Point of View November 6, 2026 – Hour 1: Weekend Edition

[00:00:04] Across America, live, this is Point of View. Kerby Anderson. Thank you for joining me. It is the Friday edition of Point of View. And if you'd like to join us, we will open up the phones today early, 800-351-1212, because we have a number of guests, most of which are kind of front loaded.

[00:00:31] But the next hour, Dr. Matthews and I will get into some of the issues he's been writing about. And we will certainly focus on why we had this particular blue wave or blue tsunami, maybe some lessons that can be learned how to fix it in the future, and maybe a couple other very important points along the way. Of course, Dr. Merrill Matthews, co-host, sitting here with me, but I also have two guests by phone, so let's go to each one of them.

[00:00:56] Richard Lim is, of course, kind of our resident historian with not only Prager University, but with us as well as the presidential historian and, of course, the host of the American President podcast. And in a minute, let me also focus on his book, which is out, and I know he's very excited about. But, Richard Lim, thank you for being with us today here on Point of View. Thanks for having me. Let's, if we can, before I go any further, get some of your comments.

[00:01:22] We've already given some of ours on Wednesday, but this is the first time we've had a chance to hear from you since the election on Tuesday. Any thoughts? Oh, so many thoughts. You know, it's one of those things where there's so many things at work here.

[00:01:40] On the one hand, there are people that want to pin this all on Donald Trump, and I think we should analyze the things that we as a movement, as a party, and what our president did right and did wrong. But there are also so many people that just didn't show up in the polls. They didn't go and vote. And you can evaluate those reasons as well. And so I think there's so much blame to go all around, and it's something we need to keep in mind for the next election.

[00:02:08] And I just mentioned, too, I posted yesterday the piece by J.D. Vance that appeared in X. We have a piece here by the editorial board, which actually looks at that from The Wall Street Journal, one from Michael Brendan Doherty. And we'll get into some others as well. But let me go around the roundtable, at least electronically, because we also have Chelsea Eumann, and she, of course, is a senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom Center for Public Policy.

[00:02:34] And Chelsea, I know you have some comments, but I thought we'd also point out the fact that you oftentimes are looking at what's going on at the state level. And even though we are a national show, what happened in Texas has become kind of a national issue. So what about that? It sure has. It's been almost a historic issue, some would say.

[00:02:55] You know, Texas going blue for the first time in over 30 years is without a doubt a really important stakeholder, not just in politics nationally, but for everything that conservatives hold near and dear. So, again, we're going to get into some of those issues. But let me come to you, Merrill Matthews, for just a minute, because my first piece is about gaslighting in war. I wanted to use this because it had the exit polls, and I took the time to read through those, and I wouldn't recommend it for the weak at heart because it goes into such detail.

[00:03:25] How about those with insomnia? Yes, but nevertheless, as we pointed out before, of course, you're seeing J.D. Vance say, well, it was the war. Well, if it was, you find that the same exit polls show that 89 percent of the people that left the polls there said cost of living was important. And 90 percent, I saw another one said 88 percent said government corruption. And those are not just looking at like Ken Paxton. They're looking at corruption within the Trump administration.

[00:03:54] So I think it's more than just the war, don't you think? Oh, I think it is. And I think, and I mentioned this to you earlier, I think sort of a dark cloud has set over many people in the country because for some people it may be the war on Iran. It may be the gas prices for others. It may be the grocery store prices with inflation for others. It may be a young couple who are trying to buy a house, but the interest rates are too high and they can't do that. It may be ICE raids that some people affect.

[00:04:19] And then there's other things that really are just part of the sort of whole thing. There may be people who lost their Medicaid. I think many people should have lost it, but they're concerned about that. There may have been people who lost some of their enhanced subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. I think that's probably true as well. So there's just several things and people who are having trouble finding a job. We find young people were really swaying towards Democrats in this. So I think all of those have a role.

[00:04:49] And so when you look at it, you just sort of think things just don't feel right right now. And I think that encouraged many people who wanted to make a voice against the administration to come out. And, again, that's why I want to come to my younger voices here, both Richard and Chelsea, because in some respects the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal said, okay, J.D. Vance says it's the war. And they said, what, never mind corruption, tariffs, ICE raids? You're all going to blame it on the war.

[00:05:15] So in some respects the issue of affordability in the war may be related. But, Richard, let me come to you because I think there are a number of explanations, and it varies from person to person, don't you think? Yes, absolutely. Yes, absolutely. And I think, look, I don't want to pin everything on the president, because when the president basically tries to do all that he's done, there is going to be so much intense opposition.

