Point of View November 18, 2024 – Hour 2 : Monday Updates

[00:00:04] Across America, Live, this is Point of View, Kirby Anderson.

[00:00:20] Second hour today we're going to focus on all sorts of issues in the news and as the election begins to fade in the distance we will do a program later this week for just a short time about what this might mean for the economy.

[00:00:32] We also have one on artificial intelligence. We're going to be checking in with an organization that we've learned about that does a great job as a pregnancy resource center in Savannah, Georgia.

[00:00:42] All sorts of things that will be happening this week.

[00:00:45] But I thought since we still have people trying to count votes it would be appropriate at least for a few minutes to talk about that.

[00:00:54] And as I said in the last hour if you happen to be with us there's an old adage that when you're in a hole the best thing you can do is stop digging.

[00:01:03] But a friend at least a few of our friends up there in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania don't seem to understand that.

[00:01:09] And you know you're in a bad way when Jonathan Turley who is a registered Democrat I'm pretty sure and a professor of law at George Washington University.

[00:01:20] Or when Judge Kevin Doherty who is a Supreme Court justice in Pennsylvania is critical of you.

[00:01:28] Or when the Washington Post editorial team which is I think clearly left of center is criticizing you.

[00:01:37] You probably are in a hole and it's probably time to stop digging.

[00:01:42] And in case you're not familiar what's going on in Pennsylvania is this.

[00:01:45] It is very clear that the Republican that would be Dave Cormick has won 3.3 million votes and thus has defeated the incumbent who is a Democratic Senator Bob Casey 3.3 million as well.

[00:02:02] But there's a margin of about 17,000 votes.

[00:02:05] So the argument is being made now that some of the counties that would be four of these counties would actually not count votes the way the other 63 counties in Pennsylvania count them.

[00:02:19] The best analogy I can come up with is let's go back to the NBA finals.

[00:02:25] Imagine when the Dallas Mavericks were playing the Boston Celtics.

[00:02:29] They had a rule that when Boston shot from behind the three-point line they got three points.

[00:02:35] But when Boston shot behind the line they get four points.

[00:02:38] Because what we are doing is saying 63 counties in Pennsylvania count what we would consider to be legitimate votes.

[00:02:47] But four counties, Bucks County, Philadelphia, Center County, and Montgomery, they want to count them differently.

[00:02:55] And that has led to a couple of editorials.

[00:02:59] I will read one that we've posted but I'll also read from a few others that just illustrate the point.

[00:03:04] And that is Jonathan Turley.

[00:03:06] You've heard me quote him before as an individual that would be considered a Democrat, a liberal, probably has voted for Joe Biden, probably voted for Kamala Harris, certainly voted for Hillary Clinton.

[00:03:19] But nevertheless, I was very disturbed by the fact that there is a quote from the commissioner in Bucks County who said people violate laws any time they want.

[00:03:29] And he says those words shrugging off an alleged unlawful move last week did not come from some Chicago gangbanger or Washington car thief.

[00:03:39] These words of wisdom came from the Democratic commissioner, Diane Murgasalia, in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

[00:03:47] They came in response to the fact that the Democratic majority on the Election Commission had decided to ignore a binding state Supreme Court ruling in an attempt to engineer the election in the favor of the Democratic incumbent.

[00:04:03] That's Senator Bob Casey.

[00:04:04] And he points out that this is one of the reasons why voters do not necessarily trust Democrats when they keep talking about Donald Trump or Republicans or people whether you don't like or MAGA, fill in the blank, are a threat to democracy.

[00:04:20] Because it seems like, at least to Jonathan Turley, that if anybody is the threat to democracy, it is some of the things that were supposedly done to defend democracy.

[00:04:33] And he gives us actually six illustrations.

[00:04:37] One, seeking to strip Donald Trump from ballots under the unfounded theory rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court.

[00:04:44] Number two, fighting to block opponents of Biden from ballots in the primary and general elections.

[00:04:51] Number three, suing to keep Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on ballots after his withdrawal in swing states in order to confuse voters and reduce the vote for Trump.

[00:05:03] By the way, they did remove Jill from, Jill, what's her last name?

[00:05:09] I'm just blank trying to make a satanic from, no, that's not her name.

[00:05:13] But anyway, the other party candidates, probably just a better way to say that, in some places, but did not remove Robert F. Kennedy.

[00:05:23] Anyway, number four, calling for blocking dozens of incumbent GOP officials and legislators from ballots as insurrectionists.

[00:05:32] Jill Stein, I don't know why I couldn't think of her name, but they were removing Jill Stein from some of those ballots,

[00:05:37] but would not remove Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

[00:05:40] Well, number five, protecting democracy, quote, in quotes, through extensive censorship in history and blacklisting of opponents.

[00:05:49] And then, of course, number six, engaging in open and raw lawfare in the prosecutions of Trump in places like New York and others.

[00:05:56] And so, again, this is Jonathan Turley, hardly a Trump supporter, but nevertheless saying,

[00:06:01] if you want people to believe that you are defending democracy, maybe you shouldn't be doing things that look like you're trying to eliminate democracy.

[00:06:11] And so he says even each one of these attempts failed to stop Trump.

[00:06:16] Nevertheless, you have, of course, almost a desire now on the part of some of the Democrats in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

[00:06:23] and other places to just even drop the pretense of objectivity and to engage in what might be raw partisanship.

[00:06:32] And so, again, you have this very famous quote that simply says,

[00:06:37] well, mostly because I think we all know that the precedent by a court doesn't matter anymore in this country,

[00:06:41] and people violate laws any time they want.

[00:06:44] So for me, if I violate the law, it's because I want the court to pay attention to that.

[00:06:49] And that, of course, is dismissed by some of those comments which are being made.

[00:06:55] And, of course, what they want to do is count what are defective or challenged ballots in four particular counties,

[00:07:03] but not to actually use the same kind of principle in the 63 other counties.

[00:07:10] And for those of you that are a little bit older,

[00:07:13] you might actually remember that that was the big issue in Bush v. Gore in 2000 in Florida,

[00:07:20] in which they wanted to have different standards for counting ballots in different counties

[00:07:26] in order to get a number of them to then allow Al Gore to be president rather than George W. Bush.

[00:07:34] But I think it is also interesting to then go to the Washington Post,

[00:07:39] which is another article that we have posted there as well,

[00:07:43] in which she points out that the editorial board is simply saying that this attempt to defy judicial rulings

[00:07:53] is corrosive to democracy and invites similar behavior in future elections.

[00:07:59] And so they said Democrats would surely protest, they said,

[00:08:02] if a Republican commissioner made the same statement

[00:08:05] to justify tipping the scales for their party's Senate nominee,

[00:08:10] and they would be right.

