[00:00:00] And now, Dr. Merrill Matthews.
[00:00:20] And welcome back to Point of View.
[00:00:22] I'm Merrill Matthews sitting in for Kirby Anderson today and for the next half hour we
[00:00:27] are going to turn to the election and we're going to turn to a person who has appeared
[00:00:31] many times on Point of View, John Fund.
[00:00:34] He's the National Affairs columnist for a national review.
[00:00:37] He worked at the Wall Street Journal for more than two decades beginning in 1984 and for
[00:00:41] about six years there he was on the editorial board, but he's also one of the country's
[00:00:46] leading experts on election fraud and his most recent book, he's done several books
[00:00:51] on this, but his most recent book, Our Broken Elections, How the Left Changed the
[00:00:56] Way You Vote and you can find that on Amazon if you're interested.
[00:01:01] And John, thank you for joining us.
[00:01:04] Always a pleasure, Merrill.
[00:01:05] Well, you know this election's coming up here and it's got some of us worried because there's
[00:01:11] so many things that could go wrong.
[00:01:14] I mean, I was looking at this the other day.
[00:01:17] If we believe that roughly seven states are swing states and will likely decide the
[00:01:22] election, that's sort of the conventional wisdom right now.
[00:01:25] I'll be curious to hear your thoughts on that.
[00:01:28] But I did some calculations and figured out there's two or three ways if the
[00:01:31] states that are typically going to go blue, the states that are typically going to go red,
[00:01:36] if you take those seven swing states there's two or three ways that you could come up with
[00:01:40] a 269, 269 electoral tie.
[00:01:44] That would be a problem throwing the election into the House of Representatives.
[00:01:48] You have Robert Kennedy out there attracting a number of votes in some of those swing
[00:01:53] states.
[00:01:54] He's getting between seven and nine percent.
[00:01:57] That could draw a number of votes and shift the election from one person to another.
[00:02:02] And then you have just the issue of what happens if one of the candidates wins with a large
[00:02:07] popular majority, but the other candidate wins with the electoral college vote and
[00:02:13] that's what decides it.
[00:02:15] And we saw that in 2016 and Democrats never accepted that election.
[00:02:20] So I'm just curious, what do you see as the biggest challenges in this upcoming
[00:02:24] election?
[00:02:28] Getting through it with one out of six voters hating both candidates.
[00:02:35] It is unprecedented in American history where people who hate both candidates
[00:02:41] nonetheless will vote and they will decide the election.
[00:02:44] In 2016, the same thing applied with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
[00:02:50] But in the end, Trump won 60% of what I call the double haters.
[00:02:54] Now those are the most important people in America.
[00:02:57] They're also the most difficult people to ever pin down as to how they're going to
[00:03:02] vote because it changes from day to day, depending on which candidate has
[00:03:06] outraged them the most.
[00:03:08] You know, with this, with the Palestinian revotes going around in
[00:03:11] campuses and you've got some states like Michigan with heavy Palestinian
[00:03:16] and Islamic voters, I could see where some of them would be what you
[00:03:21] call double haters.
[00:03:22] They don't want Donald Trump because they think he'd be more friendly
[00:03:24] with Israel, but they're not.
[00:03:26] They're not.
[00:03:26] And they're not in rapture with Joe Biden because they feel like he's
[00:03:30] been too supportive.
[00:03:33] You're absolutely right.
[00:03:34] And interestingly enough, the Monmouth poll just came out and while
[00:03:40] young people certainly do not lean towards Israel the way that older
[00:03:45] generations did, Monmouth says it is a myth that most of their refusal
[00:03:50] to line up behind Joe Biden is based on Palestine or Israel.
[00:03:55] What it really is, is young Americans increasingly feel they're not going
[00:04:00] to have the opportunities they have in previous generations.
[00:04:04] In other words, they're not going to live lives as rich or as fulfilling
[00:04:08] or as prosperous as their parents and grandparents.
[00:04:12] Joe Biden is like a giant blanket over the economy.
[00:04:17] He suffocates enterprise.
[00:04:19] He suffocates opportunity.
[00:04:21] It's extremely difficult to get a car loan now.
[00:04:24] The average American can afford a four hundred dollar a month car loan,
[00:04:28] but the average car requires an eight hundred dollar a month payment.
[00:04:32] Housing interest rates over seven percent for a housing loan.
[00:04:37] So it's not just food and gas.
[00:04:39] It is all the things that Americans believe are vital to the American
[00:04:43] dream and the American middle class lifestyle of being priced out of their existence.
[00:04:47] You know, it's an interesting point that you're making because James Carville,
[00:04:50] a advisor to Bill Clinton back in the 1990s,
[00:04:54] famously said it's the economy stupid.
[00:04:57] And Joe Biden seems to be trying to convince everybody
[00:05:01] the economy is doing very well.
[00:05:02] But the consu...
[00:05:03] And from some of the numbers, you can make that case.
[00:05:06] But consumers out there, the voters just don't seem to believe it.
[00:05:10] Well, it is true that half of the Americans are in the stock market directly.
[00:05:15] And they, they're prospering.
[00:05:18] However, that's not something that you look at necessarily every day
[00:05:23] as the indication of how your family is doing.
[00:05:26] I would just amend what James Carville said.
[00:05:28] But he said it's the economy stupid.
[00:05:30] He said people are going to vote based on how they feel
[00:05:33] just as they go into the polling booth.
[00:05:36] I say it's the future stupid.
[00:05:39] That is Americans now recognize that their economic circumstance can fluctuate.
[00:05:44] But what's it going to be like in five years from now?
[00:05:47] And frankly, the other question, are you better off now than you were four years ago?
[00:05:52] Will you be better off in four years, depending on whether Joe Biden or Donald Trump
[00:05:57] is elected president?
[00:05:58] And I think Biden can win the economy is doing OK.
[00:06:02] Right this instant with some voters.
[00:06:05] But he is trailing among voters who say,
[00:06:07] well, what's the future to Joe Biden?
[00:06:09] A pile of debt, more spending and maybe more inflation.
[00:06:13] Well, let's talk a bit about voting because in 2020, we had the pandemic
[00:06:17] and a number of states became, let's say, flexible in some of their voting rules.
[00:06:23] And so you had more mail-in voting, more absentee voting and other things.