[00:05:45] They have made it basically impossible to lower government spending. They have made it impossible to actually deport people. But when it comes to, say, Iran, I believe the president just simply failed to communicate. Throughout the entire Iran conflict, he's basically said that Iran was going to cave or collapse soon. Neither has happened. He needed to explain why this was necessary.

[00:06:11] Why was it necessary for the American people to commit to a conflict that was going to take several months, the better part of the year? Who knows? And I would say that he needs to communicate why the war was worth the cost. We don't have boots on the ground, but there is a cost to this. Instead, he raised expectations that Iran was about to cave, and all that did was diminish his own credibility. And I think for a guy who knows the art of the deal and when to walk away,

[00:06:40] he's been remarkably careless in terms of building rhetorical leverage. Again, if you look at the polling numbers here, it also shows that there was an advantage when you had the memorandum of understanding, and then it began to drop once the ceasefire collapsed. And I think Richard hits on a very key point here, because the president decided to do this on his own. There you go. Normally a president would go to our allies and say, here's my case for doing something. I want your input. I'd like to have your support. They would normally go to Congress,

[00:07:09] wouldn't necessarily declare war, but they sometimes do a passage legislation to make sure they're going to pay for that. And then you go to the American people and make the case for that. And the president did not do that. Afterwards, he complained that everybody else opposed him when he didn't go and sell it in the first place. And so I think that was a real problem for him. And when it didn't turn out as well as he hoped, it has really affected the electorate out there. And again, just for a minute,

[00:07:37] since, again, we have tried to bring some history. Two old guys, but also a historian here. There was a time when George Herbert Walker Bush made a point of bringing it to Congress, bringing it to the United Nations and everything. And this time it was like, I have the authority and I'm going to do it. That was for Desert Storm. And he got a lot of backing for that. And his approval wedding went up to 90%. And that was over fairly quickly. But yes, that's exactly right. Well, let's take a break. And when we come back, I want to get some comments from Chelsea. And of course,

[00:08:07] we also want to talk about what this looks like going forward. But the two pieces I've posted for you here are certainly very interesting. One from National Review, one from, again, the Wall Street Journal, in which, okay, we'll give him his due. The vice president in the particular post on X, which we read yesterday on the program, and you can find it in its entirety on our website, certainly talks about the war. But I think there were many other factors involved with that as well.

[00:08:36] So we'll come back and talk about a little bit more of an evaluation of what happened and how do we go forward. All sorts of very important issues we'll talk about right after this. This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson.

[00:09:06] For more than a year, the European Union and the European Central Bank have been developing a retail and wholesale central bank digital currency known as the digital euro. It has been promoted as a more efficient means of transacting commerce and settling accounts. Some even argue that it would provide billions of unbanked people with access to digital money. One frequent concern of CBDCs is the lack of privacy and the possibility of using it for surveillance. This would allow central banks and government to track and monitor

[00:09:36] every transaction. The government would know even more about you, your family, your clients, and your charities. Another significant concern is the fact that CBDCs could make it easier for governments to freeze your financial resources. If the current government disagreed with your purchases, they would have the power to shut down your digital currency. In fact, these CBDCs could be programmed to prohibit people from buying certain goods or at least place a limit on how much they might purchase. It might also have a limit that would require the digital money

[00:10:06] to be used before it's expired. The expiration dates and the bans on specific purchases and the ability to freeze accounts could be used to punish or censor citizens. A few years ago, President Joe Biden signed an executive order encouraging the Federal Reserve to study the feasibility of digital currency. When he took office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that banned government agencies from taking any action to create or promote a CBDC. Unfortunately, attempts to write this into law

[00:10:35] have not been successful. That is why we need to continue to evaluate what is being done by our government. I'm Kirby Anderson and that's my point of view. Go deeper on topics like you just heard by visiting pointofview.net. That's pointofview.net. You're listening to Point of View,

[00:11:03] your listener-supported source for truth. Back once again, if you'd like to join the conversation, 1-800-351-1212. Merrill Matthews in studio as well as Richard Lim. But let me now come to Chelsea. Chelsea, again, one of the things you are responsible for is to really promote a lot of alliance-defending freedoms, policies, and legislative work at the statewide level. This is going to make your task even more difficult, but I think it is a reminder

[00:11:32] that even though we're a national program, a lot of the very significant things happening in our society are really happening, by and large, at the statewide level. What happens in Austin, Texas? What happens in Tallahassee, Florida? What happens in Springfield, Illinois? What happens in Sacramento, California? What happens in Albany, New York? Are, in a sense, very important, and some of this blue wave is going to change a lot of the legislative priorities, don't you think?