[00:08:11] They said elections need rules established in advance of the voting,

[00:08:16] and those rules must be applied equally and consistently.

[00:08:20] You know you're in difficult waters when Jonathan Turley,

[00:08:25] when a justice, Kevin Daugherty, and I haven't even read his comments,

[00:08:30] or the Washington Post all say,

[00:08:33] what you're doing is wrong.

[00:08:35] It is time to call the election in Pennsylvania.

[00:08:39] Let's take a break.

[00:08:40] We have a lot more to cover.

[00:08:41] We'll be back right after this.

[00:08:58] This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson.

[00:09:04] Donald Trump won, and Kamala Harris lost for many reasons.

[00:09:07] Certainly the economy was one of the major reasons.

[00:09:10] Pundits and economists tried to tell the voters that the economy was doing just fine.

[00:09:14] The voters didn't agree.

[00:09:16] Neither did the financial markets.

[00:09:17] Stocks rose immediately the moment it was obvious that Trump won.

[00:09:21] The editors of the Wall Street Journal argued that the stock market rally suggested a groundswell of growth optimism.

[00:09:27] Voters have taken off the table a big tax increase and continued regulatory barrage.

[00:09:32] Voters and investors were fearful of looming higher taxes and had already seen enough of a regulatory assault that took place under Biden-Harris.

[00:09:40] The editors do warn that stocks could fall in the future if the Trump policies turn out to be a disappointment.

[00:09:47] Concern over terrorists might be a big concern for Wall Street and on Main Street,

[00:09:51] but those concerns pale in comparison to the last few years of the highest inflation in 40 years and lower real wages.

[00:09:58] If you run the numbers, inflation-adjusted weekly earnings remained lower than when President Biden took office.

[00:10:04] Inflation wasn't the only issue.

[00:10:06] So was interest rates.

[00:10:08] Higher interest rates made it even more difficult to buy a home or to afford a new car.

[00:10:13] The average mortgage payment doubled over the last four years.

[00:10:16] The bottom 40% of earners accounted for just 6% of new auto purchases last year compared to 18% in 2019.

[00:10:25] Millions of voters who didn't vote for Trump in 2016 and 2020 voted for him this time.

[00:10:31] A significant percentage of them never voted for a Republican for President.

[00:10:35] They were ready to say bye to Bidenomics.

[00:10:38] I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

[00:10:46] For a free booklet on a biblical view on big data, go to viewpoints.info slash data.

[00:10:53] That's viewpoints.info slash data.

[00:10:57] You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth.

[00:11:03] Back once again, isn't it interesting that we are still two months away before Donald Trump takes the oath of office,

[00:11:10] and yet you're hearing an incredible outcry already about the Government Efficiency Commission,

[00:11:18] and I think it's kind of interesting, and I'm calling it a commission,

[00:11:21] although the technical term is Department of Government Efficiency.

[00:11:24] I'm going to come back to that in just a minute because it's not truly a department.

[00:11:27] I'll explain that in a minute.

[00:11:29] But you're having criticism about what Elon Musk and Vivek Ramoshami are going to do,

[00:11:34] and they haven't even begun because they don't have the authority to do so.

[00:11:38] And then also there is just the hue and cry and the outrage about deportations,

[00:11:44] none of which are, again, taking place right now.

[00:11:47] But it just shows you what we are in for once Donald Trump does take the oath of office in January 20th.

[00:11:55] But today is November 18th, so we still have two months of this.

[00:11:59] But let me, if I can, try to, in this segment, deal with the economy.

[00:12:03] Next segment, we'll deal with one of the other issues, probably deportation and immigration.

[00:12:09] And that is, first of all, this is going to be called a Department of Government Efficiency.

[00:12:16] That is technically not correct.

[00:12:19] So let me say that now.

[00:12:20] We'll use the term because that's what it's called.

[00:12:23] But the president cannot set up a real department in the cabinet.

[00:12:31] And besides, the goal is to eventually disband it.

[00:12:36] So in some respects, it's not a department.

[00:12:39] It would require an act of Congress to create an actual Department of Government Efficiency

[00:12:44] to then set up an office and all of the rest.

[00:12:47] So I think it's best called a commission.

[00:12:49] But since they love the name Department of Government Efficiency, and then it's D-O-G-E Doge, like the Doge coin, I guess we'll have that.

[00:12:58] Just again to remind you, the goal, we'll see how they keep that goal,

[00:13:03] is to complete the work of this Department of Government Efficiency by July 4th, 2026,

[00:13:10] which, again, you've had Elon Musk and Vivek Ramachwamy saying this would be a perfect gift to America

[00:13:18] on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

[00:13:23] And, of course, some of the other things you've been hearing them say are,

[00:13:26] we're going to begin to eliminate certain agencies.

[00:13:31] The other day, Elon Musk in one of the rallies for Donald Trump said,

[00:13:35] why do we need, he used different words, but we'll clean it up,

[00:13:38] why do we need 428 agencies?

[00:13:41] Why do we even need 100?

[00:13:43] And so the argument is some of these agencies will cease to exist.

[00:13:49] But let's recognize the last time we had a true commission,

[00:13:54] that would be the Grace Commission during the 1980s,

[00:13:56] paid for by the Grace individuals with private funds.

[00:14:02] It was actually run, it provided recommendations,

[00:14:07] and very few of those actually were implemented.

[00:14:11] So we'll see what we end up with this time.

[00:14:13] But my second article, again, helps us understand what might at least be eliminated,

[00:14:20] and that is, of course, the focus of this idea of a government efficiency department,

[00:14:26] is to eliminate waste and fraud.

[00:14:29] We will see.

[00:14:30] But we also can see that one of the first targets is what they call many of the transgender initiatives,

[00:14:40] many of the woke DEI programs,

[00:14:43] which, as this particular commentator says,

[00:14:47] would do nothing to promote but promote racism and divide Americans.

[00:14:51] So, again, one of the things that Elon Musk has talked about is eliminating tax dollars

[00:14:58] for funding LGBTQ programs, even in foreign countries.

[00:15:03] If you're not familiar, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development,

[00:15:10] U.S.AID, have spent millions funding transgender activism,

[00:15:15] which includes everything from trans surgeries to so-called gender-affirming care

[00:15:21] in many places around the world.

[00:15:24] And you think that would probably be on the cutting block first.

[00:15:29] But then, of course, there have been all the other related-to issues

[00:15:33] that are not just through the State Department,

[00:15:36] but have developed in the areas of the military or the Veterans Administration.

[00:15:42] Sarah Arnold goes on to say that the Biden-Harris administration

[00:15:46] has ignored hundreds of thousands of claims

[00:15:48] and instead focused on establishing at least 500 DEI initiatives

[00:15:53] within the Veterans Administration and funding LGBTQ programs.

