, if you look in the first term for Donald Trump, there were 64 judicial injunctions. To put that in perspective, over eight years, Barack Obama had 12. As a matter of fact, as of Monday, and now there have been more since then, there were at that time just 15 nationwide injunctions during the last month of February. And that's more than Barack Obama had over eight years. He had 12.

[00:11:52] So, obviously, there are questions. And I see some people saying the president in some of his actions have violated a court order. Some say that what Elon Musk is doing is not part of the Constitution. I have other people that are saying, no, this is right within the purview of the president. And I think, Kelly, some of this is just going to have to go to the Supreme Court. Not that that should be the final arbiter, but you have so many different opinions right now about what's taking place.

[00:12:20] I don't see how you even come close to resolving something. There's so many issues we could talk about here. You know, a number of weeks ago when I was on, I laid out some of the issues that are going to end up at the Supreme Court. I mean, Humphrey's executor and there's a lot of – there are some precedents that most conservatives think are absolutely wrong under the Constitution.

[00:12:49] I mean, this is one of those things where I think these left-wing activists are going to maybe really regret what they're doing because they're throwing all these lawsuits and they're providing an opportunity to really change some decisions. And really, ultimately, that's about executive power. I mean, if you look in Article 2 of the Constitution, it says that all the executive power is vested in the president, all of it.

[00:13:18] I mean, not part of it. There's no other person mentioned under Article 2 but the president of the United States. So this idea from some of these past opinions that some of these agencies are really kind of dual agencies in the executive branch because they have some legislative things that they do. And therefore, the president can't hire and fire them just at will. Well, you know, if it's the executive branch, he has all authority. He can fire whoever he wants.

[00:13:47] That's what they're probably going to end up with when they're through with this. And I could go into others, but the point is there's this battle over what the Constitution really says, whether some of these past opinions are wrong, and I think they're teeing that up. I think the other really big issue that is going to have to be dealt with is this idea of a local judge issuing a nationwide injunction. That's a question I want to get to. And I think this is untenable.

[00:14:15] I think that it's only becoming more noticeable because more liberal judges are using it in a dramatic fashion. And so they're going to force the Supreme Court to deal something. Now, I think one way to deal with it is really a judge only has authority over the people within their case and their area. So they really can't be issuing things outside of that.

[00:14:43] That would be one way maybe to limit it. I think if the Supreme Court doesn't take care of it, and I think Chief Justice Roberts understands this, that the legislature will do something. Right. We'll get to that in just a minute. But I think that the court will take care of this. And I think that a lot of these decisions are wrong that are being handed down. And, again, Trump's problem is Trump doesn't wait. He's not very patient.

[00:15:12] So instead he starts attacking these judges. Probably for their impeachment, which he shouldn't have said. And then Roberts responds by – if you read his statement, he's really saying, let this go through the appellate process. These yahoos at the district court are going to be overturned. And then he states what normally is the position of the Supreme Court, which is no judge should be impeached for a decision.

[00:15:40] I don't totally agree with that. But that is traditionally what Rehnquist and others said. I think if it's a – really if you're flaunting or if you're refusing to follow your duty or whatever, but just because you disagree with a judge's opinion is not. But I also thought it was wrong for Roberts to issue a statement. But impeachment is about the legislative process.

[00:16:04] And if the judiciary is going to be independent, which they should be, they don't need to be speaking into political issues. They don't need to be talking about the legislative process. They need to speak in their opinions. So I thought that was a rare error by the chief justice to talk about that. But I do think let this work its way through the courts. Let this get to the Supreme Court. I don't think they're going to go with some of the shenanigans that are going on.

[00:16:31] But it is a shame that you can cause all this kind of disruption because one judge is trying to be the king. That judge was never elected. They were there for one area, for the clients that are before them, not to control the entire country. And something has to be done to remedy the abuse that's going on by a number of these district court judges. And the fact is there are quite a number of those because you have one that says you can't take this Georgetown student.

[00:16:59] Another one say you've got to turn around the plane and bring it back. Another one questioning the legitimacy of impounding funds and doge. And you mentioned just in passing, if we had Senator Josh Hawley on here, but I think we can represent his view very well. The courts were established by Congress. Yes. All of them at the Supreme Court. Yeah, the Constitution established the Supreme Court, but the others were. So there's a possibility of limiting what's called appellate jurisdiction.