[00:12:01] Well, you're absolutely right about that. Our team has a very robust 2027 agenda for the spring in all of the states that we operate in, and, you know, a lot of that changed this week. Democrats gained six trifectas. What a trifecta is is the ability to really pass a bill. So a state house, a state senate, and then the governor are all being from the same party means that we can be successful at passing really strong freedom protections there. So, you know,

[00:12:30] Democrats gained six trifectas, Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, but Republicans lost five. And some of those just went purple, but we lost Georgia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Texas. So what this really means is twofold lesson. One, we still have incredible protections ready to go, whether that relates to life or censoring conservatives or Christians or viewpoints that the government finds, you know,

[00:13:00] that they don't like. That's discrimination. We've got really strong discrimination bills. And then traditional parental rights bills on the docket. We have a ton of parental rights bills ready to go. Bills that continue to protect girls' sports and women's privacy in safe places, locker rooms, you name it. If there's an issue that's on fire, we're running towards it. But this also means the second thing. This means that we've got to start playing a lot of defense because for those states where they swung big, Texas, Georgia, Ohio,

[00:13:30] Iowa, those are states where Democrats are going to be hungry and ready to go. Those are states that are big victories for these Democrats who've been waiting in their minority in their houses and their chambers for decades in the state of Texas, for example. And so we have to be ready to go meet them where they're at. And make no mistake, we'll be there to do that. I know that Republicans are still strong in those places and we're grateful that at least some of those chambers were preserved. You know, Chelsea, one of the things that really surprised me

[00:14:00] about this was the extent of the carnage for Republicans. And, you know, if Iran was the issue, gas prices, you would expect some changes. But my goodness, here in Texas, I think every statewide office, except for, of course, Ted Cruz, who wasn't on the ballot, every statewide office went Democratic. And I was listening to these and they said, such and such beat Dan Patrick, the lieutenant governor. Who is that person? Where does that person run in the ads when they talked about the person taking the attorney general slot

[00:14:30] or the secretary of agriculture? These are all Democrats and I didn't hear any of them running ads on things. And who were they? And yet, it went all the way down ballot in Texas and I think you had some of that and as you point out, the Texas House turned over, became Democratic. We just got that announcement I think a day or so ago. The Senate is, so we still have a Republican Senate. But my goodness, but the question I wanted to ask you is Gina Hinojosa is coming out as a Democrat and saying,

[00:14:59] I'm going to work with Republicans as well. She's appointed a new committee with one Republican on there. Do you think they may end up trying to work as a bipartisan legislation or do you think they're going to say we've got control, we're going to force through things? You know, of course, time is going to tell. There was a massive increase in Democrat voting. So there was 139% increase from the last midterm cycle in 2022, whereas Republicans only had about a 31% increase.

[00:15:28] So Democrats have been busy these in Texas knowing that it was going to turn on them for turnout. And then they had some compelling candidates out there at the front that have been waiting in the ranks that a lot of Democrats across the state have watched for a long time. You know, Gina Hinojosa does have a track record in the Texas legislature of working well with her House fellow House members and colleagues, and so I'm hopeful for what she says. I think she's also keenly aware that the Texas Senate is squarely red and that they

[00:15:58] are very strong conservatives. We're not talking libertarian conservatives or, you know, modern conservative Republicans. We're talking tried and true Texas conservatives. And if she wants anything to pass the legislature, she's going to have to do it in a bipartisan way. Richard Lim, give us a little bit of history. You've talked about that before. We always talk about the fact that it was a 20 out of 22 midterms. Usually the party in power loses Senate and House seats.

[00:16:27] But this was more than your typical drubbin. Well, this is kind of as one person referred to it as whooping and some things like that. This was a catastrophic thing which was really outside of the norm. And so it's something that you historians are going to be talking about for some time, don't you think? Yes, absolutely. I mean, there's no way around the fact that Democrats took over Texas, that you look

[00:16:57] at places like Mississippi. There's a trans person that will be taking office in the South in January. I mean, these are all shocking things. And I think what all of us hoped was that the American people would not be, would not have such a knee-jerk reaction that there would be some pause given the fact that the Democrats have gone so far to the left. I mean, to make a reference people haven't made in a long time, it's not like the Democrats

[00:17:26] ran Lloyd Benson in Texas. They ran James Tallarico. Now, to put it all into perspective, as you know I like to do, there have been bigger defeats. The biggest defeat, I mean, we've seen bigger defeats under Obama. He lost 63 seats for the Democratic Party. FDR lost upwards to about 70 seats. Truman as well. And the biggest

