Point of View March 7, 2025 – Hour 2 : Weekend Edition

[00:00:04] Across America, Live, this is Point of View, Kirby Anderson. Second hour today in studio with me, Dr. Merrill Matthews. Last hour we had Petrina Mosley with us by phone. This time we'll have Keisha Russell with us as well. Going to spend a fair amount of time talking about education.

[00:00:32] That surfaced the other day for one reason and that is the President has signed an executive order that could push the eventual demise of the Department of Education. I think that's unlikely given the fact that you would have to actually break cloture and a number of other things. But again, $268 billion spent on the Department of Education and the biggest chunk, about $160 billion, which has to do with student loans and things of that nature, which we'll get to in just a minute.

[00:00:58] But I couldn't think of a better person to help us with education than Keisha Russell. Now oftentimes we introduce her as an individual that has a law degree, which she does from Emory University. Actually has clerked with some very prestigious groups and individuals and judges. But what you probably don't know, and I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that she has her bachelor's degree from the University of Central Florida and a master's in teaching from the University of Southern California.

[00:01:26] So she brings both legal expertise and educational experience and of course is the author of this new book. As a matter of fact, we're going to spend some time talking about that next week. But welcome back to the microphone, Keisha. Thank you for having me. Always a pleasure to be with you guys. Let's see if we can. Now, the first article we've posted is a letter to the Texas Education Agency. Now, I recognize we broadcast in about 40 different states, I should say, around the country.

[00:01:53] And so some of you say, well, I don't live in Texas. Yes, but I think you're going to learn quite a bit because, Keisha, really this gets down to a piece of legislation that was passed by the House in the Texas House and then ratified House Bill 1605, which then allows and even encourages the study of the Bible in the public schools.

[00:02:17] And you have written this rather extensive letter, which I would encourage people to download and read through because it really gives the history about whether or not it's constitutional for public schools to study the Bible. I think we know the answer, but you give us the reasons why. Explain. So there are a couple of reasons. I think, first of all, we know that the Texas law has asked that students are instructed in how biblical content has informed history in America, right?

[00:02:47] And so we want Texas wants students to be learning from information that includes biblical references, right? Because American history is so bound up in biblical scripture and throughout American history that has been acknowledged. So if we look at even the Constitution, right? And we look at the Establishment Clause, the Establishment Clause is supposed to be analyzed and evaluated using history and tradition.

[00:03:17] And we know that for since the beginning of our founding, our American government has encouraged public schools to teach students about how the Bible, Christianity has influenced our Constitution and many of our laws. So that's just for starters. Well, it does seem to me, too, some of the examples, if they're going to be reading Dr. Martin Luther King's letter from the Birmingham jail, reading the book of Daniel.

[00:03:41] If they're going to read about the Liberty Bell and our good friend Jerry Newcomb just did a commentary, which I need to post sometime soon on the Liberty Bell. It has Leviticus 2510. Now, if you didn't know these references that are in either the particular letter by Martin Luther King or did not know the reference in the Liberty Bell, I don't think you'd be very well educated, would you? No, definitely not, which is why Texas created Blue Bonnet Learning.

[00:04:10] And as far as we have been able to discover, Texas is the first state to create their own instruction materials for school districts to use rather than, like most school district, buying, you know, something from Pearson or whomever those other organizations are. Texas has developed this curriculum for use in its public schools, and so it complies with all of their standards of education, 100 percent of those. And it's a very rich curriculum. I've read it. It's amazing.

[00:04:38] You know, it's also interesting because you have Martin Luther King's speeches are filled with scriptural references. How would you understand? And illusions. And you wouldn't understand what's going on there. And, of course, we've been talking about the State of the Union speech. Presidents oftentimes bring in their speeches references, highlights or something from the Bible. So it's just part of our cultural history, even if you don't believe in it, it's part of the history. Yeah, absolutely.

[00:05:06] So I mentioned in the letter, and I also mentioned this in my book in more depth, I talk about the fact that, you know, the founders believed the Bible's warning about what happens when people have too much power. And that, coupled with what happened in the American Revolution, is what informed America's separation of powers doctrine, right? So that's the reason why we divide power up, and we don't have a monarchy, because of this particular belief that comes from the Bible.

[00:05:31] And that is such an important foundational lesson for students to understand, because ultimately, if we want to continue with our republic, we have to teach the youth why they need to understand the Bible and why these references are so important. And, you know, Keisha, there's some other things in there, too. I mean, the state of Utah had to change its marriage policy before it could become a state.