[00:17:27] And so he said either the Supreme Court needs to intervene and make clear that there's only one court that can issue rules for the whole country. That's the Supreme Court. Or else Congress needs to legislate and make clear that district courts do not have the ability to issue these kinds of injunctions. And people have pointed out, you know, sometimes, I'm even thinking of the abortion issue. Remember, one of the decisions that came out of West Texas was on this issue of the abortion pill.

[00:17:53] But in most cases, it isn't conservative justices appointed by Donald Trump or in the past by George W. Bush that are doing all this. It's the 71 percent of all the justices that were appointed 12 of the last 16 years by either Barack Obama or certainly Joe Biden. Right. Yeah. So, you know, this conversation, one, makes me grateful for our system of government and the balance of powers that we have,

[00:18:23] because even the fact that it's so complicated and confusing and you have kind of these battling opinions and interpretations of the Constitution shows that we don't just have one person who's in power and can do whatever they want. But, you know, I do think it is confusing. And that's why, you know, I'm really learning a lot listening to you, Kelly and Kirby, you know, highlighting these things, because I think a lot of Americans and conservatives are concerned about the things they're hearing because they don't want to see an abuse of power.

[00:18:52] And they say, well, is that really unconstitutional? Like, is that an abuse of executive power and authority? Or is this judge right? Or is this just politics? And so it's it's hard to find kind of somebody who will just be say, here's what the Constitution says or what we think it says and how it should be interpreted. And so, yeah, I'm I think a lot of people are feeling that tension right now. And I think that I mean, Chief Justice Roberts is right.

[00:19:21] It will be decided on appeal. This will be cleaned up. But I think part of the problem is there's six so-called conservatives on the on the Supreme Court. But there are only there are only three or four who will. There's two who like to avoid ruling until the last minute. I've seen that before. And this is what they did on the on the the Doge stuff.

[00:19:46] It got up there and the the dissenters are like, this is this is insane. We have a judge in one district determining executive power for the whole country. We need to deal with this. And whereas Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett and the liberals were like, no, no, we'll just let this be. And we'll we'll get to this later. It's not time yet.

[00:20:11] And I think that you may need to look at themselves and go a lot of what you're watching is because you wouldn't take care of your business. I mean, part of the point of judges is to provide clarity, to provide consistency so that people know what the law is. And when they delay like this, this is the kind of thing that happens. And so so I would put part of the blame at the feet of the more, quote, moderate conservatives who like to push these rulings off.

[00:20:40] You had Alito write that, you know, very excellent defense, a dissent. And I think that's part of why I do think this will be cleaned up. But in the meantime, the president can't do his job. Right. And so it either needs to be expedited very quickly or they should deal with this right in these emergency motions at the beginning and then eventually cleared up with some big opinion in a big case.

[00:21:08] Maybe have Congress jump into it because, you know, Justice Neil Gorsuch says, you know, if you guys would do your job, we wouldn't have to do the job you tossed to us. So that's another question. But we need to take a break. There's some other issues. Can we impound funds? Can we actually abolish departments? A lot of big issues. We'll talk about that right after this.

[00:21:31] In 19th century London, two towering historical figures did battle, not with guns and bombs, but words and ideas. London was home to Karl Marx, the father of communism, and legendary Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon. London was in many ways the center of the world economically, militarily, and intellectually. Mark sought to destroy religion, the family, and everything the Bible supports.

[00:22:00] Spurgeon stood against him, warning of socialism's dangers. Spurgeon understood Christianity is not just religious truth. It is truth. It is truth for all of life. Where do you find men with that kind of wisdom to stand against darkness today? Get the light you need on today's most pressing issues delivered to your inbox when you sign up for the Viewpoints commentary at pointofview.net slash signup.

[00:22:28] Every weekday in less than two minutes, you'll learn how to be a person of light to stand against darkness in our time. It's free, so visit pointofview.net slash signup right now. Pointofview.net slash signup. Point of View will continue after this.

[00:22:57] You are listening to Point of View. The opinions expressed on Point of View do not necessarily reflect the views of the management or staff of this station. And now, here again, is Kirby Anderson. Back once again, Kelly Shackelford, Liberty McCarter with us. And one of the articles we have here is by Stephen Presser, and he is an individual that is actually teaching law.