[00:06:27] What is the state of election integrity these days?
[00:06:31] A number of states passed laws to try to improve that.
[00:06:35] They got criticized for doing that by a number of Democrats.
[00:06:38] But what's the state of election integrity these days?
[00:06:41] Well, when it comes to the presidency, you're absolutely right.
[00:06:43] It all comes down to six or seven states.
[00:06:45] So let's just focus on those.
[00:06:47] The COVID loosening of absentee ballots and the ballot verification procedures
[00:06:53] that determine whether those ballots are actually counted
[00:06:56] are better in many states because the COVID regulations and the crisis has passed.
[00:07:02] So things are better in Georgia.
[00:07:03] The legislature has done more there.
[00:07:06] Arizona, they're better.
[00:07:07] They're mixed in Pennsylvania, where there's a very liberal Supreme Court
[00:07:10] that's interpreting some rules.
[00:07:13] They've backslid in Michigan, which has a Democratic governor
[00:07:16] and a very activist Democratic legislature.
[00:07:19] In Wisconsin, it's probably a little better.
[00:07:22] So it's mixed.
[00:07:24] The bottom line is if you want a free and fair election,
[00:07:28] if you don't want to go through 2016 and 2020,
[00:07:31] we're between 35 and 40 percent of Americans at a minimum.
[00:07:35] Regardless of party thought the election was won by somebody else
[00:07:38] than the person who took office.
[00:07:40] We have to have effective election observers,
[00:07:43] election watchdog sessions in all of those swing states
[00:07:49] because I don't want to go through another situation where
[00:07:52] whether it's 2000 and you argue about how close it was
[00:07:56] for six or seven weeks after the election or 2016
[00:07:59] where one side says foreign interference
[00:08:01] steered the election in one direction or 2020
[00:08:05] where there were a lot of legitimate complaints.
[00:08:07] But frankly, there are a lot of things floating around the Internet
[00:08:09] about how the election was stolen that simply didn't pan out.
[00:08:13] Our guest for this segment is John Fund.
[00:08:15] He is an expert in election integrity and voter fraud.
[00:08:20] He's also the National Affairs columnist for National View.
[00:08:23] When we come back, I want to ask him how do you go about
[00:08:26] ensuring that you've got watchers that are not
[00:08:29] necessarily intimidating and also do some of Trump's indictments
[00:08:33] and legal problems. Is that going to affect the election?
[00:08:36] Stay with us on Point of View.
[00:08:39] This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson.
[00:08:43] Perhaps you've heard of the White High School principal in Baltimore
[00:08:59] who was removed from his position for allegedly making racist
[00:09:05] and anti-Semitic comments.
[00:09:07] I say allegedly since he didn't make any comments
[00:09:10] and he didn't make any comments.
[00:09:12] The audio was an AI-generated attempt to mimic his voice
[00:09:15] so the school's former Black Athletic Director could get him fired.
[00:09:19] As one commentator quipped,
[00:09:21] Jesse Smallette must be devastated he didn't think of this first.
[00:09:24] Anyone who wants to perpetrate a fake hate crime
[00:09:27] or ruin the reputation of someone they hate
[00:09:29] only needs to use AI to accomplish the task.
[00:09:32] The clip was posted to a popular Instagram account
[00:09:35] in the Baltimore community.
[00:09:36] This prompted an attempt to make a false accusation
[00:09:39] that he had not done before.
[00:09:41] This prompted an investigation from school officials
[00:09:44] and the police department.
[00:09:45] It was also sent to three teachers.
[00:09:47] One of them forwarded the email with the phony audio clip
[00:09:50] to the media and to the NAACP.
[00:09:53] She also forwarded it to a student she knew would spread
[00:09:55] the message around to various social media outlets
[00:09:57] and throughout the school.
[00:09:59] You can imagine the results and the amount of grief
[00:10:01] that came down on the head of the high school principal.
[00:10:03] I have likened spreading gossip on social media
[00:10:06] to opening a downed pillow in the wind.
[00:10:08] You can never get the feathers back into the pillow.
[00:10:11] I've written many radio commentaries about fake hate crimes
[00:10:13] over the last 14 years.
[00:10:15] This is a first but it will not be the last.
[00:10:17] As one commentator put it,
[00:10:19] hate hoaxers are using AI.
[00:10:21] It was bound to come to this.
[00:10:23] My message to the media is not to be so trusting
[00:10:25] of an audio or video clip.
[00:10:27] You need to be more skeptical.
[00:10:29] At the very least report your story with a disclaimer
[00:10:31] that you haven't checked the veracity of the clip.
[00:10:34] My message to you is simple.
[00:10:36] Just everything you see or hear.
[00:10:38] I'm Kirby Anderson and that's my Point of View.
[00:10:47] For a free copy of Kirby's booklet,
[00:10:49] A Biblical View on Loneliness,
[00:10:51] go to viewpoints.info slash loneliness.
[00:10:54] That's viewpoints.info slash loneliness.
[00:10:59] You're listening to Point of View,
[00:11:02] your listener supported source for truth.
[00:11:05] And we're back with National Affairs columnist
[00:11:07] for National Review, John Fund talking about the election
[00:11:10] and John is an election fraud expert.
[00:11:13] And John, so you mentioned about poll watchers and others.
[00:11:17] How do you go about doing that?
[00:11:20] And in doing it in a way that's both responsible
[00:11:23] and doesn't necessarily look like it's antagonizing people
[00:11:27] who are there working, whether you're talking about
[00:11:29] at the polling booth or people who are counting the votes.
[00:11:33] Well, the most important thing that you can do
[00:11:36] is before people show up at the polling place,
[00:11:39] which is you could volunteer to go through voter registration
[00:11:42] records and see if they're in the anomalies
[00:11:45] or try to figure out if this address is actually
[00:11:48] a commercial building and therefore no one should be
[00:11:51] registered to vote there.
[00:11:53] That can present the lawyers and the professionals
[00:11:55] who really know what they're doing with the data
[00:11:58] they could use to challenge voters at the polls
[00:12:01] in a polite but firm way.
[00:12:04] You can also observe the election count
[00:12:07] at the actual government counting centers.
[00:12:10] Most states would allow you to observe that
[00:12:13] and you can keep your eye open for that.
[00:12:16] In addition, there's also recounts.