[00:15:58] The department spends millions of dollars each year to fund woke programs

[00:16:02] such as diversity training instead of prioritizing veterans.

[00:16:07] And then the Department of Government Efficiency

[00:16:11] would also want to target the military,

[00:16:14] in particular the military's use of similar woke programs,

[00:16:19] which frankly have driven down recruitment rates.

[00:16:23] That is also something that Pete will actually get into a little bit later,

[00:16:29] Hegseth, but we will certainly talk about that later in the hour,

[00:16:33] so we'll get to that in just a minute.

[00:16:35] And also then just has looked at the fact that this is expensive

[00:16:40] because even the current president, President Joe Biden,

[00:16:44] announced that at least six million hours and a half a million dollars were spent

[00:16:49] actually teaching the woke agenda to people in the military.

[00:16:54] So when you look at this, there are going to be some attempts to reduce waste and fraud,

[00:17:00] but we already have a little bit of a hint from some of the statements being made by Elon Musk

[00:17:06] and by Vic Aromaswamy that these are going to be targeted in priorities,

[00:17:12] and the first ones they want to go after seem to be a lot of the DEI or woke types of programs

[00:17:19] which we are spending time, energy, and money on in the federal government.

[00:17:24] So it gives you a little bit of an idea of where that goes.

[00:17:28] Just before we take a break, let's, if we can, talk about something related,

[00:17:31] and that is the whole issue of the economy,

[00:17:35] and that has to do with the fact that my commentary today is entitled,

[00:17:40] Buy to Bidenomics.

[00:17:41] This comes actually from a statement that was actually made by the Wall Street Journal,

[00:17:47] and the editors of the Wall Street Journal believe that there are many reasons

[00:17:52] why Donald Trump won and why Kamala Harris lost,

[00:17:55] but one very significant one was the economy.

[00:18:00] Even though you had pundits and economists and even politicians

[00:18:05] trying to tell the voters that the economy was doing just fine,

[00:18:08] the voters did not agree, neither did the financial markets.

[00:18:12] If you start looking at the stock market right now,

[00:18:15] the price of Bitcoin and everything else, it's gone up really significantly,

[00:18:18] and so again, the editors of the Wall Street Journal put it this way,

[00:18:23] that this was maybe a groundswell of growth optimism.

[00:18:27] Voters, because they elected Donald Trump, were able to take off the table

[00:18:33] what would have been a looming big tax increase,

[00:18:36] and even a continuing of what they call a regulatory barrage,

[00:18:41] and so we will see, of course, what happens there,

[00:18:44] but they also point out that there are going to be some other issues

[00:18:50] besides just the issue of taxes.

[00:18:54] One of those was, of course, inflation,

[00:18:57] but another was interest rates,

[00:18:59] because in an effort to try to tamp down inflation,

[00:19:03] certainly the Federal Reserve raised the interest rates,

[00:19:07] and this made it more difficult to even buy a home or to afford a new car.

[00:19:14] The mortgage payments essentially doubled over the four years

[00:19:18] because of rising interest rates,

[00:19:20] and the statistic I have here,

[00:19:23] the bottom 40% of earners accounted for just 6% of all new car purchases,

[00:19:31] which was 18% back in 2019.

[00:19:35] So you can see a real difference.

[00:19:38] And I have a comment or two coming out next week,

[00:19:42] a commentary which has the provocative title,

[00:19:45] Milton Friedman's Revenge.

[00:19:48] Milton Friedman, as you might know,

[00:19:49] was an economist best known for saying that inflation,

[00:19:52] always and everywhere, is a monetary phenomenon,

[00:19:56] and yet candidate Joe Biden, four years ago,

[00:19:59] announced that Milton Friedman isn't running the show anymore.

[00:20:02] Of course, he wasn't running the show then,

[00:20:04] but he certainly wasn't there because the argument was,

[00:20:08] we can spend and it will have no negative impact.

[00:20:12] And so we had, of course, the American Rescue Plan,

[00:20:16] we had the Infrastructure Bill,

[00:20:18] we had the CHIPS Act,

[00:20:19] and then we had the intentionally misnamed

[00:20:22] Inflation Reduction Act,

[00:20:24] in which we were spending more and more and more federal money,

[00:20:28] and eventually, guess what happens?

[00:20:31] It was a fact that inflation,

[00:20:31] ran up federal deficits,

[00:20:33] and as a result, inflation exploded.

[00:20:37] And of course, people, even at the time,

[00:20:39] were warning that would happen.

[00:20:41] The economist Larry Summers,

[00:20:43] who had actually also served as Barack Obama's Treasury Secretary,

[00:20:47] said that this would set off inflationary pressures,

[00:20:51] and instead he was mocked.

[00:20:53] But it turns out he was right,

[00:20:54] and the skeptics were wrong.

[00:20:56] So that's why some people have called this election

[00:20:59] Milton Friedman's revenge.

[00:21:01] I think you're going to have a real dedication

[00:21:04] to trying to reduce the size and scope of the federal government

[00:21:08] so that we don't have these massive deficits,

[00:21:11] so that we don't have to actually fund them

[00:21:14] by printing more money,

[00:21:15] and thus maybe tame inflation.

[00:21:19] We'll have a lot more to cover.

[00:21:20] Let's take a break.

[00:21:21] We'll come back with more right after this.

[00:21:30] In 19th century London,

[00:21:32] two towering historical figures did battle,

[00:21:36] not with guns and bombs,

[00:21:37] but words and ideas.

[00:21:40] London was home to Karl Marx,

[00:21:42] the father of communism,

[00:21:44] and legendary Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon.

[00:21:47] London was in many ways the center of the world,

[00:21:50] economically, militarily, and intellectually.

[00:21:54] Marx sought to destroy religion,

[00:21:56] the family, and everything the Bible supports.

[00:21:59] Spurgeon stood against him,

[00:22:01] warning of socialism's dangers.

[00:22:04] Spurgeon understood Christianity

[00:22:05] is not just religious truth.

[00:22:08] It is truth for all of life.

[00:22:11] Where do you find men with that kind of wisdom

[00:22:13] to stand against darkness today?

[00:22:15] Get the light you need on today's most pressing issues

[00:22:19] delivered to your inbox

[00:22:20] when you sign up for the Viewpoints commentary

[00:22:23] at pointofview.net slash signup.

[00:22:27] Every weekday, in less than two minutes,

[00:22:30] you'll learn how to be a person of light

[00:22:32] to stand against darkness in our time.

[00:22:35] It's free, so visit pointofview.net slash signup right now.

[00:22:40] pointofview.net slash signup.

[00:22:48] Point of View will continue after this.

[00:22:58] You are listening to Point of View.