[00:23:23] But in the second page, when we talk about this issue of Doge, he reminds us of the fact that the Congress back in 1974, I'm going to give you a little history here. Remember Howard Phillips used to be on this program many times. And Howard Phillips had been in the Nixon administration and said, you know, all this money going to some of these groups at that time, I think it was Legal Service Administration. Today it was USAID. Well, we shouldn't be spending that money, and they're wasting it, so we will just impound those funds.

[00:23:53] Well, at a time when Richard Nixon kind of had this major cloud over his head, known as Watergate, they were able to pass that and thus say that even if the Congress approves the money and the agency is wasting the money, the president, who is supposedly the executor of the executive branch, cannot impound those funds. Kelly, I predict that that is eventually going to make its way to the Supreme Court, don't you think? No doubt. No doubt.

[00:24:22] They're challenging all this, so they're teeing up that issue. As I said, they're teeing up a number of these issues that their decisions, which very easily, now that you have a different court, a court that actually are originalists, and are going to look, well, what does the Constitution say? Unlike the – and people don't understand this, but for 80 years we have a court that wasn't their approach. Right. Their approach was this is a living, breathing Constitution. We need to read into it for today.

[00:24:48] And they just kind of went with their gut, you know, of what they wanted. And that's no longer what we have. Now, you might disagree with what they say is the original meaning of the text, but you have six justices who really think that's their job. Right. So now you're going to tee up impoundment. Oh, boy. You're going to tee up executive power and like Humphrey's executor and some of these major opinions.

[00:25:13] I think they're going to regret what they're doing because they're going to create the opposite effect. I, you know, I understand when the Congress, you know, the Congress under Article 1 is the one who has power over the purse strings. So they are the ones to decide whether they are going to approve money and say this money needs to be spent on this.

[00:25:43] I don't think the president can say I'm not going to spend it on that, but usually that's not what they do. They, you know, they just send money without any real – all the specifics. And in those things, it seems like the president has power under the executive branch. Supposed to. The executive branch. So I think all these things are going to be decided because they're throwing all these lawsuits. And they might feel really good about some of these more liberal judges who are issuing injunctions at the beginning.

[00:26:11] But as somebody who does litigation, we don't look at the – we look at the beginning, but we look ultimately at where is this going to end. Yeah. Appeals court and the Supreme Court. That's right. That's right. And that – That's going to be very different. These big issues are going to go to the Supreme Court. Yeah. And I – they've got a different court now. And, again, I think these are going to be major decisions that are – again, I do like that we're going to be – they're going to take us back to the Constitution. What does the Constitution say?

[00:26:42] And if you don't like the Constitution, then you need to change the Constitution but not have judges change the Constitution. Yeah. And you think about this liberty – here's a good example. Most governors, Ron DeSantis in Florida, Greg Abbott in Texas, they have what's called a line-item veto. Yep. Well, during this time, they said, no, the president can't even have a line-item veto.

[00:27:02] So we give more power to the governors than we do to the president of the United States, all because of these decisions that go back in 1974, which Congress was able to kind of push through because Richard Nixon was pretty weak at the time because of the Watergate scandal and eventually stepped down. And I think it's about time to fix some of that. So that's doge. I want to get into the other one, the whole idea of deportation. But, again, I think a lot of the anger – and we talked about this earlier – is misplaced.

[00:27:31] If you're angry about Elon Musk finding waste and fraud, maybe you should be angry, really, at the people that allowed all that waste and fraud to exist. If you're upset right now about some of the deportations taking place that maybe haven't been vetted accurately or sufficiently for you, maybe you should be more upset about the people that allowed these people to come in when they weren't vetted at all. And I think that's kind of the issue.

[00:27:56] But right now there's an attempt to try to derail Donald Trump. I think this has the boomerang possibility that it will come back and provide even more strength, if not for Donald Trump, maybe the next president of the United States. And I appreciate kind of bringing it back to this constitutional framework because, again, like Kelly has said, you know, you don't have to agree with everything. But what does the Constitution say?

[00:28:25] How is our government supposed to be functioning? What is our president supposed to be able to do or not to do? And then to Kirby's point, so many of these things have not been happening in the right way for a very long time, and it's created a mess for everybody. And that's why we're here.

[00:28:43] But, you know, what people are wondering, what are some of these boomerang effects or end results that could happen that we might some people might not like if they follow through on some of these legal issues like the impoundment, for example? Yeah, and like civil service laws, okay? So the unions have pushed through all these laws that make it impossible to fire many federal employees, even if they're doing a horrible job. You have to document and go through this long series.