[00:17:56] one, 1894, 125 seats lost compared to the 40 or 50 this time around. So I don't want to overstate this, but at the same time, it is hard to look at this. And I think it's very disappointing knowing that the socialist wave did not give a lot of people pause when they voted for the Democrats. You know, Richard, President Trump was not on the ballot, but he went around saying, consider me on the ballot and vote like I'm on the ballot. But one of the things, and so there's some discussion

[00:18:26] about whether or not that affected things, but one of my thinking points is that the Republicans really did not push back against the President's agenda on anything. And so if you're Donald Trump and you're very unpopular and you're a Republican there in Congress from Texas or Mississippi or Kansas, and you did not push back against the President on anything, that voters had a reason to see you as voting against the President when they're voting

[00:18:55] against you in Kansas. Yeah, absolutely. Sorry, go ahead. Sure, I was going to say, you know, he did, let's not forget that the President in many respects hand-selected the primary candidates that were going to move into the general. There were several candidates who were incumbents or had been around for a long time that were primaried by the President, his team, and putting his support by their opponents. And so, while he was not on the ballot, his policies certainly were and what he represents for the party

[00:19:25] certainly is. And I think that there are many mobilizing issues for the evangelical bloc that have not moved in two years. The abortion issue in the federal government is at a standstill, not the top three mobilizing issue, according to Pew Research. So, what we want to see is Republicans mobilized, showing up, we have to stay together, there has to be an evangelical bloc that's robust and motivated to vote for something and not just against something. And when you have the first two years of his presidency really marked

[00:19:54] by talking points around data centers and AI expansion in Iran, they're really missing true conservative values as a staple of what they're centered around. Again, you mentioned the one about AI, 23% mentioned AI and data centers, and so that is certainly the case. We're going to take some phone calls too in just a minute, 1-800-351-1212, but I would be remiss, Richard, if I did not mention the fact that your new book is out, Refusing a Crown, How George Washington Changed the World. Last time we

[00:20:24] had you on the program, you talked about how George Washington really didn't like being president. I actually think that President Trump likes being president. That may change. And by the way, he was willing to step down, and if nothing else, the book is out there. You've gotten some great reviews for it, but if people would like to know more, we have a link to your website. So either you can find it online, or you can find it in your bookstore, or you can click on that picture next to Richard and find out a little bit more about

[00:20:54] the book and order it there. And I think you will find it very intriguing, and it's just one of those great historical fact books that will, in some respects, help you have a better understanding of George Washington. Let's take a break, though. When we come back, we will take some phone calls. Pro work on, like it, dislike it, I would love to get your comments. 1-800-351-1212. In studio with me today, Meryl, as well as by phone, Richard and Chelsea, but we want to hear from you, and we'll be back right after this.

[00:21:33] There are so many big stories happening, literally everywhere, so much information, documents released, grand jury testimony, political accusations and claims on all sides. How in the world can any of us keep up? How do we weed out the truly important from the merely sensational? None of us can do it alone. I've been in media for more than 45 years. I've trained my skills, and yet even with that, I am glad for the more than

[00:22:02] 50-year track record of the team here at Point of View. They help us to cut through the noise and focus on the authentically important. More than that, biblically informed eyes to help us understand and develop ways to respond effectively. Providing what we need takes time and resources, and your partnership makes it all possible. Click on in to pointofview.net, hit the donate button, or call

[00:22:32] 1-800-347-5151. Please give today, better, sign up and help monthly. pointofview.net, and 1-800-347-5151. Point of View will continue after this. You are listening to

[00:23:01] Point of View. The opinions expressed on Point of View do not necessarily reflect the views of the management or staff of this station. And now, here again, is Kirby Anderson. Back once again, if you'd like to join the conversation, 1-800-351-1212. I thought it'd hold up our November issue of Outlook for those of you watching online, and it has the title, The Socialist Surge is Happening in America. And, of course, we've talked about a

[00:23:31] socialist mayor in New York City, a socialist mayor in Seattle, even a socialist mayor coming into Washington, D.C., and now a socialist mayor in Los Angeles. And then, of course, you talk about the number of socialists. I'll hold this one up here that we posted the other day. Here come the socialists, and so whether you're talking about socialists from Colorado or Michigan or New York or whatever, that is certainly another issue I want to talk about with our roundtable. But let's give a few of our callers a chance to join the conversation.