[00:12:19] They're going to be recounts, I'm sure,
[00:12:21] for some very close senate races,
[00:12:23] which will determine control of that body.
[00:12:26] And the recount is almost as often as important
[00:12:29] as the election itself because there's an awful lot
[00:12:32] of pressure on the election officials
[00:12:34] till one way or the other.
[00:12:36] So there are all kinds of election offices
[00:12:39] that you can use to get the data.
[00:12:42] And then there's the public interest legal foundation,
[00:12:45] which you can find on the internet
[00:12:48] that can direct you to people.
[00:12:51] There's also other organizations such as
[00:12:54] the voter integrity project and also
[00:12:57] the heritage foundation has a lot of resources
[00:13:00] on their website.
[00:13:03] They also have a list of 1500 cases in which
[00:13:06] there are no voter fraud crimes,
[00:13:09] which belies the label myth that there is no voter fraud.
[00:13:12] It certainly belies the myth, but in general,
[00:13:15] most of the cases they're not large numbers.
[00:13:18] They're usually fairly small numbers.
[00:13:21] Well, it depends on the election,
[00:13:24] whether or not you consider them small numbers.
[00:13:27] 531 votes decided the presidency of the United States
[00:13:30] in 2000.
[00:13:33] Al Franken won the Senate race, which determined
[00:13:36] whether or not the Democrats would get a filibuster
[00:13:39] proof set in 2000.
[00:13:42] You had an election in California just this month
[00:13:45] that was decided it was originally a tide election
[00:13:48] and ended up being decided by 5 votes.
[00:13:51] But the bottom line is we all know these voter fraud
[00:13:54] convictions, Merrill, are the tip of an iceberg.
[00:13:57] An iceberg is less than 1-tenths visible above the waterline,
[00:14:00] 9-tenths or more below the waterline.
[00:14:03] So there's an awful lot that's happening out there
[00:14:06] that we know is happening, but we haven't discovered it
[00:14:09] or proven it yet.
[00:14:11] Trump is...we're getting daily news information
[00:14:14] about Trump's trial in New York on the Hush Money case.
[00:14:18] Conceivably, a jury might find him guilty.
[00:14:22] There's a potential for going to jail.
[00:14:25] What do you...the various indictments
[00:14:29] have seemed to help his popularity?
[00:14:31] What do you think happens if he's actually convicted
[00:14:34] in some of these?
[00:14:36] Well, it looks as if, looking up the latest court cases,
[00:14:40] the only one that's probably going to have an actual verdict
[00:14:43] from a jury is the one in New York, which is the weakest one.
[00:14:47] It's about falsification of business records.
[00:14:50] The others are...keep getting pushed back and delayed.
[00:14:54] Merrill, I...there is no chance
[00:14:57] that Donald Trump is going to jail.
[00:14:59] As a first-time offender, regardless of whether or not
[00:15:02] he was convicted of a felony or misdemeanor,
[00:15:05] you don't get jail time the first time,
[00:15:07] and especially given the problems their security would represent
[00:15:10] for a former president of the United States.
[00:15:13] The real question here is, I think the most likely outcome
[00:15:16] in any case that comes up will be a hung jury.
[00:15:20] For example, in New York, I live in New York.
[00:15:23] Most people in New York do not like Donald Trump,
[00:15:25] but almost as unpopular as Donald Trump is Alvin Bragg,
[00:15:28] the prosecutor, I can imagine one juror or two jurors
[00:15:31] in that case saying, you know, I really hate Donald Trump.
[00:15:34] But why is Alvin Bragg ignoring the crime
[00:15:36] that's making the neighborhood unsafe
[00:15:38] and providing my kids from walking to school?
[00:15:40] Why isn't he focused on that rather than this convoluted case
[00:15:43] which is basically about pumping up his ego
[00:15:46] and getting publicity for him to run for the next office?
[00:15:50] So shifting from Donald Trump to Joe Biden,
[00:15:54] a lot of attention on Joe Biden's mental health
[00:15:58] and perhaps declining physical abilities.
[00:16:02] There has been, it just seems that most Democrats
[00:16:05] don't want him to be president,
[00:16:07] and yet it looks like he's going to be the nominee.
[00:16:11] Is there any chance that something could happen
[00:16:14] at the Democratic Convention
[00:16:16] that could cost him the nomination?
[00:16:20] Well, I don't necessarily think it's tied
[00:16:22] to the Democratic Convention,
[00:16:24] but you remember that Mitch McConnell,
[00:16:26] the Republican Senate leader, had two episodes
[00:16:28] where he simply froze and stared at the camera
[00:16:30] for 30 seconds at a time.
[00:16:32] If Joe Biden were to do that,
[00:16:34] I frankly think it would be over
[00:16:36] because people would realize there's a cover-up going on,
[00:16:38] things are much worse than they're led to believe,
[00:16:41] and I think that that would create a firestorm
[00:16:44] if all Democrats that I know of
[00:16:46] have serious questions about Biden
[00:16:48] they're just crossing their fingers
[00:16:50] hoping nothing happens before November.
[00:16:52] So Joe Biden is basically a ticking demographic time bomb,
[00:16:56] and Donald Trump's mouth is a ticking rhetorical time bomb
[00:17:01] because he's liable to say anything.
[00:17:03] So it really depends how often those two time bombs
[00:17:06] go off and exactly what damage they cause.
[00:17:09] But at least with Joe Biden,
[00:17:11] I mean Kamala Harris is the vice president.
[00:17:14] She would be considered the heir apparent,
[00:17:17] though I suspect most Democrats would prefer
[00:17:20] that she not be the nominee.
[00:17:22] So how could they deny her the nomination
[00:17:25] if Joe Biden were to have a stroke or something
[00:17:27] and couldn't continue before the convention?
[00:17:30] How could they deny it to her when denying that
[00:17:33] to her the nomination would essentially be
[00:17:35] tantamount to you're a racist at the Democratic Party?
[00:17:39] Well a racist and a sexist because of course
[00:17:42] she's the first female vice president.
[00:17:47] Look, they could have gotten rid of Kamala Harris
[00:17:50] with a Supreme Court appointment or some other method
[00:17:53] a few months ago but now it's too late.
[00:17:55] So I agree with your analysis.
[00:17:57] That would create an extra level of nervousness
[00:17:59] among the Democrats.