[00:05:57] And so if a student looking at this might say, why was that the case? Well, we really only allowed monogamy. Why is that? Well, there's a reason why that. We're not taking the same thing that you might have gotten from Koran. There's a reason why we did that. Yeah, absolutely. And so in response to Blue Blonde Learning, you know, there was a lot of outrage from these progressive groups,

[00:06:22] including the ACLU, which wrote a nasty gram to all the Texas schools, pretty much threatening them that if they, you know, try to use these instructional materials, they're going to get sued because they're unconstitutional. So this letter that, you know, First Liberty wrote, we really just wanted to let these school districts know this is a great curriculum. It's perfectly constitutional.

[00:06:44] And the state of Texas went through all of the channels properly to enact this law and to properly say and approve this curriculum. So there's no reason to listen to these groups when their opinions have already been rejected by the state and by the State Board of Education. I might just mention that we will be talking with you again about your book, Uncommon Courage, which is out and it is published by Harvest House.

[00:07:10] Of course, you had done an earlier interview with Penna Dexter, but we wanted to focus on that as well. We do need to take a break, but I thought maybe just for a minute when we come back from the break, Keisha, you might also help us with this whole idea of what is constitutional and unconstitutional because, first of all, you mentioned that rather nasty letter from the ACLU. In your argument here, you also talk about everything from the lemon test to the American Humanist Association.

[00:07:38] A few of us around the table remember at a time when you had Abington v. Shemp and some others, again, all sorts of issues in the past that made it look like it was really impossible to even mention the Bible, much less talk about it in a serious way.

[00:07:58] And so, in some respects, this particular piece of legislation and now this curricula is not only something that we can talk about in terms of the state of Texas, but as Keisha mentioned just a minute ago, you may want to see if that could be implemented in your state. Oftentimes, Ronald Reagan used to say that the states were the laboratories of democracy. In this particular case, the success in Texas might allow some of this to go to your state.

[00:08:26] So I hope that you'll stay tuned as we get into this whole idea of is there a separation of church and state? What is an unconstitutional establishment of religion? How does that fit? And then our next article is the reality of an executive order to abolish the Department of Education. We'll stay on that topic. And if you want to join us, 1-800-351-1212. We'll be right back.

[00:08:58] This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson. You know, at a time when politicians are talking about the threats to democracy, it might be worthwhile to consider what democracy really is. But first, an obvious disclaimer. America is a republic, not a democracy. Professor Alan Golzo recently wrote about Lincoln's vision of democracy. After the Battle of Gettysburg, Lincoln was asked to participate in the dedication of the National Cemetery in that town. The featured orator was Edward Everett.

[00:09:26] But the short 272-word speech by Abraham Lincoln is the message we remember. Lincoln laid out the story of the American Republic in three stages. The past, four score and seven years ago. Then the present, now we are engaged in a great civil war. And in the future, we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. But the least examined words of the address are the triplet. Government of the people, by the people, for the people.

[00:09:55] This was more than just rhetorical flourish. Lincoln essentially laid out the three foundations of our government. The first is consent. We are a government of the people. In a previous speech, he even explained that the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. The second distinctive feature is the people's voice in the affairs of governing. We are a government by the people. Lincoln argued that government by the people through their laws and through the election and not by mobs.

[00:10:22] The third element is a government that serves the interests of the people. We are a government for the people. Government is not for a king or for an aristocracy or even for a few elites. So what is the form of government in America? Well, it is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

[00:10:47] 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. Detain your conversation today with Dr. Merrill Matthews and Keisha Russell. I might just mention that if you click on her's picture, that will take you to First Liberty in case you'd like to contact her there. Next Tuesday, we'll be talking about the book Uncommon Courage, which is her book.

[00:11:16] But, Keisha, for just a few more minutes before we get on to the Department of Education, which did generate quite a number of phone calls yesterday, what about this idea of the so-called separation of church and state, and what does it mean when we are concerned about the idea that there could be in the Establishment Clause an unconstitutional establishment of religion?

[00:11:41] Teaching about the Bible, I don't think it's even close to establishing a religion, does it? No, it doesn't. And I know you do such a great job of informing your listeners about the Establishment Clause and helping them understand that that phrase, separation of church and state, is from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. And really the meaning was that the government should stay out of the affairs of the church, the internal workings of the church.