[00:24:00] So we'll go, first of all, to, I think it's Huntsville, Alabama. And Anaya, thank you for joining us today here on Point of View. Hello. My name is Anaya, as you said. I'm 22 years old, and as somebody who comes from, as you said, Alabama, but most of the people I grew up around were voted for Democrat. And when I was voting for them, I honestly was, I wasn't believing in Christ. But when I came to Christ, it was more so of an eye-opener of who I was voting for,

[00:24:30] what I was doing. And it's not more solely on the person, but on their morals and what they stand for. Because I can look at a person all day long, but I don't know deep in their heart what's going on, only the Lord knows. So I wanted to say that as brothers and sisters who were listening on the radio, and even me, I was disappointed in, you know, the vote and how it went. I really was praying that it would have went the other way. But to not be discouraged about things that go wrong just because we wanted a certain way. But no matter what

[00:24:59] happens, God is not red, God is not blue, God is God. God is not. And the Lord says that he is bringing many people to him, you know, all the time. And I feel like even though this went the wrong way, it's going to open up a lot of our brothers and sisters' eyes to be more bold about the faith, to go out and vote more. And yeah, so I wanted to say that to encourage and not to stay in this moment of darkness or this moment of disappointment, but to strive for it and to keep preaching the word. And Naya, did you sense that your

[00:25:28] Christian friends were voting Republican or Democrat or do you have any idea? No, some of my Christian friends are voting, some of my family, family, basically, are voting Democrat only based off of the person, not because of their morals, only the person, which obviously a lot of them lie, but basically off the person, which, you know, gets to me because I believe in Christ and I look more at morals. But, you know, they're voting for that. But I feel like if you are of the faith,

[00:25:57] you should see which is the right to do, which is the right thing to do, honestly. So, very good. Well, let me just come to Chelsea for a minute because one of the things, Chelsea, I think we could also talk about is the fact that we do have a Next Generation Roundtable, which you used to host and certainly participate with Liberty on. And I think the younger generation is looking at this and saying, well, where do we go from here? A couple of old guys here said we've seen the ebbs and flows and we've seen the ups and downs. But in some respects, I hope that she and many of our other

[00:26:26] listeners will tune in because we really do want to reach out to the next generation. Absolutely. And I just love hearing what our caller has to say because she's so right on valuing what's most important in a candidate and that is character and integrity and then also their track record. You know, do they have a proven track record on the issues that matter most to us as believers? And that's issues like making sure we can worship freely and openly and preach the gospel and pray outside of pregnancy resource

[00:26:56] centers and raise our children parental rights, raise our children the ways we should go and protect our unborn. Those are all values that are rooted in the gospel and in the Bible and that we should be flowing from. And so to have candidates that reflect that I think is really, really important. And then to have candidates not just, you know, make promises but also deliver on those really gives the next generation something to go off of because I rest assured that young Democrat voters are talking about values.

[00:27:26] They're just not the same values. It's a different ideology that they've accepted. But I would say they are equally as religious of a zealot as Christians should be, if not more. You know, and I'm hearing even Democrat, young Democrat friends of mine talk in terms of their values. And that's one of the reasons Tallarico was so popular among Democrats in Texas is he shrouded his campaign in religious rhetoric. It's misguided. It's Christ. We can talk about this all day long. The rule of Christ consciousness in the

[00:27:55] party of the left and it's a growing trend that I think is deeply dangerous for the salvation of many. But, you know, he's talking in terms of religion and values and that's something worth noting. You know, Chelsea, when Anaya mentioned that a lot of her family would disagree with her, the notion popped to my mind, Thanksgiving's about three weeks away. I suspect there's going to be a lot of interesting discussions come Thanksgiving. Yes. Let's, again, put something else on the table since you mentioned

[00:28:24] it because one of the other articles I've posted is by our good friend Kevin McCullough. He's got about two dozen observations, but one of those is that whether you're talking about now a senator to be Tallarico or senator to be Hamilton, one from Texas, one from Kansas, both of whom are very liberal and even, I say, heretical. He says they both campaigned on the Christian faith. I'll be watching to see how they vote on parents, the unborn, and the Constitution. I don't get my hopes up, but I think you're

[00:28:54] recognizing that one of the booklets I produced, Chelsea, was on woke Christianity, and I was warning the fact that if we get more and more of those individuals into office, we're not just going to be hearing false ideas from some of these liberal churches. You're going to be hearing it from individuals that are United States senators, maybe even saying it from the well of the Senate or from the well of the House, and that's something that we should pay attention to as well, just from an issue of biblical orthodoxy, don't you think?