[00:23:02] The opinions expressed on Point of View

[00:23:05] do not necessarily reflect the views

[00:23:07] of the management or staff of this station.

[00:23:10] And now, here again, is Kirby Anderson.

[00:23:13] Final half hour.

[00:23:14] Let's, if we can, for just a few minutes,

[00:23:16] talk about the fact that you need to exercise

[00:23:18] a great deal of discernment,

[00:23:20] especially when you see some of the media reports.

[00:23:22] And a good illustration of that has been to watch

[00:23:26] what has happened after the election of Donald Trump.

[00:23:30] Of course, the other day you saw that

[00:23:33] President Joe Biden had Donald Trump

[00:23:35] in the Oval Office,

[00:23:37] and as everybody was smiles,

[00:23:40] and everybody was friendly.

[00:23:41] And of course, you had people at the time saying,

[00:23:44] didn't you refer to him as Hitler,

[00:23:46] and as a fascist, and a threat to democracy?

[00:23:48] And then you invited him into the Oval Office,

[00:23:51] and it was all smiles,

[00:23:53] which sort of says,

[00:23:55] well, I didn't really mean anything that I said.

[00:23:57] Well, this has become even more intense

[00:24:00] when you've looked at the media.

[00:24:02] If you're not familiar,

[00:24:04] MSNBC has, of course,

[00:24:05] Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski.

[00:24:08] Now, I would not be allowed to,

[00:24:11] even on this program,

[00:24:13] say some of the nasty things

[00:24:15] they've said about Donald Trump over the years.

[00:24:17] Some of the tame ones have been

[00:24:19] Hitler and Mussolini and fascist

[00:24:23] and all the rest,

[00:24:24] and you can think of some really awful things

[00:24:26] you would say about

[00:24:27] the former President of the United States.

[00:24:30] And so, interestingly enough,

[00:24:32] then they decided that they wanted

[00:24:34] to actually meet with Donald Trump.

[00:24:36] Now, why would you meet with somebody

[00:24:38] if you're convinced to seize Hitler?

[00:24:40] And, of course, then they came on the air

[00:24:43] to say that they wanted to meet

[00:24:44] with Donald Trump in order to,

[00:24:46] quote, reset their relationship.

[00:24:49] Now, I've got a couple of posts here

[00:24:51] that have come from a variety

[00:24:52] of different individuals.

[00:24:54] Geiger Capital said, you know,

[00:24:56] MSNBC's Joe Scarborough and Mika

[00:24:58] went to Mar-a-Lago to meet with Trump

[00:25:00] and agreed to reset the relationship.

[00:25:02] Once again, Democrats never actually thought

[00:25:05] Trump was Hitler or a fascist dictator.

[00:25:07] It says, if you were propagandized,

[00:25:09] it's okay, you got played.

[00:25:11] Johnny Mega, I don't know who he is,

[00:25:13] said, you know, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski

[00:25:15] didn't go to Mar-a-Lago to achieve unity with Trump.

[00:25:18] They went because their network is down 50% in viewership

[00:25:22] and is on the verge of being sold.

[00:25:24] So they went and kissed the ring.

[00:25:28] Now, that's, of course,

[00:25:30] what some people have said on X.

[00:25:32] You can go and go to Truth Social

[00:25:34] to see what Trump said.

[00:25:35] He suggested that actually Joe Scarborough

[00:25:38] was like a dog that had been scolded

[00:25:40] and Mika was gracious and all the rest.

[00:25:43] But the point I'm making is

[00:25:44] whether you agree with their possession,

[00:25:47] their interpretation of the meeting,

[00:25:50] Donald Trump's interpretation.

[00:25:51] There was an interesting comment

[00:25:53] that somebody made the other day.

[00:25:54] Imagine if Kamala Harris

[00:25:56] was the incoming president right now

[00:25:58] and Fox News wanted to go

[00:25:59] and reset the relationship.

[00:26:01] Do you think she'd even take the meeting?

[00:26:02] And Donald Trump did.

[00:26:04] But the point I want you to understand is

[00:26:06] words sometimes can get misused very quickly,

[00:26:11] especially in a campaign.

[00:26:13] And you're going to, of course, hear

[00:26:15] certainly very soon.

[00:26:17] The honeymoon will be over almost the day

[00:26:20] he places his hand on the Bible

[00:26:22] and takes the oath of office.

[00:26:23] But certainly as we get into

[00:26:26] some of the very controversial programs,

[00:26:29] one of those is to actually defund

[00:26:32] different parts of the federal government

[00:26:34] to close down unnecessary federal agencies.

[00:26:38] The other one you're going to run into

[00:26:40] is the issue of deportations.

[00:26:42] And I thought for just a minute

[00:26:43] I would come back to that

[00:26:45] because I want to, again, warn you

[00:26:47] that as soon as these deportations begin,

[00:26:51] and they haven't begun,

[00:26:53] you'd think they have

[00:26:54] if you would just listen to

[00:26:55] the governor of Illinois

[00:26:56] and the governor of Massachusetts,

[00:26:58] but nevertheless,

[00:26:59] they have not begun,

[00:27:00] that you would certainly see the media

[00:27:03] try to find the most sympathetic individual

[00:27:06] that is being deported

[00:27:08] and use that to represent

[00:27:10] all of the deportations.

[00:27:12] I've tried to explain to you,

[00:27:13] and I even have a commentary coming out

[00:27:15] that goes into it in some detail

[00:27:17] about the fact that Tom Holman,

[00:27:20] who is the newly designated border czar,

[00:27:23] has really said that there's a three-step process.

[00:27:26] And the first is to focus on

[00:27:29] what are called national security threats.

[00:27:32] The second would be to focus on people

[00:27:35] with criminal records.

[00:27:37] And then third would eventually be

[00:27:39] some of the others

[00:27:40] that are actually outlined in the memo

[00:27:43] that was produced actually

[00:27:46] under the Biden administration,

[00:27:48] under the current Secretary of Homeland Security,

[00:27:52] Alexander Mehoris.

[00:27:53] And so let's understand

[00:27:56] that if you then hear individuals saying,

[00:27:59] I'm going to do all I can

[00:28:01] to fight you deporting my residents,

[00:28:04] we're talking about, at the moment,

[00:28:07] residents, they're not citizens,

[00:28:10] residents, migrants,

[00:28:12] who actually are a threat

[00:28:14] to national security.

[00:28:15] They're individuals that have been identified

[00:28:18] as either being terrorists

[00:28:21] or come from a terrorist country

[00:28:24] where we are uncertain

[00:28:26] of their motivations.

[00:28:27] Then we're also talking about

[00:28:29] deporting individuals

[00:28:31] who have a criminal record

[00:28:32] either in this country

[00:28:34] and or, maybe both,

[00:28:36] in their country of origin.