[00:29:12] And, again, so, well, obviously Trump hadn't been following that, okay? They've been firing people. Well, we're going to – it's going to tee up the issue. Wait, you can't – the Congress can't pass something or you can't pass any law that changes the Constitution. And the president is the one giving power to hire and fire within the executive branch.

[00:29:35] And so this could literally – I'm not saying what it's going to do, but literally it could just completely declare these civil service laws unconstitutional. Unbelievable. And so – I don't think they see this coming. Yeah, so that's what I'm talking about in that I don't know if they're really thinking this through and where this could end up. And part of it is – and we talk about this – even people that we like who are with us on the issues sometimes, watch out for your friends because they can file lawsuits. You go, no, don't file that lawsuit.

[00:30:03] Do not file that lawsuit. And meanwhile, they're going off the cliff and they're carrying you with it because they're going to create a precedent that's going to be used. And I think that's what's happening to the more extreme left and the unions and all that, the government unions, who want to be able to not have any other person inspired for any reason. But they're filing these lawsuits and they're going to tee this issue up and we've got a different court and it could definitely be something they regret doing.

[00:30:32] Let me get your thoughts just for a few minutes because we talked about Doge. What about deportation? And I, on the one hand, recognize that, as we read the other day, Marco Rubio, who is now the Secretary of State, said, look, if I knew when we gave you a visa that you were going to do this, this, and this, and this, I would not have given you a visa. Now you've done this, this, and this, I want to actually revoke your visa.

[00:30:58] If you are not a citizen of the United States, you still are subject to the laws of this country. You still have certain rights. But if you're here under a visa or a permit, I think it's a different legal status, is it not? Well, sure. I mean, there's specific, there's number one, there, there is a specific law on this. Okay. I mean, it was passed. It's not like Trump just doing it.

[00:31:21] It specifically gives the Secretary of State the ability to do this because this area of foreign policy is an area where the courts have very little authority, in fact, almost none, against the president. The president is given the authority over foreign policy. So if they see somebody who is here, and this is Congress passed this, right, who is here on a visa,

[00:31:46] and they are doing things against the foreign policy of our country, and the Secretary of State documents these things, which he did, then you're gone. And, again, it's not an area where the court has much discretion. The court really cannot do much about this. The discretion is given all to the Secretary of State. Now, you might have some activist judge here, I don't know, we'll see, who tries to insert their authority over something they have no authority over. But that's what the law says.

[00:32:15] The other one with the deportation of all these gang members. Yeah, with Judge Boisberg. First, these people don't have visas, okay? They're here illegally. They have nothing. And we already have a federal law that's been in place for a long time. In fact, it was passed by the people who founded this country, contemporaries of the people who founded this country. So they probably understand kind of what our country was about.

[00:32:39] And they specifically said, if you're here in a war or in an invasion or in a predatory – what is the word? Predatory incursion. In other words, you come in and you're not welcome. If you're here in a war or in a war or in a war or in a war or in a war, then you can – the president, in protecting our country and his commander-in-chief, can just send them away. I mean, there's – and then there's been a Supreme Court case over this.

[00:33:07] The Supreme Court says the courts have no jurisdiction over this. This is the president's jurisdiction. And yet this is the judge who issued the injunction. So this law is pretty solid. It's been around for a long time. It's been used in some bad ways, I'll tell you that. But in this case, it looks like from everything I can see, you know, that's going to be hard because there's a Supreme Court decision on it. It's called the Alien Enemies Act. Yep.

[00:33:33] And he has now required the Trump administration to provide all sorts of information. So we'll come back and talk about that right after this. One of the United Nations' largest annual feminist gatherings, the Commission on the Status of Women, or CSW, is meeting in New York.

[00:34:03] Rebecca Oas from the Center for Family and Human Rights says this year there's a dramatic mood shift, largely because of the change in U.S. leadership. A declaration adopted on the first day of the two-week conference contains some language friendly to the gender identity agenda. But to the chagrin of representatives from the International Planned Parenthood Federation, references to sexual and reproductive health, reproductive rights, and sexuality education were left out. Feminists are not happy.

[00:34:29] Dr. Oas says normally they ignore conservatives at the CSW, but not this time. At a town hall for CSW attendees, U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres spoke of a ferocious backlash against the rights of women and girls, growing in power and strength. He opened with a warning. The poison of patriarchy is back, with a vengeance. A change in the White House normally brings a switch in how the U.S. seeks to influence international abortion policy.