[00:29:24] That's right. I'm going to say it's unfortunately prophetic, Kirby, in this instance, because, you know, what you have when he says, we'll see what their votes do on parents, the unborn, and the Constitution, but we have a record on these guys. Tallarico is incredibly extremist on the issues of transitioning minors, including surgically. He uses the Bible to justify abortion. He says that God is non-binary and goes to a church that espouses, they say, we don't know

[00:29:54] whether or not Christ exists, but take what you want and leave what you want when it comes to Christ. And the reason I'm saying all of this is really not a political point that I'm making. It's a far more serious point, and that there is a culture that is gaining ground, even on the right, even on our side, where people are not serious about the gospel, and they are not serious about what the Bible has to say. They don't know their Bible. They're not reading their Bible. So what deceptive people, these men who are wolves

[00:30:24] in sheep's clothing do, is they have just an ounce of truth. They quote just enough Bible to make it sound persuasive and authoritative, and then they twist it with deception and a lie. And that's what I think we need to be very serious about in our homes, with our friends, in our communities, in Bible studies, at our school, with our children, is to say what is true and what is not. And that comes back to Scripture and knowing our Scripture, because then when someone like Tallarico gets up and uses the Bible, he

[00:30:52] goes on CNN Town Hall and says the Bible has nothing to say about abortion. You know, you have the counter, which the Catholic debater said. She said, actually, thou shalt not kill. She had to retort with Scripture and know that know her Scripture. And that's my really encouragement to everybody listening right now, is for us to be really serious about our faith. You know, Richard, when Kamala Harris was campaigning, there was a website, Evangelicals for Harris. And what Kamala Harris said was that she had one time heard the story of the Good Samaritan, and that sort of

[00:31:22] influenced her in her thinking about in her liberal philosophy and how much people should help other people. But what I always find is the liberal says it's the government should help other people. where the Good Samaritan paid for all this out of his own pocket. And I have no problem with somebody donating their money for health care or other things if they're doing it from their own pocket. It's when they take that parable and make it a national mandate that we raise taxes and that the government does

[00:31:52] this. Yes, absolutely. And I think that, unfortunately, a lot of this, and I'm not one to bask in self-hatred or anything like that, but I think so much of this is because the church, sadly, has not been willing to be courageous and talk about how your faith should inform your politics. There isn't this space where, you know, God has no say in this because, oh, we're not a theocracy

[00:32:21] and all this kind of stuff. If God owns your conduct in your whole life and the Bible has something to say for your conduct as a member of your family, a member of your community, as, you know, a member of an employee of your employer, that it has something to say about your conduct as a citizen in this country. And we know that God is sovereign over all, including nations and including governments. And so, unfortunately, I think we

[00:32:49] haven't been courageous in that. I think we have, per se, but so many people in the church have not. And we need to have those conversations. Let's begin, take a break. And when we come back, one of the articles we've posted by Doug Truax, Democrats didn't win, Republicans lost, there's a way to fix this. But I thought for just a minute, since we're going to lose both of our phone guests, I wanted to get some of their thoughts about some of the things that he predicts might happen over the next two years. And then, of course, his point is,

[00:33:18] is we need to be ready to counter that. And, of course, we mentioned one of those. And Chelsea kind of started the conversation. We'll come back and talk about, well, what does this look like over the next two years? And, of course, you never are quite sure. But I think his estimate and his predictions probably are going to be pretty accurate. So let's, if we can, come back and talk about that. If you want to join the conversation, we've only taken one phone call, but we'll take others if you'd like. 1-800-351-1212. We will take a break and be right back.

[00:33:46] A report compiled by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reveals that between 2020 and 2025, the nine largest U.S. banks deprived certain customers of banking access due to their politics or their religion. De-banking results in the often sudden

[00:34:14] closing of client accounts, denial of credit, or refusal to provide payment processing services. Banks offer reputational risk as a rationale for de-banking certain clients. OCC examiners sifted through nearly 100,000 complaints to produce the 47-page review concluding that bank policies disadvantaged holding certain political, religious, and social views. The report cited J.P. Morgan's payment operation, WePay, for closing the accounts of several conservative groups, as well as that of a business that sold merchandise

[00:34:44] promoting President Trump and the Make America Great Again brand. It revealed that Wells Fargo induced a vendor to close a nonprofit's account after highlighting the nonprofit's views on same-sex marriage. According to the Washington Stand, conservative and pro-marriage organizations lost banking access due to the recommendations of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Banks often used the SPLC's hate group designations to de-bank clients. In an article for the Daily Signal, Heritage Foundation economist Alan Mendenhall reports that businesses

[00:35:13] engaged in lawful but unfashionable lines of work were among the entities denied banking services. He lists oil and gas, coal, firearms, tobacco, private detention facilities, digital assets. Supposedly, banks are cleaning up their act with some saying they have reformed how they assess reputational risk. New York Post columnist Miranda Devine points out that although all nine banks told the OCC they had revised their practices, the regulator said the reforms have not gone far enough.