[00:28:38] Again, as I pointed out,

[00:28:41] we have 1.2 million people

[00:28:43] in this country

[00:28:44] that have been through

[00:28:45] a full legal due process

[00:28:48] and have received

[00:28:49] a final deportation order

[00:28:52] from an immigration judge.

[00:28:53] And that 1.2

[00:28:55] is from September of a year ago.

[00:28:57] I haven't seen the latest numbers.

[00:28:59] Isn't that interesting?

[00:29:00] You hadn't heard those numbers.

[00:29:01] They probably could have posted them

[00:29:02] in October.

[00:29:03] Didn't want to even mention those

[00:29:05] during the campaign, obviously.

[00:29:07] Some people estimate

[00:29:08] it could be 1.5 million

[00:29:10] to 1.6 million individuals.

[00:29:12] But again,

[00:29:13] these people have been

[00:29:13] through a legal process

[00:29:15] and are supposed to be deported.

[00:29:18] Now, the goal of Tom Holman

[00:29:21] and the people that will actually

[00:29:23] be deporting these individuals

[00:29:25] is to find those individuals

[00:29:27] and then put them on a bus

[00:29:29] or an airplane

[00:29:30] and deport them.

[00:29:32] That's the plan.

[00:29:33] And so you can see

[00:29:35] that this is something

[00:29:36] that is not that controversial,

[00:29:39] but the media will make it controversial.

[00:29:42] They will, in many cases,

[00:29:44] probably follow

[00:29:46] what is called

[00:29:46] the Meorkas Memorandum.

[00:29:48] That's a memorandum

[00:29:50] created by the current

[00:29:51] Secretary of Homeland Security

[00:29:53] under the Biden administration.

[00:29:55] And they have,

[00:29:56] as their first priority,

[00:29:58] what?

[00:29:58] And I'm now quoting

[00:30:00] from the memo.

[00:30:01] Apprehension and removal

[00:30:02] of non-citizens

[00:30:04] who are a threat

[00:30:04] to our national security,

[00:30:06] public safety,

[00:30:07] and border security.

[00:30:08] Well, the first group

[00:30:09] is pretty easy.

[00:30:10] That's terrorists and spies.

[00:30:12] Second group,

[00:30:14] very easy.

[00:30:15] Those are criminals.

[00:30:16] What about that third group?

[00:30:18] Those are immigrants

[00:30:19] who were apprehended

[00:30:20] after November 2020.

[00:30:23] And so that would be

[00:30:24] that third group.

[00:30:25] But you can see

[00:30:26] that it isn't

[00:30:27] that controversial

[00:30:28] if you really start

[00:30:30] looking at

[00:30:31] what is going to be done

[00:30:33] and how it's going

[00:30:35] to be done.

[00:30:36] Many of these people

[00:30:37] should have been deported

[00:30:39] under the Biden-Harris

[00:30:41] administration.

[00:30:41] Why weren't they?

[00:30:43] Because they were running

[00:30:45] a political campaign.

[00:30:47] There was no willingness

[00:30:49] on the part of Joe Biden

[00:30:51] to do what his previous administration

[00:30:55] under Barack Obama

[00:30:56] had done.

[00:30:57] You have heard me say this before,

[00:30:58] that there were actually

[00:31:00] liberal groups

[00:31:00] that referred to Barack Obama

[00:31:03] as the deporter-in-chief

[00:31:05] because he had deported

[00:31:06] so many individuals.

[00:31:08] And then it's almost like

[00:31:10] a memo went out

[00:31:11] from Democrats saying,

[00:31:12] let's not deport

[00:31:13] these individuals.

[00:31:14] Let's keep them around.

[00:31:16] Maybe we can then pass

[00:31:18] a comprehensive

[00:31:19] immigration reform

[00:31:20] and these individuals

[00:31:22] that are here right now

[00:31:23] could then be

[00:31:24] future Democratic voters.

[00:31:26] And I think you're going to see

[00:31:28] even more of a push for this

[00:31:29] because if you lose

[00:31:31] an election,

[00:31:32] as was lost,

[00:31:34] not just at the presidential level,

[00:31:36] just a few minutes ago,

[00:31:38] we were talking about

[00:31:39] losing his senatorial election

[00:31:40] in Pennsylvania.

[00:31:43] When you talk about

[00:31:44] an individual

[00:31:45] that has been serving there

[00:31:47] as first his father,

[00:31:49] now as an individual,

[00:31:50] that I think is going to be

[00:31:53] a wake-up call saying,

[00:31:54] if we're going to be able

[00:31:56] to win future elections,

[00:31:58] we can't depend on

[00:32:00] the working class

[00:32:02] that used to be

[00:32:03] very significant

[00:32:04] to the Democratic Party.

[00:32:06] We can't depend on

[00:32:08] many of those individuals

[00:32:09] who now have converted

[00:32:11] to becoming Republicans.

[00:32:13] We can't seem to even depend

[00:32:14] on the Hispanic vote

[00:32:16] necessarily always to help us.

[00:32:18] So we need to bring in

[00:32:19] other individuals

[00:32:20] or use the individuals

[00:32:23] that are here right now

[00:32:24] who cannot vote

[00:32:24] and give them the ability to vote.

[00:32:27] So you can see

[00:32:27] that this deportation issue

[00:32:29] is going to be controversial.

[00:32:31] I understand that.

[00:32:33] There are probably going to be

[00:32:34] some choices that will be made

[00:32:36] that some of us

[00:32:37] may disagree with.

[00:32:38] There may be some attempts

[00:32:40] or even techniques

[00:32:42] that are used

[00:32:43] that may be of controversy

[00:32:44] as well.

[00:32:45] But if indeed

[00:32:46] we are going to follow

[00:32:48] the rule of law,

[00:32:49] we have probably now,

[00:32:51] I guess,

[00:32:52] anywhere from 1.5

[00:32:54] to 1.6 million people

[00:32:57] who are in this country

[00:32:58] illegally.

[00:33:00] They've had full

[00:33:01] legal due process.

[00:33:03] they have received

[00:33:04] a final deportation order

[00:33:06] from an immigration judge.

[00:33:08] And I have this theory

[00:33:10] that some of those individuals

[00:33:11] will self-deport

[00:33:13] rather than face

[00:33:15] any kind of embarrassment

[00:33:17] or even difficulty

[00:33:18] in that regard.

[00:33:20] Might as well pick that up

[00:33:21] and head back

[00:33:22] to your country of origin

[00:33:23] other than having somebody

[00:33:25] grab you

[00:33:26] at a workplace site

[00:33:28] or in your home.

[00:33:29] And so we'll see

[00:33:31] what happens.