[00:18:00] So both parties are extremely nervous
[00:18:03] about their nominees.
[00:18:05] In fact one of those double haters
[00:18:07] that I mentioned earlier, Merrill,
[00:18:09] said you know I've never had a decision
[00:18:11] to make like this before.
[00:18:13] I feel like I'm making a decision based on the evil of two lessers.
[00:18:18] Could we see with the Palestinian uprisings
[00:18:22] on the college campuses, could we see a 1968 style
[00:18:26] revoked at the Democratic convention
[00:18:28] and maybe even at the Republican convention?
[00:18:32] I think it's less likely because the police
[00:18:35] are much better trained and resistant
[00:18:38] to being taunted into overreacting by protesters
[00:18:41] as they were in 1968.
[00:18:44] You know the Democratic convention in 1996
[00:18:46] was handled very well, I was there.
[00:18:48] So I think there will be some quote outside agitators
[00:18:51] unquote trying to disrupt things
[00:18:53] but I think that the National Guard,
[00:18:56] the police in Milwaukee and Chicago
[00:18:58] are operating as a merged unit
[00:19:00] at both conventions to try to provide enough support.
[00:19:03] So I think there will be a lot of chaos
[00:19:06] and disputation but I don't think
[00:19:08] the odds of actual violence
[00:19:10] on our 1968 Chicago are frankly low.
[00:19:14] Take about a minute to tell us
[00:19:16] what listeners should be looking for
[00:19:18] as we move closer to the election.
[00:19:20] Will there be an October surprise?
[00:19:22] What do you think we'll be seeing here
[00:19:24] in the next few months?
[00:19:26] Well, of course there will be an October surprise
[00:19:28] and in addition to all the suspicion that happened
[00:19:31] in 2016 where people were worried
[00:19:33] about foreign interference with the election,
[00:19:35] I'll tell you right now,
[00:19:37] I'm worried about potential interference
[00:19:39] from the US domestic intelligence agencies
[00:19:42] or rogue elements within
[00:19:44] because increasingly we don't know
[00:19:46] everything that the FBI and the National Security Council
[00:19:49] with CIA do in this country
[00:19:51] or outside this country.
[00:19:53] Of course there's going to be an October surprise
[00:19:55] and of course we don't know what it is.
[00:19:57] I guess my one message to your listeners,
[00:19:59] Merrill, is this,
[00:20:00] don't obsessively follow the polls.
[00:20:02] All of the polls right now
[00:20:04] are within the margin of error almost completely
[00:20:07] in the swing states.
[00:20:08] So we don't know exactly who's ahead or behind.
[00:20:11] So don't take every poll as something dramatic
[00:20:13] or earth shaking.
[00:20:14] Follow the average of all the polls
[00:20:16] at RealClearPolitics.com
[00:20:18] where they average them all out.
[00:20:20] That gives you a much better sense
[00:20:22] of who might be ahead or behind.
[00:20:24] And don't pay attention to the pundits,
[00:20:26] including me in some cases
[00:20:28] where I don't know as much as others.
[00:20:30] Don't pay attention to the pundits.
[00:20:32] And draw your own conclusions
[00:20:35] and frankly relax.
[00:20:37] You know, the polls are going to be close
[00:20:40] all the way through November
[00:20:42] and we're not going to learn.
[00:20:43] Well I hope we learn who wins an election night.
[00:20:45] But unfortunately we may be going
[00:20:47] to election month in that regard.
[00:20:49] My guest has been John Funn.
[00:20:51] He is an election expert
[00:20:53] especially on election fraud issues.
[00:20:55] He's got a book out there
[00:20:57] that you can get at Amazon.
[00:20:59] It's about how the left
[00:21:01] changes the way you vote.
[00:21:03] I've read it.
[00:21:04] It's great.
[00:21:05] It was printed,
[00:21:06] published a couple years ago.
[00:21:08] So I'd encourage you to take a look at that
[00:21:10] and we also have a link
[00:21:11] and some more information
[00:21:12] about John Funn on our website.
[00:21:13] John, thank you for joining us.
[00:21:15] A real pleasure. Thank you.
[00:21:17] And when we return
[00:21:18] we're going to turn to Layton Watts.
[00:21:20] He'll be in studio
[00:21:21] with Alliance Defending Freedom.
[00:21:23] We'll be talking about
[00:21:24] some of the cases they are working on.
[00:21:26] So stay with us.
[00:21:27] On point of view.
[00:21:28] Where does moral truth come from?
[00:21:31] According to 58% of Americans
[00:21:33] individuals determine moral truth.
[00:21:35] A quarter of generation Z says
[00:21:37] society determines moral truth
[00:21:39] and morality can even change over time.
[00:21:41] Only 42% of Americans believe
[00:21:43] that truth comes from God.
[00:21:45] I don't know about you,
[00:21:47] but I find these numbers
[00:21:48] extremely troubling.
[00:21:49] It really is a crisis of truth
[00:21:51] and it's a crisis of truth.
[00:21:53] And I think that's a great
[00:21:54] thing to do.
[00:21:55] It really is a crisis of truth
[00:21:57] and that crisis has consequences.
[00:21:59] Look at society.
[00:22:00] Evil is called good,
[00:22:02] good called evil.
[00:22:03] People with biblical beliefs
[00:22:05] are called bigots or worse
[00:22:07] they're canceled.
[00:22:08] But there is hope.
[00:22:09] The Bible promises
[00:22:11] the truth will set us free
[00:22:13] and that's why point of view
[00:22:14] is relentless in our commitment
[00:22:16] to the ultimate source
[00:22:17] of moral truth.
[00:22:18] God's word.
[00:22:19] At point of view
[00:22:20] we know that God's truth
[00:22:22] is eternal
[00:22:23] and if we stand together
[00:22:25] we can help more Americans
[00:22:27] apply his truth in their daily life.
[00:22:29] Help Americans find truth again
[00:22:31] by giving at pointofview.net
[00:22:34] or call 1-800-347-5151.
[00:22:39] That's pointofview.net
[00:22:41] and 800-347-5151.
[00:22:48] Point of view will continue after this.
[00:22:54] You are listening to Point of View.
[00:23:02] The opinions expressed on point of view
[00:23:04] do not necessarily reflect the views
[00:23:06] of the management or staff of this station.