[00:35:40] As Heritage's Alan Mendenhall points out, banking is not a luxury. Modern life runs through the financial system. He says only Congress can provide a durable remedy for the discrimination that results from de-banking. For Point of View, I'm Penna Dexter. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Back once again in studio with me, Merrill, as well as by phone, Richard and Chelsea.

[00:36:09] If you'd like to know more about any of our guests, we have that on our website at pointofview.net. But I thought for just a minute, since I am going to lose our two phone guests, I thought I'd go around and ask them some comments because Doug Truex says, Democrats really didn't win. It's Republicans lost. It's not like you've had this great conversion. Matter of fact, many of the other articles say the same thing. But he then begins to go into this litany of all the things we might expect. They will continue to push abortion on

[00:36:38] demand and mail order abortions. They will renew gender mutilation of children and try to reinvigorate DEI policies. They will turn up the heat on corporations to shun conservatives and conservative policies. By the way, my commentary next week is on debanking. The one today by Penis about debanking. They will try to shatter American institutions like the Electoral College, the Supreme Court, and they'll try to add Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico as states. Richard, Liam, any of that possible in the next two years?

[00:37:09] I would like to say no, but I didn't think it was possible that Texas could go red. I mean, I'm sorry, could go blue so quickly. If you told me a year ago that Texas would go blue, I would wonder what moderate candidate that the Democrats chose. That's not what happened. And there's really... If you told me that a week ago, I would... I'm the one who's saying Senator Richard, James Tallarico, but anyway, go on. Yeah.

[00:37:36] My hope is that because the American people seem to oscillate between left and right so quickly, electing Obama in 08, electing the Tea Party in 2010. And we all know that this is so much of not just a knee-jerk reaction, but it's not rooted in, unfortunately, the values that we support. It's often rooted in what their pocket books are telling them right now.

[00:38:05] Hopefully that'll turn in a positive way for us. And I think we should celebrate the fact that there have been wins in this election cycle. We have seen wins in terms of election integrity. The billionaire tax, thank God, looks like it's about to fail in the bluest, the blue states here in California. And various measures are affirming basic biological sex in Washington State and Colorado. And so I hope that that is the sign. And this is not a mandate for the left, but yes. And think about the Electoral College.

[00:38:35] They are 48 votes away, electoral votes away from overturning the Electoral College. Change with the electoral compact system. And so, yes. Yeah, I want to hope that and I think it'll swing the other way, but this should sober us to the reality of what the voters are willing to accept. Let me just mention that when you talk about change, one of those just was announced, and that is Susie Wiles is out and Trump's chief of staff is Stephen Miller.

[00:39:04] And I saw even the other day the interview, which was done by a Republican strategist, saying, I think it's time for her to step down. Otherwise, I think he will replace her. And we haven't even gone through one whole hour of the program, and already we've seen one of the remarkable changes there in the White House. And it goes on, the article in the Hill says that Steve Bannon has said they need to get rid of Susie Wiles. I have no inside information on this, but what I understand from the reporting is that Susie Wiles and some of the others would sometimes

[00:39:34] try to temper Trump down on some things. Stephen Miller is full speed ahead on everything. And so, if anything, I would consider that a very bad move because one of the questions is, would Trump sort of moderate some of his positions or things since the election? And if Stephen Miller isn't there, I don't think that's going to be the case. So, you had one that used the accelerator in the brake, and then you had one just with the accelerator. Right. So, I think that's the case. Chelsea, before we let you go, I just wanted

[00:40:03] to get your thoughts because, again, will they continue to push abortion on demand, mail-order abortions, chemical abortion, transgender issues? I think some of that might even show up in the Texas legislature. But what do you think? Well, I think you're absolutely right. There is no quarter really left when it comes to those issues. But I do see a lot of silver lining. One, there are a lot of pro-life states we have left in a trifecta that we are working at ADF to work on addressing the abortion drug issue.