[00:33:32] But again,

[00:33:32] a good reminder

[00:33:34] that you need to have

[00:33:35] some discernment

[00:33:36] because there are going

[00:33:37] to be some things

[00:33:38] that the press

[00:33:39] is going to cover

[00:33:40] in ways that might

[00:33:41] not necessarily

[00:33:42] be completely accurate.

[00:33:43] We'll take a break.

[00:33:44] Be back with more

[00:33:45] right after this.

[00:33:55] You're listening to

[00:33:56] Point of View,

[00:33:58] your listener-supported

[00:33:59] source for truth.

[00:34:01] Back for just a few more minutes,

[00:34:02] let me just mention again

[00:34:03] that whenever you see

[00:34:05] a story out there

[00:34:07] on the Internet,

[00:34:08] sometimes it's important

[00:34:09] to read a little bit more

[00:34:10] to get some of the background

[00:34:12] on it.

[00:34:12] If you see somebody

[00:34:14] say something

[00:34:15] on television

[00:34:16] or even on this radio program,

[00:34:17] check it out.

[00:34:18] We encourage you to do so.

[00:34:20] And it illustrates again

[00:34:21] the reason that

[00:34:23] I tend to be somewhat skeptical

[00:34:24] about the way in which

[00:34:26] the media covers stories.

[00:34:27] The latest one

[00:34:28] has to do with

[00:34:29] an Associated Press story

[00:34:31] suggesting that

[00:34:32] the individual

[00:34:33] that Donald Trump,

[00:34:34] who is the president-elect,

[00:34:36] has tapped

[00:34:36] as Secretary of Defense,

[00:34:38] Pete Higseth,

[00:34:39] is a white supremacist.

[00:34:41] You say,

[00:34:41] where did that come from?

[00:34:42] Well, actually,

[00:34:43] there was an argument

[00:34:45] being made a while back,

[00:34:46] even before he was tapped

[00:34:48] in that regard,

[00:34:49] because when he was supposed

[00:34:52] to be a part

[00:34:53] of the National Guard

[00:34:54] during the Joe Biden's

[00:34:56] 2021 inauguration,

[00:34:58] somebody saw a tattoo

[00:34:59] on his arm

[00:35:00] and said,

[00:35:01] well, that must mean

[00:35:02] he's a white supremacist,

[00:35:03] because it was a tattoo,

[00:35:05] basically,

[00:35:06] of a cross

[00:35:07] with the Latin phrase

[00:35:09] Deus Volt.

[00:35:10] Now, again,

[00:35:11] I recognize most people

[00:35:12] don't know Latin.

[00:35:13] They don't even understand

[00:35:15] why a person

[00:35:16] would have a cross

[00:35:17] tattoo,

[00:35:19] but if you understand

[00:35:20] maybe his background,

[00:35:22] you would.

[00:35:23] And the bottom line

[00:35:24] is very simple.

[00:35:25] The Latin phrase

[00:35:27] Deus Volt

[00:35:27] is God wills it.

[00:35:30] It is something

[00:35:31] that military people

[00:35:32] have done.

[00:35:33] But first of all,

[00:35:35] I think I shared

[00:35:35] the other day

[00:35:36] when they even

[00:35:36] introduced him,

[00:35:37] they introduced him

[00:35:38] as a former Fox News host,

[00:35:40] never mentioned

[00:35:41] his military functions

[00:35:42] or activity

[00:35:44] or anything.

[00:35:44] And I recognize

[00:35:45] not everybody likes

[00:35:46] Pete Hegseth,

[00:35:47] and not everybody's convinced

[00:35:48] he should be

[00:35:49] Secretary of Defense.

[00:35:50] That's not the issue.

[00:35:51] The issue is

[00:35:52] that you have

[00:35:53] an article

[00:35:54] claiming that he's

[00:35:55] a white supremacist

[00:35:56] because he has

[00:35:57] a cross

[00:35:57] and it has

[00:35:59] the Latin term

[00:35:59] Deus Volt

[00:36:00] and I doubt

[00:36:01] anybody that

[00:36:02] really works at it

[00:36:03] even knows

[00:36:04] what it means.

[00:36:05] And so,

[00:36:05] that's why you had

[00:36:07] Vice President-elect

[00:36:08] J.D. Vance

[00:36:09] calling out

[00:36:10] the Associated Press

[00:36:11] for their article

[00:36:12] accusing the publication

[00:36:13] of being anti-Christian.

[00:36:15] What he posted

[00:36:16] on X was this,

[00:36:17] they're attacking

[00:36:18] Pete Hegseth

[00:36:19] for having a Christian

[00:36:20] motto tattooed

[00:36:21] on his arm.

[00:36:22] This is discussing

[00:36:23] anti-Christian

[00:36:24] bigotry

[00:36:24] from the AP

[00:36:25] and the entire

[00:36:26] organization

[00:36:27] should be ashamed

[00:36:29] of itself.

[00:36:30] And the point

[00:36:31] I'm making is

[00:36:31] you're going to see

[00:36:33] these kind of articles,

[00:36:33] they're going to come out,

[00:36:35] you're going to hear

[00:36:36] all sorts of claims

[00:36:37] being made,

[00:36:38] I'm sure we're going

[00:36:39] to hear again

[00:36:39] about Hitler

[00:36:40] and fascists

[00:36:41] and white supremacists

[00:36:42] and all the rest,

[00:36:43] and so it's just,

[00:36:45] I think,

[00:36:45] important for anybody

[00:36:47] that is going to have

[00:36:48] any level of discernment

[00:36:49] to check it out

[00:36:51] and look for other sources

[00:36:52] and to learn

[00:36:53] some of that as well.

[00:36:54] Of course,

[00:36:55] we've had a chance

[00:36:56] to meet Pete Hegseth,

[00:36:57] not only interviewed him

[00:36:58] twice,

[00:36:58] but he spoke at

[00:36:59] one of our banquets,

[00:37:00] heard a lot about

[00:37:01] his testimony

[00:37:02] as a Christian

[00:37:04] because he has made

[00:37:05] some really bad mistakes

[00:37:06] in the previous part

[00:37:07] of his life

[00:37:08] and those will come out,

[00:37:09] I'm sure,

[00:37:10] but I also think

[00:37:12] that he has recognized

[00:37:13] that he's had to make

[00:37:15] some significant changes.

[00:37:16] But again,

[00:37:17] the point is not

[00:37:18] whether or not

[00:37:19] he should be

[00:37:19] Secretary of Defense,

[00:37:20] the point is

[00:37:21] Associated Press

[00:37:22] just freely

[00:37:24] throws around terms

[00:37:26] like white supremacist

[00:37:27] simply because

[00:37:28] you have a motto

[00:37:29] that is on

[00:37:31] somebody's tattoo.