[00:23:09] And now here again,
[00:23:11] Dr. Merrill Matthews.
[00:23:13] And welcome back to our final 30 minutes
[00:23:15] on Point of View
[00:23:16] and joining me in studio,
[00:23:17] Leithan Watts.
[00:23:18] He's been on the program many times.
[00:23:20] He is vice president
[00:23:21] of public affairs
[00:23:22] for Alliance Defending Freedom.
[00:23:25] That's the world's largest
[00:23:26] non-profit legal organization.
[00:23:28] He was just telling me how big it is.
[00:23:30] It is huge.
[00:23:31] And ADF is dedicated to defending
[00:23:33] religious freedom,
[00:23:34] freedom of speech,
[00:23:35] the sanctity of life,
[00:23:36] marriage and parental rights.
[00:23:38] And Leithan, thank you for joining us again.
[00:23:40] Thank you.
[00:23:41] Thanks for having me.
[00:23:42] Good to be back.
[00:23:43] You know I was looking at some of the cases
[00:23:44] and you are handling a bunch of cases.
[00:23:46] But you're dealing with some
[00:23:48] that have to do with health care.
[00:23:50] And one is in Florida
[00:23:51] and Catholic doctors.
[00:23:52] Tell us what's happening there.
[00:23:53] Yes, we represent the Catholic Medical Association
[00:23:55] and we're working side by side
[00:23:58] with the state of Florida
[00:24:00] filing litigation that's challenging
[00:24:02] the new HHS rule,
[00:24:04] rule 1557,
[00:24:05] where health and human services
[00:24:07] basically changed
[00:24:10] in a public rulemaking,
[00:24:12] changed the anti-discrimination
[00:24:15] sections of the law
[00:24:17] to include gender identity,
[00:24:20] sexual orientation.
[00:24:22] And what that would force upon
[00:24:25] like the Catholic Medical Association,
[00:24:27] Catholic hospitals
[00:24:28] and also individual doctors
[00:24:31] who have deeply held religious beliefs
[00:24:33] when it comes to sexuality
[00:24:35] and gender theology of the body.
[00:24:37] It would basically force them
[00:24:40] into treatments that they see as harmful
[00:24:44] to the body
[00:24:45] under what we would put in air quotes
[00:24:47] gender-referring care.
[00:24:49] So basically
[00:24:51] we're challenging this rule as I said.
[00:24:53] The state of Florida is challenging it also.
[00:24:56] And so we'll be litigating that.
[00:24:58] It's brand new, they just published this rule.
[00:25:00] So this is in the very early stages.
[00:25:02] So it would probably be a while
[00:25:04] before we have a resolution
[00:25:06] of some sort in a court.
[00:25:08] And I would suspect if we went
[00:25:10] in federal district courts
[00:25:11] that the Biden administration would appeal it
[00:25:13] and then we'd be going to the 11th circuit
[00:25:16] and depending on what happened there
[00:25:17] potentially the United States Supreme Court.
[00:25:19] So maybe a while before it's resolved
[00:25:21] but we're cautiously optimistic.
[00:25:23] You know this is at my column in the Hill today
[00:25:26] has to deal with the Biden administration's
[00:25:28] use of rulemaking
[00:25:29] and then in cases where it doesn't want to do that
[00:25:31] it uses what it's called guidance
[00:25:33] to sort of which is a way to strong arm things
[00:25:39] without going through the rulemaking process.
[00:25:41] Exactly.
[00:25:42] But that's something that this administration does
[00:25:44] a lot of and I think the Obama administration did as well
[00:25:47] which is to say you have certain laws that passed
[00:25:50] civil rights laws and other things decades ago
[00:25:53] and they said these are the people
[00:25:55] that we are concerned with it.
[00:25:56] We're addressing in this
[00:25:58] and they've come up and they just changed
[00:26:00] the definitions of some of these things.
[00:26:02] Yeah, and it's exactly as you said
[00:26:04] it's to avoid the Administrative Procedures Act
[00:26:07] which has very strict rules
[00:26:09] about if you're going to change
[00:26:11] an executive agency's rules
[00:26:14] there are processes you have to go through
[00:26:17] but if you issue guidance on that rule
[00:26:20] like you said that's not subject to those same procedures
[00:26:23] and so the guidance is not necessarily
[00:26:26] it's sort of well it's not mandatory
[00:26:30] we ain't no it's not
[00:26:31] but this is how we really want this rule interpreted
[00:26:33] and so that avoids that whole process
[00:26:35] which is where people have a chance to challenge it
[00:26:37] if they change it that way.
[00:26:39] This isn't, they did go through
[00:26:42] the process here
[00:26:44] so now you have a final action by the agency
[00:26:47] which allows the litigation to proceed
[00:26:50] which is what we're doing.
[00:26:52] And some of the things that are happening here
[00:26:54] is that there are and I think some states are requiring this
[00:26:56] may be the federal government but they're saying
[00:26:58] okay transgender care if a person comes
[00:27:01] then insurance has to pay for this
[00:27:04] and so then you're asking, wait a minute
[00:27:06] insurance is normally they're paying
[00:27:08] for necessary medical care
[00:27:11] not necessarily elective care
[00:27:13] and then if you say well the transgender
[00:27:16] changes, body changes and so forth
[00:27:18] we think that is necessary and not elective
[00:27:21] a lot of that just gets involved in here.
[00:27:23] It does and it also by doing this from the
[00:27:27] at the federal level kind of top down
[00:27:29] it also sort of violates the states
[00:27:34] the 50 states who have an interest in regulating
[00:27:37] the medical profession in that state.
[00:27:39] Right and insurance.
[00:27:40] And insurance exactly.
[00:27:41] So several states have passed laws that
[00:27:45] prohibit the use of cross-ex hormones,
[00:27:48] puberty blockers and these
[00:27:51] gender transition surgeries if you want to call them
[00:27:54] that for minors.
[00:27:56] Basically if you're an adult and you want
[00:27:59] to mutilate your body this way
[00:28:01] I guess that's your business but children
[00:28:03] no one should do this to a child
[00:28:05] they're not capable of giving informed consent
[00:28:08] on this issue.
[00:28:09] They do not know really to the
[00:28:13] required degree to be able to give informed consent
[00:28:16] the lifelong implications of what they're doing.