[00:12:08] It doesn't mean that we're supposed to banish religion from the public square. And so even during a time when the Supreme Court was really strictly interpreting the Establishment Clause, so this would be during the time of what's called the Lemon Cases. And that was just a case that really dropped the standard of what the government has to prove in order to banish religion. And it was really unconstitutional, which is why it's been overturned.

[00:12:35] But even during that era, and that was the era when the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional for students to read the Bible together and even have a moment of silence, which I completely disagree with that latter opinion. But either way, even during that time, the Supreme Court said that it was perfectly okay to teach the Bible to children. Even though you couldn't make them do any form of worship with it or anything like that,

[00:13:03] teaching, frankly, from the book would be perfectly fine. And that's from a case in 1963. So we know that at no time the Supreme Court said that public schools can't study the Bible. In fact, they would never say that because there are so many things from the Bible that must be taught in order for students to have a comprehensive understanding of American history. Let me just mention that this is about a six-page letter, and it also has some footnotes,

[00:13:30] especially I like the ones to our friend John Idesmo who's been on the program, Christianity and the Constitution. And so whether you are involved in education, and I know some of you are, some of you might be on a school board maybe or just a concerned parent and say, maybe we really could talk about the Bible occasionally in the public schools. This would be, I think, very helpful. And you'd learn quite a bit. And it's our first article there. But Dr. Merrill Matthews, let's get to this one.

[00:13:57] We did talk about the fact that, indeed, the president did have an executive order which says that the secretary, Linda McMahon, is to take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the education department, and that's based upon a maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law. It does seem to me that if, indeed, that is the case, you're going to have to come up with some way to do that,

[00:14:23] in which you get 60 votes so that you have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. I don't see it happen anytime soon, but I'd love to get your thoughts. Well, she, I believe, has sent out an email to the employees now saying, we're in the process of starting to do that. So the question is going to be whether or not, and this is true for some of the other agencies, can you actually, can they just close them, or do you have to take some of the things that they were doing and move them under another department?

[00:14:51] So the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau might end up moving under the Department of Commerce. First, USAID might move under the State Department, and maybe they just let them sort of lapse or die there. You can leave them around and have maybe one or two employees and not do much. But the point that you made earlier is the Department of Education does give out Pell Grants. You have student loans and other things. That's a lot of money that goes out there,

[00:15:17] and a lot of people depend upon those in states, in red states as well as blue states. So even if they shut it down or they move it and put it under another department, I suspect elements of it will continue at least for a while. And again, just for people that have not heard that before, we're talking about a significant amount of money, about $160 billion of the $268 billion is in the Office of Federal Student Aid. Now, the argument being made by some is it could go under the Treasury Department.

[00:15:47] But again, I remember a time when I got my loan from the bank. And Keisha, I know you actually got student loans as well, but Barack Obama brought a lot of it under the federal government. Maybe the other way to deal with that is to allow various banks once again to issue student loans instead of having it all come under the umbrella of the federal government. What are your thoughts? Yeah, it's definitely possible. That's another way of doing it. And I think it's worthy of looking at for sure.

[00:16:16] I do think, you know, in large part, many conservatives want to close the Department of Education because of the detrimental progressive policies that it's been promoting. And quite frankly, in large part, the Department of Education has not helped to benefit education in our country. If you saw the last America's Report card, I think 40% of students in fourth grade were not reading at grade level. So we're having some pretty significant issues here. You know, I'm an optimist when it comes to education being a former teacher.

[00:16:46] And I feel like a lot of the duties that the Department of Education performs are still going to have to be done. And if we were able to use the department in a way that was better for our educational system, better for our country, more patriotic, all of these things, we can maybe do something great. But I don't blame Donald Trump for wanting to close it because it hasn't been effective. And, in fact, it's been very detrimental. You know, Kirby, you mentioned Barack Obama moved these loans primarily from the private sector

[00:17:15] into the federal government with this promise that it was going to save hundreds of billions of dollars. I didn't believe it then. I don't believe it now. And that was even before it didn't. And now President Biden tried, of course, to forgive so much of these, not the private sector loans but the federal government loans. And that would have raised the cost significantly more if the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped that.

[00:17:41] But it was amazing how much these loans have cost us. So the notion that they could go back to the private sector, perhaps backed by the government, could certainly happen. And, Keisha, I was just thinking about that. You have the anti-discrimination rules for transgender students. You have the student loan forgiveness under the Biden administration. And as you pointed out a minute ago, people might even turn a blind eye to some of that if our students knew how to read and write. But they don't.