[00:37:32] By the way,

[00:37:32] I don't think

[00:37:33] anybody here

[00:37:34] at Point of View

[00:37:35] has a tattoo,

[00:37:36] but I'll let you know

[00:37:38] that if you ever

[00:37:38] watch our

[00:37:40] various video

[00:37:41] streaming,

[00:37:42] you will see

[00:37:43] that some of the

[00:37:44] guests we have in here

[00:37:45] have tattoos,

[00:37:46] and I think

[00:37:47] a tattoo

[00:37:47] with that Latin

[00:37:48] phrase is not

[00:37:49] as controversial

[00:37:50] as the Associated Press

[00:37:51] might want to say.

[00:37:53] But one last comment

[00:37:55] and that is

[00:37:55] an article

[00:37:56] that came out

[00:37:57] recently

[00:37:58] about

[00:37:59] communist China

[00:38:00] has not been

[00:38:01] idle

[00:38:02] while the U.S.

[00:38:03] has focused

[00:38:04] on the election.

[00:38:05] The two writers here

[00:38:06] are pointing out

[00:38:07] the fact that

[00:38:08] the People's Republic

[00:38:09] of China,

[00:38:10] which is of course

[00:38:10] communist China,

[00:38:11] have been very much

[00:38:13] working

[00:38:14] to begin

[00:38:15] to manipulate

[00:38:16] the circumstances

[00:38:18] around some

[00:38:18] of our allies.

[00:38:19] The first

[00:38:20] has been

[00:38:21] how they've

[00:38:22] really begun

[00:38:23] to direct

[00:38:24] their aggression

[00:38:25] towards the

[00:38:26] Republic of the

[00:38:27] Philippines.

[00:38:28] Now again,

[00:38:29] if you're not

[00:38:30] familiar from

[00:38:31] geography,

[00:38:31] the Philippines

[00:38:32] are very important.

[00:38:34] They are vital

[00:38:35] to U.S.

[00:38:36] interest

[00:38:36] because that

[00:38:38] provides

[00:38:38] an opportunity

[00:38:39] for us to have

[00:38:40] access to bases

[00:38:41] there in the

[00:38:42] Philippines.

[00:38:42] that provides

[00:38:44] safety for the

[00:38:45] commerce

[00:38:45] as well as

[00:38:47] safety for our

[00:38:47] naval forces

[00:38:48] and our military

[00:38:49] forces in the

[00:38:50] South China Sea.

[00:38:51] As a matter of

[00:38:52] fact,

[00:38:52] one-third

[00:38:53] or approximately

[00:38:55] five trillion

[00:38:56] dollars worth

[00:38:57] of goods

[00:38:57] make their way

[00:38:59] through the

[00:38:59] South China Sea

[00:39:01] each year.

[00:39:02] Thus,

[00:39:03] very important

[00:39:04] and certainly

[00:39:05] important not only

[00:39:06] to the United States

[00:39:07] but to other

[00:39:07] allies like Japan.

[00:39:09] Well,

[00:39:10] Manila has been

[00:39:10] being pressured

[00:39:11] by the People's

[00:39:12] Republic of China,

[00:39:13] the Communist

[00:39:14] China Party,

[00:39:15] into changing

[00:39:17] some things

[00:39:18] and really

[00:39:19] working to

[00:39:20] change what

[00:39:21] are called

[00:39:21] the baselines

[00:39:22] and even

[00:39:23] trying to push

[00:39:24] them back

[00:39:26] from what

[00:39:26] they want to

[00:39:27] call

[00:39:28] territorial

[00:39:28] waters.

[00:39:30] And so as a

[00:39:31] result,

[00:39:31] make it possible

[00:39:32] for China

[00:39:33] to exert

[00:39:34] more of

[00:39:35] a military

[00:39:36] influence

[00:39:37] in that regard.

[00:39:39] They've also

[00:39:40] expanded

[00:39:41] their agenda

[00:39:42] in the

[00:39:42] South China Sea

[00:39:43] against Indonesia

[00:39:45] by pressuring

[00:39:47] what's going on

[00:39:47] in Jakarta

[00:39:48] and other

[00:39:49] places.

[00:39:50] And so then

[00:39:51] you can see

[00:39:52] that if you're

[00:39:53] a big country,

[00:39:54] maybe you can

[00:39:55] resist some

[00:39:56] of that.

[00:39:56] But as this

[00:39:57] article goes on

[00:39:58] and points out,

[00:39:59] small or even

[00:40:00] medium-sized

[00:40:01] states

[00:40:01] oftentimes

[00:40:02] are more

[00:40:03] tempted

[00:40:03] to actually

[00:40:05] defer

[00:40:06] and even

[00:40:07] yield to

[00:40:08] the Communist

[00:40:09] Chinese Party

[00:40:10] because that

[00:40:11] bullying could

[00:40:12] affect them

[00:40:13] and that I

[00:40:14] think has

[00:40:14] the negative

[00:40:15] impact of

[00:40:16] emboldening

[00:40:17] the Communist

[00:40:18] Chinese Party

[00:40:19] and maybe

[00:40:20] having them

[00:40:20] want to

[00:40:21] escalate

[00:40:21] their demands.

[00:40:23] But the

[00:40:23] other one

[00:40:24] that's concerned

[00:40:25] apart from

[00:40:25] Indonesia

[00:40:26] and the

[00:40:26] Philippines

[00:40:27] is what's

[00:40:28] happening

[00:40:28] there in

[00:40:29] Taiwan.

[00:40:30] As you

[00:40:31] well know,

[00:40:31] we've talked

[00:40:32] about the

[00:40:32] importance of

[00:40:33] Taiwan,

[00:40:34] and yet

[00:40:35] this is,

[00:40:36] I think,

[00:40:37] one of the

[00:40:37] prizes that

[00:40:38] China wants

[00:40:39] to take over

[00:40:40] Taiwan,

[00:40:42] and it's a

[00:40:42] place where

[00:40:43] a very

[00:40:44] significant

[00:40:45] majority of

[00:40:46] the semiconductor

[00:40:47] chips that we

[00:40:48] use and other

[00:40:49] countries around

[00:40:50] the world use

[00:40:51] are manufactured.

[00:40:52] And so

[00:40:53] violations of

[00:40:55] the Taiwanese

[00:40:56] airspace have

[00:40:58] increased by

[00:40:59] 300% since

[00:41:01] May of this

[00:41:02] year.

[00:41:03] And this

[00:41:04] is something

[00:41:04] that is a

[00:41:05] great concern

[00:41:06] as well.

[00:41:07] The concern

[00:41:09] is most

[00:41:09] importantly that

[00:41:10] we still have

[00:41:11] two months

[00:41:12] before the

[00:41:13] Trump

[00:41:13] administration

[00:41:14] takes over.