[00:28:18] And so several states have passed laws to say
[00:28:21] this is not going to be allowed in this state
[00:28:23] on people under 18 or under 21 depending on
[00:28:26] the state whatever limit that they set
[00:28:28] but now the Biden administration
[00:28:30] with this rule change is basically
[00:28:33] trying to come over the top of the states
[00:28:35] and you know the fact it will create
[00:28:38] a nationwide policy on it.
[00:28:40] Now abortion is considered healthcare as well
[00:28:42] what are you doing in that realm?
[00:28:43] Right so again we see this administration
[00:28:46] really not long after the Dobs decision came out
[00:28:49] which kind of placed policymaking on the
[00:28:52] abortion issue back in the policymaking branch
[00:28:54] the legislative branch both at the state
[00:28:56] and federal level.
[00:28:57] The Biden administration said not long
[00:28:59] after that opinion came out that they were
[00:29:01] going to do everything in their power
[00:29:03] to keep abortion in the states as much as possible
[00:29:08] and they've done a couple of things we've challenged both.
[00:29:12] One our case against the FDA on the safety protocols
[00:29:16] on the chemical abortion drug Niflpristone
[00:29:19] the FDA violated its own rules and the APA
[00:29:23] and lifting those safety protocols
[00:29:26] which without those in place where we stand right now
[00:29:30] is someone could do a phone call
[00:29:33] like a telemedicine appointment or a Zoom
[00:29:35] with a doctor in whatever state
[00:29:38] get the drug prescribed have it shipped directly
[00:29:40] to them in the mail take the drug at home
[00:29:43] without ever having one in-person doctor visit
[00:29:48] and then what happens is if something
[00:29:50] goes wrong or you know that person ends up in the ER
[00:29:54] then doctors are having to deal with this
[00:29:57] at the emergency room level.
[00:30:00] So that was a way really I think the
[00:30:03] Biden administration trying to create
[00:30:06] kind of a mail order abortion regime
[00:30:08] where the person takes the drug at home
[00:30:11] which makes it easier to get around any state
[00:30:14] restrictions on abortion that the
[00:30:17] Dodd's decision gave that ability back
[00:30:20] to the states to place limits on it and many have.
[00:30:23] The second thing they did and so the FDA case
[00:30:27] we took to the Supreme Court
[00:30:29] argued several weeks ago expecting
[00:30:31] expected decision probably end of June.
[00:30:33] A couple weeks after that argument
[00:30:35] we assisted the Attorney General of Idaho
[00:30:38] defending his state law on abortion
[00:30:40] because the Biden administration again
[00:30:42] reinterpreted an old federal law
[00:30:45] the emergency medical
[00:30:47] EMTALA emergency emergency medical treatment
[00:30:50] and active labor. A bill passed in the
[00:30:54] 80s signed by Ronald Reagan who was a
[00:30:58] pretty well known pro-life president.
[00:31:01] A bill that nowhere mentions the word
[00:31:03] abortion but four different places says
[00:31:06] that stabilizing care must be given to
[00:31:08] the unborn child. The Biden administration
[00:31:11] now says that that law when it was passed
[00:31:13] in the 80s meant that if someone
[00:31:16] shows up at an emergency room and requests
[00:31:18] an abortion you have to give them one.
[00:31:20] So it would in effect turn every emergency
[00:31:24] room in America into an available
[00:31:26] abortion clinic and they're saying
[00:31:28] because of the Constitution and the
[00:31:30] preemption doctrine that their interpretation
[00:31:32] of this federal law preempts Idaho's
[00:31:34] state law that has restrictions on abortion
[00:31:36] and so we assisted the AG of Idaho
[00:31:39] in defending that at the Supreme Court
[00:31:41] again probably won't get a decision
[00:31:43] until the end of June but both of
[00:31:45] those you take them together and it's
[00:31:47] an effort to create a top-down
[00:31:49] nationwide policy without going through
[00:31:52] the proper procedure. Either the
[00:31:55] federal legislature or the rulemaking
[00:31:57] process or any of those it's just well
[00:31:59] we decided this law that was passed in
[00:32:01] the 80s actually meant this. Any sense
[00:32:04] as to how the Supreme Court will rule
[00:32:06] on that one issue? You know it's a
[00:32:09] dangerous but very dangerous interpreting
[00:32:12] oral argument. Most of the comments
[00:32:14] I read in the press thought that they
[00:32:16] were skeptical of your position. Most
[00:32:19] of the oral argument focused on the issue
[00:32:21] of standing and whether or not our clients
[00:32:23] had proper legal standing to bring the
[00:32:25] challenge in the FDA case. In the
[00:32:28] Mtala case they were much more skeptical
[00:32:30] of the government's position. So we'll
[00:32:33] wait and see when those opinions come out
[00:32:35] you know if it's when one lose one
[00:32:38] then we'll reevaluate and keep
[00:32:42] fighting because even the FDA case
[00:32:45] is what made it to the Supreme Court
[00:32:48] and the reason it went so fast was it was a
[00:32:50] preliminary injunction. So the merits of
[00:32:52] the case could still be alive all the way
[00:32:54] back at the district court level even
[00:32:56] if they said our clients didn't have
[00:32:58] standing to bring the case because
[00:33:00] some states have intervened in that case
[00:33:02] and whether or not the states have
[00:33:05] standing in that case really didn't
[00:33:07] come up at oral argument. So we'll
[00:33:09] have to wait and see what the opinion
[00:33:10] says. So it may be that they just
[00:33:11] ruled you didn't have standing and it
[00:33:12] goes back to the local court and
[00:33:14] through the process again. So we're
[00:33:16] talking with Leithan Watts with Alliance
[00:33:18] Defending Freedom about some of the cases
[00:33:20] that they're involved with. We have a
[00:33:23] link to Alliance Defending Freedom on
[00:33:25] our website and I encourage you to go
[00:33:27] there and see what's available because
[00:33:29] they are involved in many many cases
[00:33:32] protecting your religious liberty. We'll
[00:33:34] stay with us we'll be back with Leithan
[00:33:36] Watts in just a minute.
[00:33:41] You're listening to Point of View. Your
[00:33:58] listener supported source for truth.