[00:18:09] And it does seem to me that sending all this money to the federal government and then having some of it trickle back to the states makes no sense. Yeah, and it doesn't seem to be doing us a bit of good, frankly. So I think I understand why this is happening. I think it's good that we're evaluating the Department of Education as well as all the federal agencies to look at waste and whether these agencies are really doing what Congress designed for them to be doing.

[00:18:38] So this is a necessary step in our country to better education because even in my book I talk about this. Like we're in trouble. Our students are not getting a sound education in these public schools, and we need to start looking at that and taking that very seriously. And the Department of Education, their guidance wasn't just regarding the bathrooms or student sports and so forth. They had dorm rooms and everything else involved in there. It's just unbelievable. One other thing I wanted to get from you, Keisha, and that is if I've looked at your resume,

[00:19:08] you've lived in Florida, you've lived in Virginia, you've lived in California, you've lived in Texas to put just a few states there. And it just seems to me that the other problem with the Department of Education is it's sort of one-size-fits-all. And it seems to me that the way in which you educate students in Detroit, Michigan is very different than the way you educate them in Stockton, California or Tupelo, Mississippi or even maybe Frisco, Texas,

[00:19:35] you're just dealing with differences and having the money stay closer to the schools makes a lot more sense, doesn't it? Yeah, it absolutely does. I think one of the things you learn as a teacher is differentiation, right, that students all learn differently and they're all at different levels. And that's the same with the states. And I think we would be better served if we gave that money to the local governments and let them handle things.

[00:20:01] And personally, if I may add, I think a lot of our issues are because we are not paying enough attention to the kind of people that we're allowing to teach our students. And I think every state needs to start evaluating teachers a little bit more closely. I would think so. Let's open up the phones. I suspect you have some comments. That number is 1-800-351-1212. We have a couple. First of all, do you think we should be teaching the Bible in the public schools? That's the first article that we have, which was written by Keisha.

[00:20:31] It's about a six-page letter that went to the commissioner of the Texas Education Agency. But you don't have to be a Texan to read it because, in some respects, it gives you a plan or even a format, a template perhaps is the best word, for what you could do in your own state. Second of all, we have posted this piece by Jim Garrity, the reality of Trump's executive order to abolish the education department. And we'll take a call or two on this issue of education. But then, just to give you a preview, Dr. Merrill Matthews said,

[00:21:00] can't we at least stop birth tourism? You know, the real debate about right now, this idea of individuals coming deliberately to this country to give birth to a child, so we give birthright citizenship. And then we also have one on democratization of American prosperity. And I suspect Keisha probably wants us to pray about a few of these cases that First Liberty has going to the court. So we'll talk about all that right after this.

[00:21:30] If you appreciate the trustworthy news and biblical worldview that you hear on Point of View, would you consider joining our team, the Truth Team? Listeners like you have been the backbone of Point of View for 53 years. But today there are more voices competing for Americans' attention than ever before, and few of them are anchored to biblical truth. By joining Point of View's Truth Team,

[00:21:59] you can be an integral part of keeping truth on the air. In just a few weeks, Point of View will celebrate Truth Team Week. But you don't have to wait till then. You can join the Truth Team right now and help us get a head start on our $150,000 spring fundraising goal. If you appreciate Point of View, please join the Truth Team.

[00:22:25] Join today by visiting us online at pointofview.net or you can call toll-free 1-800-347-5151. Pointofview.net at 1-800-347-5151. Point of View will continue after this.

[00:22:51] You are listening to Point of View. The opinions expressed on Point of View do not necessarily reflect the views of the management or staff of this station. And now, here again, is Kirby Anderson. Back once again, if you would like to join the conversation, 1-800-351-1212. Dr. Matthews, I thought this would be one for the two of you

[00:23:20] because you actually, on the particular article that appears on the Hill, can we at least put a stop to birth tourism? And I thought it would also be good to have some legal expertise here from Keisha because a lot of that gets back to the so-called birthright citizenship. And to be fair, we've had individuals on the program that have argued very strongly that the 14th Amendment guarantees that.