[00:34:56] U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio rejoined the Geneva Consensus Declaration, which states that there is no international right to abortion and that no nation is obligated to fund or promote abortion. U.N. agencies constantly work to implement a version of gender equality that is outside their mandate. They are supported by certain NGOs and by groups like Women Deliver, which has voiced its concern that conservatives now hold power in key global capitals.

[00:35:23] Dr. Oas says the presence of conservative groups at the U.N. is often derided, and their messages have been increasingly denigrated as anti-rights, including by U.N. officials. conservatives are pushing back with a statement declaring that in many countries, majorities or sizable minorities of women hold pro-life and pro-family views, which are mainstream positions and not anti-rights. It's their views that should drive U.N. policy. For Point of View, I'm Penna Dexter.

[00:35:55] You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Back for a few more minutes, let me just mention this is always a time when we talk about Penna Dexter's commentary. This one is U.S. at the U.N. Talking about the Commission on the Status of Women. You can read that. And some people oftentimes about now start saying, where's Penna Dexter? Well, she's going to be sitting right there on Monday when we do our truth team. So it's been a while since any of us have seen her, and we'll be getting a chance to hear from her. But you can find her commentary there.

[00:36:24] I'll also mention the last article I've posted here. It's by Jimmy Quinn. On Wednesday this last week, just a few days ago, I did a deep dive on China, and a lot of that was based on Tom Cotton's book, Seven Things You Can't Say About China, except he was willing to say the seven things you can't say about China. And we did as well. We went through all seven of those, talked about a couple of others. And what was so interesting is he, this is Jimmy Quinn, said,

[00:36:52] this may be the most important book on China during this decade of the 2020s. And I would agree, although I certainly used another book, and that was Plan Red, also a book that we talked about. And if you did not hear that, we went into it in some detail on Wednesday. It also is the issue of the March issue of Outlook, which is another reason why I think it would be really good for you to join with us during Truth Team next week. You receive the Outlook magazine on a regular basis.

[00:37:20] And I'm just looking at Liberty's particular piece coming out here on the abortion pill. And that's something we send out to those of you who join at $30 a month, a dollar a day, $30 a month. And that is a booklet that we send out there as well. So those are some materials on the website. But, Kelly, I want to come back for just a minute. The Enemy Alien Law. There's a question that some people have had.

[00:37:46] Why would you want to go to the mat or die on the hill of an individual who has supported Hamas? It seems to me that if I really wanted to challenge the Trump administration and deportation, I'd want to find some really sympathetic couple that was being deported. And yet the battle right now is over individuals that aren't exactly the most likable people in the country.

[00:38:14] No, they've picked the two worst examples I can think of. They've got the case with the student processor leader who engaged in criminal activity by taking over buildings, who is a Hamas person and handed out Hamas literature. Hamas who, you know, beheaded children and all this horrible, horrible stuff. So – and who's here on a visa, meaning we said, okay, you can come here to study.

[00:38:45] And so that's their number one. And then the other, if they couldn't get worse, is a gang of the most violent people in the United States from another country. I mean, we've all heard of MS-13 and how horrible they are. Trenda de la Ragua is worse. It's the worst of all. And unlike the other case, they don't have visas, okay? They didn't come here with any piece of paper.

[00:39:14] They came here illegally to do illegal things. And they've attacked our citizens. They've raped. They've killed. I mean, and I just – I can't imagine two worse cases to pick as your first case to try to, you know, lessen the executive power of the president. It's almost like they're doing Trump a favor. They're helping him. Hey, let me – the ACLU is now helping Trump.

[00:39:42] There needs to be a headline that the ACLU is now trying to help Donald Trump because that sure looks like where this is going. Well, again, the judge is saying that he – as the Trump administration's response is woefully insufficient. And he's now demanding the president of the United States come to him. And he's in the D.C. circuit. So, again, that I guess you could consider to be a little broader than just a local federal judge.

[00:40:08] But it's back to this whole idea that can one judge decide what the president of the United States can do? And that's been a question that has surfaced for some time because sometimes there was a judge that wanted to challenge something that Joe Biden did. Now you have a judge wanting to challenge what Donald Trump is doing. What about that? Well, I mean, you know, it's one thing to – judges typically are in a jurisdiction. Yes.