[00:41:15] I just

[00:41:16] shared with

[00:41:17] you the

[00:41:17] possibility that

[00:41:18] we may or

[00:41:18] may not have

[00:41:19] a Secretary

[00:41:19] of Defense.

[00:41:20] We'll see

[00:41:21] how that

[00:41:21] goes in

[00:41:22] just a

[00:41:22] little bit.

[00:41:23] But this

[00:41:25] situation

[00:41:26] is not going

[00:41:27] to be improved

[00:41:28] under the

[00:41:29] current Biden-Harris

[00:41:31] administration.

[00:41:32] As a matter

[00:41:32] of fact,

[00:41:33] the article

[00:41:33] says that

[00:41:35] there has

[00:41:35] been a

[00:41:35] great deal

[00:41:36] of damage

[00:41:37] to the

[00:41:37] U.S.

[00:41:37] posture in

[00:41:39] the Indo-Pacific

[00:41:40] region.

[00:41:41] And the

[00:41:42] failure to

[00:41:42] repair the

[00:41:43] U.S.

[00:41:44] force

[00:41:44] postage in

[00:41:45] that area

[00:41:46] is something

[00:41:47] that is of

[00:41:48] real concern.

[00:41:48] And so

[00:41:50] there is a

[00:41:51] need right

[00:41:52] now maybe

[00:41:52] for the

[00:41:53] United States

[00:41:53] Navy to

[00:41:54] help the

[00:41:55] Filipinos

[00:41:56] break some

[00:41:57] of what

[00:41:58] has become

[00:41:58] kind of a

[00:41:59] de facto

[00:41:59] blockade

[00:42:00] that has

[00:42:01] been implemented

[00:42:02] by the

[00:42:02] Chinese people

[00:42:03] and to

[00:42:04] really face

[00:42:06] what could

[00:42:07] be some

[00:42:07] significant

[00:42:08] aggression

[00:42:09] from China

[00:42:10] in that

[00:42:10] region.

[00:42:11] And so

[00:42:12] this is,

[00:42:12] of course,

[00:42:13] a very

[00:42:13] precarious

[00:42:14] region.

[00:42:15] And they

[00:42:16] talk about

[00:42:16] the fact it

[00:42:17] will continue

[00:42:18] to be so

[00:42:19] until January

[00:42:21] 20th.

[00:42:21] And so

[00:42:22] this is why

[00:42:23] I think

[00:42:23] this article

[00:42:24] is a reminder

[00:42:24] that while

[00:42:25] we focus

[00:42:26] most of our

[00:42:26] time and

[00:42:27] attention

[00:42:27] on this

[00:42:28] election,

[00:42:28] we need

[00:42:29] to pay

[00:42:30] attention

[00:42:30] to what

[00:42:31] is happening

[00:42:31] in China.

[00:42:32] A week

[00:42:33] ago I

[00:42:33] also said

[00:42:34] that during

[00:42:34] the election

[00:42:35] we need

[00:42:35] to pay

[00:42:36] attention

[00:42:36] to some

[00:42:36] of the

[00:42:37] meetings

[00:42:37] of the

[00:42:38] BRICS

[00:42:38] countries

[00:42:39] as well.

[00:42:40] So we'll

[00:42:41] continue to

[00:42:41] look at some

[00:42:41] of these

[00:42:42] foreign policy

[00:42:42] issues

[00:42:43] and recognize

[00:42:43] once again

[00:42:44] we live

[00:42:45] in a

[00:42:46] dangerous

[00:42:46] world.

[00:42:47] And let's

[00:42:48] hope that

[00:42:48] the new

[00:42:48] administration

[00:42:49] can begin

[00:42:50] to manage

[00:42:50] that

[00:42:51] effectively.

[00:42:52] I'll have

[00:42:53] more to say

[00:42:53] about Ukraine

[00:42:54] tomorrow.

[00:42:54] We just

[00:42:55] simply ran

[00:42:55] out of time.

[00:42:56] First of all,

[00:42:57] I want to thank

[00:42:57] Megan for

[00:42:57] her help

[00:42:58] engineering

[00:42:58] the program.

[00:42:59] Steve,

[00:42:59] thank you

[00:43:00] for producing

[00:43:00] the program.

[00:43:01] We'll see you

[00:43:01] back here

[00:43:01] tomorrow on

[00:43:02] Tuesday right

[00:43:03] here on

[00:43:03] Point of View.

[00:43:11] Who can

[00:43:13] you trust?

[00:43:14] Years ago

[00:43:15] many of us

[00:43:15] could probably

[00:43:16] have provided

[00:43:17] a fairly

[00:43:18] long list

[00:43:19] but today,

[00:43:20] well today

[00:43:21] it seems we

[00:43:22] almost can't

[00:43:22] trust anyone.

[00:43:24] Educators don't

[00:43:25] even know what

[00:43:26] a woman is

[00:43:27] anymore.

[00:43:28] Many so-called

[00:43:29] public servants

[00:43:29] have shown all

[00:43:30] they care about

[00:43:31] is themselves.

[00:43:32] The FBI

[00:43:33] has been accused

[00:43:35] of bias,

[00:43:36] law-breaking,

[00:43:37] betrayal,

[00:43:37] and journalism

[00:43:38] is largely

[00:43:39] corrupt with

[00:43:40] no Clark Kent

[00:43:41] standing up

[00:43:42] for truth,

[00:43:43] justice,

[00:43:43] and the

[00:43:43] American way.

[00:43:44] All of this

[00:43:46] is why

[00:43:46] Point of View

[00:43:47] Radio is

[00:43:48] more important

[00:43:49] than ever.

[00:43:50] And your

[00:43:51] part in

[00:43:51] supporting us

[00:43:52] is more

[00:43:53] needed than

[00:43:54] ever.

[00:43:54] Do your

[00:43:55] part today in

[00:43:56] supporting

[00:43:57] trustworthy truth.

[00:43:58] Stand with us

[00:44:00] and help

[00:44:00] push back

[00:44:01] the lies

[00:44:02] and the

[00:44:02] darkness.

[00:44:03] Visit

[00:44:03] pointofview.net.

[00:44:05] Don't put it

[00:44:06] off.

[00:44:06] Take a moment

[00:44:07] right now

[00:44:07] and click

[00:44:08] on that

[00:44:09] big blue

[00:44:09] button that

[00:44:10] says

[00:44:10] Donate

[00:44:11] Now.

[00:44:12] Or call

[00:44:13] to invest

[00:44:13] at

[00:44:14] 1-800-347-5151

[00:44:18] pointofview.net

[00:44:20] and

[00:44:20] 800-347-5151

[00:44:27] Point of View

[00:44:29] is produced

[00:44:29] by

[00:44:30] Point of View

[00:44:31] Ministries.