[00:23:47] As a matter of fact, I know that Keisha has worked with Judge Ho, and I know he's been a proponent of that. And then you had more recently Epstein, didn't you, as well? Yes. On, and he would be. So, again, that's not a place where even people that we would identify as conservatives always agree. But anyway, it's kind of interesting. They don't, right. And then what the 14th Amendment debate is over, whether or not you have birthright citizenship, and generally it has been historically sort of assumed,

[00:24:16] interpreted that if you are born here for whatever reason, however you got here, if you were born on U.S. soil or in the territories, you were considered a citizen in the United States. And, of course, that's become an issue in the immigrant flows because so many women have come across, some of them are pregnant or some of them get pregnant here, they have the baby, then that baby is a citizen. And then with some expectation, maybe they might not be sent back home. But one of the things that has happened over the years,

[00:24:45] and this has been going on for really a couple of decades, is women, many times wealthier women, who come to America on a visa. There are even places that advertise that you can come here. And I found out looking at this, China even advertises that we have a package for you. We'll send you to one of the territories. It's easier to get a visa to the territory. You have the baby in the territory, then you fly back. Sometimes these are on private jets.

[00:25:12] In fact, in Arizona, there was a place in the spa in Arizona that used to advertise for women to come in. They would fly in on private jets, stay at the spa. They advertised the price of having the baby there for both a natural birth and a cesarean section. And then once you had the baby, that baby becomes a citizen, then you could fly back and you'd have that little citizen in the family. If for some reason in your particular country, you felt like, I've got to get out of here, this country.

[00:25:42] My child's a citizen. Let's see if we can't get in the U.S. But that was wealthy people who were flying here, taking advantage of it. And that's why I pointed out, I understand birthright citizenship, but if you're just flatly flaunting our laws and coming here as a wealthy person to have the baby, to have a little citizen, it should be at least stop that. Yes. And Keisha, I want to get to you because, again, I mentioned Judge Ho, and of course you've worked with him, and there have been some that have said, if you were born here, that's the case.

[00:26:12] But what we're at least raising is this birth tourism might be a different issue. But help us out if you can. Well, I guess we lost her. I'll see what we're talking about. Oh, no, I'm here. I'm so sorry about that, Kirby. Okay. But, no, I'm on the fence about this birthright citizenship thing. I feel like this is going to be a heavy lift for the Trump administration, and I think he's going to end up getting a 5-4.

[00:26:40] I think Gorsuch is going to be the tiebreaker, and ultimately I think he's going to say that, I think he's going to side with the opposition and not the Trump administration. And the reason I say that is it's easy to predict what the purists are going to say, right? Alito, Thomas. But those have been, like Gorsuch, who have been known to not always stick to the text, and I'm really talking about Bostick when I talk about that.

[00:27:08] I think he's going to be more inclined to side against the Trump administration here. Now, Trump, when he was first in office in 2020, went to the State Department and tried to get the State Department to do something with this, and I'm reading from the State Department amendment out to the various consular offices. It says,

[00:27:39] Now, that was in 2020. Trump steps out in 2021. Biden comes in. I don't know if Biden tried to enforce that. They just said, Don't worry about this. But Trump is now trying to reinforce this again. So essentially,

[00:28:08] he's trying to get our consulants to say, If somebody looks like they're coming pregnant, and they're just traveling to the United States on a visa to have a baby, we want you to deny them that visa. And again, this gets into what's called chain migration, where once I have a child that is a citizen, well, we can't let the child be here alone, so we have to bring the parents and maybe the grandparents and all that. There's a phrase that's used. I don't use it very often, but it's in a derogatory chain,

[00:28:37] but the anchor baby's phrase is used. And so even if we can't answer all the questions, Keisha, it does seem to me that it does impinge on this whole issue of immigration. And Dr. Matthews, you even point out 33,000 births to women on tourist visas annually. I don't know. It's more than just a small drop in the ocean, I guess. It is. And while many of these probably have some financial assets, you know,

[00:29:04] they talk about how if somebody has a baby here and they're an immigrant, the immigrant doesn't get welfare or something. But the baby is a citizen. And so the baby is eligible for chips, for the children's health insurance plan, for Medicaid, for they're able to go to school once they get to a proper age and so forth. So there's an awful lot of benefits that go to the baby, and that can include welfare benefits. And the babies at six or seven years old, five years old, two years old, can't spend that money.

[00:29:34] So it goes to the parents. So there are ways that parents, illegal immigrants benefit from this financially just through the baby. Yes. Keisha, any final comments on this idea of birth tourism or even the 14th Amendment? I think your prediction is right. Probably it won't be upheld by the Supreme Court. But you just never know with this court, do we? No, we don't. And frankly, I've been surprised before. So we'll have to wait and see. My big surprise was,

[00:30:01] is this week we had a five to four decision go the other direction in which you had a stay saying, well, we don't want to send out any money with USAID right now, especially to some of these controversial issues. And this is where you had Amy Coney Bryant, as well as John Roberts go along with the liberals and five for going the other direction. And I got some problems about that one, because if you say, well, we're going to remove the stay, well, you're going to spend the money.