[00:40:34] So, you know, typically, you know, you can't tell the president because of some case in Washington, D.C., what he can do in Nebraska and in California. And, you know, this is the problem is these nationwide injunctions. Right. But in this case, they haven't even gone that far. They've just – there's not even necessarily even a basis for what the judge is doing. And he's just saying, hey, I need time to make a decision. So I need to stop all these planes from carrying these people.

[00:41:01] The problem is they were already in air. And now the judge is asking for questions. Again, he's getting into foreign policy and commander-in-chief. And, you know, think of if a judge said, oh, I see you're doing this battle overseas. I'm enjoining you from doing the battle. What is the commander-in-chief supposed to say? I'm guessing what the commander-in-chief would say is get lost.

[00:41:31] You have no authority here. I'm the commander-in-chief. And that's where he's going with the information he's trying to ask. And so that's why you have a back and forth now on the injunction because the administration is saying, wait, we can't be giving you information about internal commander-in-chief activity. I don't know if that's real, but that's what they're arguing. And he's trying to get information to find out if he feels like his order wasn't obeyed. Because then he violates a court order.

[00:42:00] And then Trump could be impeached over that, couldn't he? The problem, though, is he issued some things he stated, but that's not an order. His order was in writing. And from what we're hearing, I don't know, when his order came in writing, it wasn't violated. And Trump has been very specific in the last few days. You would think he would defy a court order.

[00:42:25] He was very specific that he will not and has not violated court orders, and he won't. But he said Roberts needs to clean – the Supreme Court needs to clean this up. So we'll see what happens. I think it's by Tuesday. I don't know what information the judge wants. But the real problem is he said some things in the hearing that were not in his order. And his order is what is the law, what his injunction is. Yeah.

[00:42:53] So, again, if you're listening to people saying, well, the president has violated a court order, well, we'll figure that out sooner or later. But you're bringing out some things that you probably only would hear on Point of View. So, again, just one of the reasons why Liberty, I sometimes say, if you aren't listening to Point of View, you're probably going to be missing some things. Because I have watched a lot of different programs and read a lot of different articles. And after a while, I don't even know who to believe.

[00:43:18] So it's kind of intriguing to see how this could be a little bit more complex than what maybe is presented right now on CNN or MSNBC or even on the other side on Fox News or with the Associated Press. So we'll figure these out over time. But I do think you've heard something here that maybe you need to pay attention to. It is quite possible that some of these groups, these liberal groups, are trying to find a liberal judge to do their bidding.

[00:43:44] In the long run, it may actually be able to reinvigorate and maybe even strengthen the executive branch in ways that we haven't had in a long, long time. No, no. They could be doing the very opposite of what they're trying to accomplish. And, you know, I'm sure there will be some different opinions. Even if the Supreme Court rules, some of these things I predict will be overturned. Some might not.

[00:44:09] But I think at the end of the day, the move will be towards more authority in the executive to do their job, which is not, I think, what these people want in their lawsuits. Yeah. There's a book years ago. We talked about Strength in the Executive. Maybe we're going to see Strength in the Executive again. Well, you heard it right here at Point of View. And we did our best to cover all of the articles on the table. But I hope you'll join us next week. It's Truth Team. And we're going to be hearing from a number of different guests. And I think you will really appreciate that. You can go to the website, pointofview.net.

[00:44:39] Find these articles, especially the ones at First Liberty and the idea of Ten Commandments in the classroom. And RFIA. Right? RFIA.org. Yes. As well as FirstLiberty.org. Don't forget, of course, Know Why Podcast. And most importantly, I want to thank Megan for her help engineering the program. Steve, thank you for reducing the program. Enjoy March Madness. We'll see you back here on Monday.

[00:45:10] Well, Truth Team Week is just about here. And we need your help. First of all, will you please pray for Point of View? Your prayers are the foundation for all that we do. And honestly, the reason for any success we have. Second, consider helping us get a head start on our Truth Team fundraising goal.

[00:45:34] Point of View can't bring a biblical perspective to the tough issues of our day without your support. And a biblical worldview is needed in this culture more than ever. Our goal for Truth Team Week, which begins on Monday, is to raise $150,000. But you can help us get a head start by giving now.

[00:45:59] Give today so we can kick off our Truth Team fundraiser in a historic way and bring biblical truth to this nation in need. Give online at pointofview.net or call 1-800-347-5151. That's pointofview.net and 800-347-5151.

[00:46:26] Point of View is produced by Point of View Ministries.