[00:34:01] And welcome back to Point of View, my guest
[00:34:03] in studio Leithan Watts. He is Vice President
[00:34:06] of Public Affairs for Alliance Defending
[00:34:08] Freedom and we're talking about some of
[00:34:09] the cases because they have so many that
[00:34:12] they are working on right now and we
[00:34:14] were talking about healthcare related
[00:34:16] cases in the past segment and you're
[00:34:18] also working on education related
[00:34:20] cases. Yes, you know the Biden
[00:34:23] administration has announced that
[00:34:25] they're going to I guess reinterpret
[00:34:28] or change Title IX which protects
[00:34:31] women's sports and a lot of other
[00:34:34] things but most people know it for women's
[00:34:36] sports and changing the definition of
[00:34:39] the word sex in Title IX to include
[00:34:41] again sexual orientation and gender
[00:34:43] identity. So if it's left
[00:34:46] unchallenged this would take a law that
[00:34:48] was if you think about it in the
[00:34:50] sports context was your past to create
[00:34:54] equal playing time, equal opportunity
[00:34:57] for women's sports and basically say
[00:35:00] that if a man identifies as a woman
[00:35:02] you have to let him on that field in that
[00:35:05] locker room, in that shower, in that
[00:35:07] dorm room or wherever. So there are
[00:35:09] a lot of implications the sports
[00:35:11] aspect I think probably gets the most
[00:35:13] attention but it's well beyond that
[00:35:15] and so we're challenging that we
[00:35:17] filed I think three lawsuits already
[00:35:19] and probably a fourth yet to come.
[00:35:21] We were talking about standing with
[00:35:23] regard to health care and the
[00:35:25] Mephapristone issue who has
[00:35:28] the standing in these cases? Right.
[00:35:30] So the different cases
[00:35:33] involve different clients so in
[00:35:36] Louisiana will be, and that may be
[00:35:38] the one that hasn't been filed yet.
[00:35:40] These things are moving some of
[00:35:41] fast it's hard to keep up but
[00:35:43] in Louisiana it would be a school
[00:35:45] parish school district who
[00:35:48] absolutely does not want shared
[00:35:51] spaces the way this would
[00:35:54] demand or require. So the school
[00:35:57] district would have standing to
[00:35:59] challenge that. In some of the other
[00:36:01] cases it's individual athletes that
[00:36:03] were representing who would be harmed
[00:36:05] by the fact they would lose
[00:36:07] opportunities for playing time,
[00:36:09] scholarships and then also all the
[00:36:11] other privacy implications of that
[00:36:13] and so it's a variety
[00:36:17] of clients all of whom were confident
[00:36:19] to have appropriate legal standing
[00:36:21] to challenge it. In some of these cases
[00:36:23] we're intervening in a case that's
[00:36:26] been filed by the state itself.
[00:36:28] In some of them we're
[00:36:30] coplaniffs and some of them we are
[00:36:32] an independent plaintiff so there's
[00:36:34] a lot of legalese involved there
[00:36:36] but the bottom line is three
[00:36:39] lawsuits have been filed on I
[00:36:41] think a fourth one that's going
[00:36:43] to be filed here probably in the
[00:36:45] next week or so challenging this
[00:36:47] gross distortion of Title IX.
[00:36:51] The way this process works is people
[00:36:53] usually do this at the local court and
[00:36:55] then it starts moving up. Have there
[00:36:57] been any local courts that cited with
[00:36:59] essentially cited on the same side
[00:37:01] as you or against you? This is
[00:37:03] fairly new because again when
[00:37:05] you're changing something
[00:37:07] like that you have to
[00:37:09] wait until there's a final action
[00:37:11] to be able to start litigation and
[00:37:13] so we just now have the final action
[00:37:15] on the lawsuits being filed right now
[00:37:17] so you're seeing a lot of
[00:37:19] headlines of this lawsuit
[00:37:21] filed, that lawsuit filed and there's
[00:37:23] a lot being filed because
[00:37:25] the door is now open. So these
[00:37:27] will all be in federal district
[00:37:29] courts around the country depending on where
[00:37:31] the client is and so
[00:37:33] ours would be
[00:37:35] in the fifth circuit I believe
[00:37:37] the eighth circuit and
[00:37:39] the sixth circuit and then
[00:37:41] possibly also in the 11th circuit
[00:37:43] so
[00:37:45] because it's different clients they're all making
[00:37:47] similar claims but based on where they're located
[00:37:49] that's where you decide which court
[00:37:51] to start with. There will all be a federal
[00:37:53] district court somewhere and then
[00:37:55] depending on how those
[00:37:57] district courts rule
[00:37:59] then your appellate court is based on geography
[00:38:01] as well so like in Louisiana that would go
[00:38:03] to the fifth circuit Court of Appeals
[00:38:05] and in Arkansas that would go to the eighth
[00:38:07] circuit Court of Appeals
[00:38:09] and what you potentially have
[00:38:11] and you have multiple lawsuits about the same thing
[00:38:13] in different appellate
[00:38:15] courts is
[00:38:17] if one appellate court rules
[00:38:19] say in our favor and another one rules in the
[00:38:21] Biden administration's favor and you have a split
[00:38:23] in the circuit courts of appeal
[00:38:25] that's not a guarantee
[00:38:27] the Supreme Court will take it but it's about as close
[00:38:29] as it gets because they
[00:38:31] if you look at it from the Supreme Court's perspective
[00:38:33] we can't have Title IX
[00:38:35] meaning two completely different
[00:38:37] things in different parts of the country
[00:38:39] so they're probably almost compelled to have to take that case
[00:38:41] and settle the split
[00:38:43] in the circuits.
[00:38:45] It's also possible
[00:38:47] all the circuit courts rule the same way
[00:38:49] either side would then still have the opportunity
[00:38:51] to appeal to the Supreme Court
[00:38:53] but might not have as compelling
[00:38:55] a case for the court to take it
[00:38:57] at that point. My guess is
[00:38:59] the Supreme Court is going to oppose
[00:39:01] the Biden administration when it finally gets
[00:39:03] to the Supreme Court because I assume it's
[00:39:05] probably going to get to the Supreme Court at some point.
[00:39:07] I think so.