[00:30:30] And then if later we conclude that that money shouldn't be spent, well, it's already out the door, isn't it? It is. And my assumption is that they're feeling like you have to honor these contracts that you went into. and this is the real, the real struggle with some of the things that Doge is doing is if you've, if you've signed a contract and you're sending money out, is that contract binding? And do you have to send the money out or can you stop that? And there's so many aspects of this that,

[00:30:55] that the courts are going to have to just sort of adjudicate because I, in fact, one of the inspector generals who was fired. And I, and my understanding is he was supposed to have by contract, a 30 day notice. And that ended up going to the Supreme court. And the Supreme court said, no, you can go ahead and fire him. And so I would have thought the Supreme court said, no, you got to give him a 30 day notice. I mean, that's part of the contract, part of the deal. So I don't know where some of these things are going to go. It's just, it's very,

[00:31:21] very difficult because there's so many elements in this that we just don't know about or understand until you actually get it into the court. Yes. One of the questions I want to put on. Yeah. Go ahead. No, I was just going to say the, the reason for that is a lot of these are questions of first impression in some, in some regards. So the court is really going to have to wrestle with some things that they haven't really thought about in depth yet. And so it'll be interesting. It'll be very interesting term for the Supreme court. I think. Well, again, you have right now one federal judge say, no,

[00:31:51] you cannot keep them from pain. And I'm thinking that gets back to a bigger issue. I recognize the importance of having a judiciary, but if federal judges right now are making decisions, I'm thinking a lot of those, Keisha end up in the Supreme court, don't they? Because sooner or later when you get even mixed precedents, one federal judge says it's okay to do this for Doge. And other says, it's not. But I think that's got to go back to the Supreme court just by definition, doesn't it? Well, definitely. And, and you can,

[00:32:20] and you can bet it's definitely going to happen. The problem is that you see a lot of judges sort of stepping, I think beyond their lanes here. And for a very political reasons. And that's something the judiciary is not supposed to do. If you talk to Jim Ho about that, he'll tell you, you know, judges are supposed to be above criticism and things like that. So you're not seeing that in some of these opinions, certainly. And I think it's going to be up to the Supreme court to ultimately adjudicate this in a neutral way. You know, Keisha, we're going to be coming up to a break, but when we come back,

[00:32:50] I'd like to hear your thoughts on the notion, because I'm hearing from some conservatives that we need to impeach certain judges because they aren't going along with Trump's agenda. And we would certainly from the other side, we would have said just because a judge doesn't go along with a Biden agenda, that doesn't mean you impeach the person. So I'm curious when we come back for the break to hear your thoughts on that. Okay. So we'll take a break. And before we're all through, I might even mention some of the doge cuts, which are still pretty small. They seem large because, but again, and they've adjusted several of them. Yeah.

[00:33:20] And what's so funny is, is that is this the hill the Democrats want to die on? On some of these cases, the cut in the FAA, which is the big one, a point eight tenths of a percent is all, and they're going to have, make that their hill to die on. I don't know. We'll come back and get into those issues. And we'll be back right after these messages.

[00:33:53] As the transgender agenda began to unravel, author J.K. Rowling posted her summary of the damage it's done, including this. Gender ideology has undermined freedom of speech, scientific truth, gay rights, and women and girls' safety, privacy, and dignity. It's also caused irreparable physical damage to vulnerable kids. Nobody voted for it. The vast majority of people disagree with it, yet it has been imposed top-down by politicians, health care bodies, academia, sections of the media, celebrities,

[00:34:23] and even the police. Here are just three actions the Trump administration has already taken to dismantle this woke regime. On February 5th, National Girls and Women in Sports Day, surrounded by a crowd of female athletes, President Trump signed an executive order titled, Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports. The president warned education institutions and their athletic associations, if you let men take over women's sports teams or invade your locker rooms,

[00:34:49] you will be investigated for violations of Title IX and risk your federal funding. Secondly, two days after Attorney General Pam Bondi was sworn in, the administration reversed its position in a case currently being considered at the U.S. Supreme Court. In December, the court heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Scrimetti, the Biden administration's challenge to Tennessee's law protecting minors from gender transition procedures. The Bondi Justice Department has dropped all opposition to the law. Twenty-five other states have similar laws.