[00:40:32] We have a bill called the Women and Children Protection Act. We successfully passed it in Texas. That is a godsend and a mercy. We did that in 2025. And those states are looking to run some real pro-life red meat bills that are going to protect children and their mothers from abortion drugs. And then we also have cases against the FDA right now where the federal administration right now could end mail-order abortion scheme, could end mail abortion trafficking is what we call it, where they're shipping them across state lines into red states.

[00:41:02] There is much to be done, and we've got it to do in the next two years. I'm glad we have two years to kind of get our identity as a party back together. I think it's natural for there to be a populist leader that's going by the wayside and a party to have an identity crisis, and that looks like what we're doing right now. And I think we've got two years to do some good hard work. One of the other questions I wanted to maybe put on the table is this transition, and that's a good lead-in again to Richard, your book, Refusing a Crown, How George Washington

[00:41:31] Changed the World. And it does seem to me that even though J.D. Vance is trying to explain everything as a result of the war, I just don't think he is as much the odds-on favorite for the future, and that's why people are starting to talk about Ron DeSantis and Marco Rubio and others. You've been looking at presidential politics for some time. Do you have any thoughts? Yes, absolutely. I mean, we saw J.D. Vance try to distance himself

[00:41:59] from President Trump, so we know he's probably laying the foundation for a run. We know the election basically started a couple days ago. And I would say that, you know, right now with President Trump being unpopular, it's very important for the Republican Party to be able to have an election where its candidates can distance themselves from President Trump. President Trump does not take kindly to that kind of thing. We've seen him call any of his enemies rhinos.

[00:42:26] He called Ron DeSantis a rhino a couple years ago. And so I think the hope is that he will do what a number of previous presidents have done. We saw 1988, President Reagan allowed Republicans to criticize his policies of establishing relations with the Soviet Union, with Mikhail Gorbachev. President Bush in 2008 was able to do the same thing. He allowed John McCain and Mitt Romney. It helped that none of them were part of his administration.

[00:42:54] But I think that could be very dangerous. And it shows how much power the president has over the entire party. Yeah, Richard, we're almost out of time. But it's very hard for a vice president to distance himself or a Kamala Harris is herself from the president, especially when the president's very unpopular. Absolutely. It is. And especially if the president does not have, you know, thick skin. And so if that's the case, then it'll be very difficult.

[00:43:24] I hope and pray that Donald Trump will allow that to happen. But and that's just the way it is. That is politics. And it is hard for a party to win, you know, two and three elections in a row. That's just the political math. And so, yeah, we have our work cut out for ourselves. Let me just mention, if you'd like to contact Chelsea, of course, there's a link there. But also, of course, we have a link to a D.F. Legal. And Richard is Richard M. Lim dot com. But you don't have to remember all that.

[00:43:53] You simply can go to the Web site point of view dot net. And I want to say to thank you both of you for joining us by phone for an hour and look forward to the next opportunity. Always a pleasure. Thank you. Let me, if I can, just mention that we will still have Merrill Matthews with me. And the next hour, we're going to get into some of the economic issues. If you haven't noticed, the stock market dropped eighteen hundred points. So we'll talk about that. You have written a very good piece about tariffs. And we haven't talked about that.

[00:44:22] But what Trump doesn't understand about trade. Very good. Also, a very good piece that came out from National Review. Repeal the tariffs. Also, another one that came out. Wall Street Journal politics shapes up the markets. And, of course, a few other issues as well that we will cover in the second hour. If you've benefited from some of the conversation, let me encourage you to go to the Web site and get some of the articles that we've been mentioning along the way. Also, if you would want to hear this again or pass it on

[00:44:51] to others, that is a way you can do so. And, of course, if you'd like to join the conversation, 1-800-351-1212. We've covered quite a bit in one hour. But, oh, yes, there is a lot more. And we'll talk about that right after these important messages. Have you ever met a child you knew would do great things?

[00:45:19] They displayed remarkable imagination, understanding, and a zest for learning. Now imagine someone takes that child and instead of fostering their potential with a real education, they feed them nothing but lies. You know, that scenario isn't so far from reality. From a young age, Americans are fed a consistent stream of distorted facts from the secular indoctrination they receive in many public schools to the biases presented as fact in

[00:45:46] many colleges and universities to the barrage of misinformation from the mainstream media and the lack of moral grounding in our society. It's not that Americans aren't capable of understanding the truth. It's that they aren't exposed to it enough. You can expose more Americans to the truth when you give to Point of View, where listeners receive facts, perspective, and biblical truth they don't get from society. As long as we have truth, we have hope.

[00:46:15] Give today at pointofview.net or call 1-800-347-5151. Pointofview.net and 1-800-347-5151. Point of View will continue after this.