[00:39:09] Just with the number of cases like I said
[00:39:11] in different districts and different appellate courts
[00:39:13] and the likelihood of you know possibly
[00:39:15] a split in the circuit courts
[00:39:17] I think it's a pretty safe
[00:39:19] bet that this ends up
[00:39:21] at the US Supreme Court
[00:39:23] and
[00:39:25] the court in an old case
[00:39:27] the Bostock case
[00:39:29] which
[00:39:33] related to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
[00:39:35] in employment, that decision
[00:39:37] said that sex could mean
[00:39:39] well it didn't, I should get this right
[00:39:41] they didn't say that the word
[00:39:43] sex in the Civil Rights Act in 1964
[00:39:45] meant sexual orientation in gender identity
[00:39:47] because nobody in 1964
[00:39:49] absolutely not. I think they even had
[00:39:51] those discussions and said no that's not what we're doing.
[00:39:53] There's no way, right? What they said was
[00:39:55] and it was a
[00:39:57] pretty
[00:39:59] clever maybe semantic argument
[00:40:01] maybe like hypertextualist
[00:40:03] in my opinion that Gorsuch
[00:40:05] wrote was that you could not
[00:40:07] consider sexual orientation
[00:40:09] in gender identity without considering
[00:40:11] biological sex and therefore
[00:40:13] in this context it could be
[00:40:15] applied.
[00:40:17] Well, and even though he went out of his way
[00:40:19] in that opinion to say this only applies to Title VII
[00:40:21] the ink was barely dry
[00:40:23] on the decision when the Biden administration said
[00:40:25] yes we agree with you and we're going to apply
[00:40:27] that same sort of reasoning to all
[00:40:29] areas of federal law and here we are
[00:40:31] now with Title IX. I believe
[00:40:33] that some various athletic
[00:40:35] associations have decided that they're going
[00:40:37] to oppose letting
[00:40:39] transgender people in. Does that
[00:40:41] help your case?
[00:40:43] I think so. I mean, I don't know if it will
[00:40:45] have any bearing on
[00:40:47] how the cases are
[00:40:49] argued or decided but I think in the court of public
[00:40:51] opinion yes.
[00:40:53] And they could end up doing a friend of the court.
[00:40:55] They could do a friend of the court brief absolutely.
[00:40:57] The N.A.I.
[00:40:59] I think is the biggest
[00:41:01] association that has come out publicly and said
[00:41:03] no we're not doing this.
[00:41:05] So, yeah I think it could definitely
[00:41:09] have some bearing on it.
[00:41:11] So give us
[00:41:13] if you've got two or three other cases give us a quick
[00:41:15] overview of some of the key cases you're working
[00:41:17] on and let us know.
[00:41:19] Well, we're very busy
[00:41:21] and as
[00:41:23] you said sort of at the top of the segment
[00:41:25] we deal with free speech, religious liberty,
[00:41:27] sanctity of life, marriage and parental rights
[00:41:29] and we also work internationally
[00:41:31] and that's something that I don't think
[00:41:33] as many people here in the states know.
[00:41:35] Probably our biggest
[00:41:37] international case right now as a member of the
[00:41:39] Finnish parliament, named Pivy Rosanen
[00:41:41] who is facing criminal charges
[00:41:43] over a tweet that she sent
[00:41:45] to her church when her church
[00:41:47] announced they were going to sponsor
[00:41:49] a local pride event.
[00:41:51] Her tweet included scripture and a local prosecutor
[00:41:53] brought criminal hate crime charges
[00:41:55] against her.
[00:41:57] We won that case in the trial court level
[00:41:59] but in Finland
[00:42:01] if the prosecution loses they can appeal
[00:42:03] which we have double jeopardy here
[00:42:05] that doesn't happen here but there
[00:42:07] prosecutor can appeal and he did.
[00:42:09] We won at the intermediate court level, he appealed again
[00:42:11] so now for I think the third time in three years
[00:42:13] we're at
[00:42:15] the equivalent of the Supreme Court in Finland
[00:42:17] representing her
[00:42:19] Anna Lutheran Bishop
[00:42:21] who published a pamphlet
[00:42:23] that Pivy wrote
[00:42:25] on biblical sexuality.
[00:42:27] They charged him as well.
[00:42:29] Just a few seconds tell us how people
[00:42:31] can get in touch with Alliance Defending Freedom?
[00:42:33] Certainly.
[00:42:35] ADFlegal.org
[00:42:37] You can find information about all these cases there.
[00:42:41] If they have a case or if they're concerned
[00:42:43] about it keep there.
[00:42:45] That's how you get in touch with us.
[00:42:47] We operate as non-profits
[00:42:49] so we never charge our clients
[00:42:51] for representing them and that's the best
[00:42:53] place to find us
[00:42:55] ADFlegal.org
[00:42:57] Thank you Leith and Watt for joining us
[00:42:59] and thank you for listening to today's show.
[00:43:01] We hope you do well and this is Maro Matthew
[00:43:03] signing off from Point of View.
[00:43:05] Thank you for joining us.
[00:43:11] There is an old military saying
[00:43:13] if you don't have communications
[00:43:15] you don't have
[00:43:17] anything. Good information
[00:43:19] is the key to success not only
[00:43:21] for those in the military
[00:43:23] but for all of us.
[00:43:25] It's a positive, productive and helpful
[00:43:27] action if you don't have good
[00:43:29] information.
[00:43:31] Point of View Radio's main role
[00:43:33] is to provide good information
[00:43:35] and we distribute that information
[00:43:37] not only here through our radio program
[00:43:39] but online
[00:43:41] and through our various social media channels.
[00:43:43] You know that big tech isn't exactly
[00:43:45] a supporter of what we do
[00:43:47] so you need to take intentional
[00:43:49] steps to keep in touch with us.
[00:43:51] Make sure you follow us on Twitter
[00:43:53] at Point of View RTS
[00:43:55] which of course stands for
[00:43:57] Point of View Radio Talk Show
[00:43:59] at Point of View
[00:44:01] RTS.
[00:44:03] Also make sure you follow us on Facebook
[00:44:05] Point of View Radio Talk Show
[00:44:07] we won't overwhelm you
[00:44:09] usually just one post a day
[00:44:11] with information on our guests
[00:44:13] and what's important. The information
[00:44:15] you need when you need it
[00:44:17] Point of View Radio Talk Show
[00:44:19] on Facebook and
[00:44:21] at Point of View RTS
[00:44:23] on Twitter.
[00:44:28] Point of View is produced
[00:44:30] by Point of View Ministries.