[00:35:19] A ruling in Scrimetti will affect challenges to those laws, so the Supreme Court will continue to deliberate and resolve this case. Finally, pursuant to another of President Trump's executive orders, the administration is rewriting admissions requirements, ceasing the funding of gender transition procedures, and otherwise moving the military away from transgender tyranny. There is more being done and much more to do, and Congress must act to make sure this rejection of trans tyranny is permanent. For Point of View,

[00:35:48] I'm Penna Dexter. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Back for a few more minutes. Let me just, as a program note, mention that on Monday we'll have Emma Frere with us. She writes for World Magazine and talks about crushing dissent, gets us back into some of the conversation we've had about censorship. Rob Pastienda will be with us in the second hour. Keisha will be with us on Tuesday. And the article that I've posted here,

[00:36:17] Democratizing American Prosperity, I'll just postpone that to Wednesday, because we have Bruce Shaw, who is there actually working in this whole area of democratic capitalism, and that may be a good place to cover that as well. Dr. Merrill Matthews, you had a very good question for Keisha. Yes, Keisha, we want an independent judiciary, even though we know some are appointed by Republicans, some are appointed by Democrats. We're hoping they're using their knowledge and so forth to sort of do an independent assessment of facts that are brought before them.

[00:36:47] But I am concerned when I see a number of these calls by Republicans, conservatives, and MAGA people saying such and such judge needs to be impeached because he is stopping the president's agenda. If the president's agenda is in some areas unconstitutional or illegal, he should be stopped. And we don't know that, but that's part of the process, isn't it? Oh, absolutely. And I understand exactly where you're going. I think, so, I mean, U.S.

[00:37:15] Constitution says that judges can be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, which isn't defined. But this to me means it needs to be very serious and a crime that implicates your integrity as a judge and your ability to be honest and to be trusted. Now, just because a judge makes a decision we don't agree with, that doesn't necessarily implicate, you know, their integrity.

[00:37:39] I also think that it's a slippery slope to say that a judge is making a decision solely based on their political opinions. Obviously, I believe that to be true sometimes. But as long as a judge has a legal reason for their opinion, as long as they can articulate that with the law, whether I agree with it or not, I think it's probably solid enough, even if ultimately the goal is that, you know,

[00:38:04] we have these three tiers of the judiciary and ultimately we feel like it's going to be worked out eventually. So that's kind of where I stand there. I think if the Republicans were really listening to what they're saying, they would realize that if we, even if we impeach a judge for legitimate reasons, if we believe that their opinion was solely political, the Democrats will come along and do the same for what they believe to be legitimate, even if it may not be. And we know they've been salivating over Clarence Thomas for how long now? So, you know,

[00:38:34] he's going to be on the chopping block. If we start that process, they will too. It's an interesting comment because when I saw the Supreme Court decision that Kirby mentioned there, I thought, I suspect the Supreme Court, as these things move, we're going to decide with Democrats on a number of cases. I don't know how many, whether it be mostly Trump or most are mostly, Democratic, but I suspect though, the Democrats will win a number of these at Supreme Court, which makes me think that Democrats may find a newfound respect for the Supreme Court,

[00:39:04] that they wanted to try to pack and change and get people out of here just, what, six months ago. Yes. Well, 100%. And it seems to me that some of that was the Supreme Court and Keisha can speak to that, the Supreme Court deciding not to decide. In other words, we don't want to interfere with lower courts. And I think that was Amy Coney Barrett's argument and some others. And so I just think what we have to recognize is that this whole issue of Doge is going to be quite controversial.

[00:39:33] I'll be honest, I thought that this time in March, the stories we'd see on the news would be actually deportation stories. You know, that we'd see these tearful stories of somebody who was made to go back to their host country or separating a family. And the stories we're hearing instead have to do with not the D of deportation, but the D of Doge. And as I pointed out before, let me just use the example. And these come,

[00:40:02] Warren Kelly put these out the other day. FAA. Yes, you did have 400 employees that were cut, but you have 45,000 employees. So that ends up being eight tenths or almost nine tenths of a percent. Homeland Security. Yes, you had 400 there, but there's 260,000 employees. So that tends to be 16 one hundredths of a percent. And they're going to the mat over that.

[00:40:28] When you look at the typical layoffs for Boeing or Amazon or UPS or Citigorp, I just was surprised that that was the hill that the Democrats went on. Yeah, and we should mention that Trump had a cabinet meeting yesterday. And in that cabinet meeting, and Elon Musk was there, he told the cabinet secretaries, you are the final deciders on this. You make the decision that Elon Musk is there to make recommendations, but you're the one that has to,

[00:40:56] and he needed to do that because we've been trying to figure out who's in charge. Who's in charge. And who's making these decisions. And it was important that the president make that. And I think the president's sort of feeling some of this blowback a little bit himself because he wants to make sure that this is done in a proper way and not necessarily from Elon Musk telling people that they are fired. Right. So again, I think it's ironic. Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry about that.

[00:41:22] I think it's ironic also that the Democrats are saying that Trump is a fascist and he's Hitler, but also saying that he's letting Elon Musk take over the country. I just don't think those things are complimentary. Not helping. That's for sure. And again, the bottom line, and it's very simple, is to recognize that on one hand, the president says, Elon Musk is in charge. Didn't he sort of say that in the speech? he absolutely said that. Essentially. I mean, that's essentially. And then two days later, he's saying, no,

[00:41:49] you are the cabinet officer and you're in charge. So the little bit of the mixed message, some people say maybe it's happening too fast. You can understand all of that as well. I want to leave a little bit of time at the end though for key show. Of course, I'll talk to you again on Tuesday. Looking forward to that. But since you represent, of course, first Liberty, we always like to talk about some of the prayer cases. And I saw something coming from Kelly Shackler saying that you do have a number of cases before the Supreme Court.

[00:42:17] And whether you want to go into them individually or just talk about them generally, that's a really important prayer target for our listeners, isn't it? Yeah, absolutely. So we've got a number of certifications right now for people who essentially are being persecuted for their religious beliefs. We've got a fire chief named Ron Hiddle, who was fired for his faith after 24 years of service with the city of Stockton, California. Another case that's not quite at the Supreme Court yet, but I want to talk about is Pastor Chris Avell,

[00:42:47] who's facing criminal charges for allowing people to come, the homeless to come into his church 24 hours a day, seven days a week during the winter in these frigid temperatures. He has been just convicted of criminal violations, which I just think is just awful. And then finally, we have a case with a veteran teacher, Marisol Castro, who was disciplined. She's now on paid leave because she has a small crucifix in her personal workspace in her classroom.

[00:43:15] And so I would love it if your viewers would pray for those clients. They're going through a lot and they're standing up for their convictions and we need to support them spiritually. Again, First Liberty is the place to go. We have that link. And all you have to do is just click on the picture there of Keisha and you can find your way there. I just mentioned the Viewpoints commentary today by Penna Dexter is ending trans tyranny. And it goes into some of the issues with J.K. Rowling all the way up to what is happening at the present.

[00:43:45] So you might want to find that. My commentary today is about Lincoln and democracy. Just that'd be good to remind ourselves of the Gettysburg address and a few things of that nature. So all of it available at the website pointofview.net. And if you find yourself saying, well, I'd like to find out a little bit more about the president's speech or maybe some of the articles and in particular, the Ben Shapiro piece on Democrats in disarray. We have, of course, two Dr. Merrill Matthews articles, and you can follow those to find his others.

[00:44:14] One on federal buildings for sale. And can we at least stop birth tourism? And then a couple of other topics, not the least of which, of course, we have spent some time talking about this letter that Keisha Russell has put together for the TEA, Texas Education Agency, and also one on the education department. So lots of things we've covered. Keisha, thank you for being with us. Look forward to seeing you on Tuesday. But most importantly, I want to thank Megan for help engineering the program. Steve, thank you for producing the program.

[00:44:43] Let me also mention that if you found yourself saying, I'd like to hear some of this again, you can click on that button that says watch or listen. And as we're getting closer to our truth team later this month, you might want to click on that button that says donate and support this ministry ahead of time so that we can encourage others to join with us. Have a great weekend. See you back here on Monday on Point of View.

[00:45:09] It was not that long ago that censorship appeared to be almost inevitable. Free speech was being attacked and strangled in many places. And some of us wondered if this was the end. But now many feel a new sense of hope, a chance for a fresh dawn. Let me caution you. Now is not the time to relax. It's a time to press forward,

[00:45:34] to use this fresh opportunity to proclaim and learn how to apply truth to current issues. By the fact you're here listening right now, that tells me that you recognize the vital role Point of View plays as a voice of truth. For more than 50 years, we've informed and equipped people who have made a real difference. And when you give to Point of View today, you breathe life into what can be a new golden era for the truth.

[00:46:04] Please, take a moment right now and invest in truth. Visit pointofview.net or give it 1-800-347-5151. That's pointofview.net. Click in now or call 1-800-347-5151. Point of View is produced by Point of View Ministries.