Point of View October 12, 2026 – Hour 2 : Beyond the Grave (continued), Top Stories from the Weekend

[00:00:04] Across America, live, this is Point of View. And now, Liberty McCartney. All right, welcome back to Point of View's second hour today. Still in studio with me, Lindsay McKay. She's a trial attorney licensed in Texas with over 20 years of combined experience in personal injury and commercial litigation.

[00:00:31] Talking about a super interesting case, Lindsay, we were just talking about this came out of Arizona and it had to do with you were giving us the background, a road rage incident in which the victim, Christopher Pelkey, was killed by the defendant, Horkasitas, I believe.

[00:00:50] And the sister of the victim, during the sentencing, presented an AI generated video of her brother, basically giving a message talking about, you know, I say air quotes, his feelings or, you know, forgiveness.

[00:01:07] The judge admitted that the AI generated video impacted him and he ended up giving the defendant the maximum sentence, which was ten and a half years of where you said manslaughter in Arizona. So and then an appellate court actually overturned the sentencing because of the AI generated video.

[00:01:30] And you were talking about, you know, the difference there between a victim statement by somebody who who knew the victim or something like that versus actually using that person who is dead, by the way, their likeness to create a video that looks pretty real, putting words in their mouth. Really? And so this this happened in Arizona. My question is, OK, so the the Arizona Arizona Court of Appeals overturned the sentencing.

[00:01:58] So I'm assuming the judge has to resentence the defendant. Yes. OK, it will be another sentencing hearing. OK. And so how what kind of relevance does this have in other parts of the nation? They're like this is the first time I've heard about an AI generated video. And obviously this one was posthumous. So but I'm also thinking, would somebody do this for like someone, a victim that couldn't speak?

[00:02:24] Maybe even if they were not deceased, like you could have a child or a baby. They can't speak. You could have somebody that is, you know, mentally disabled or, you know, an elderly person with dementia and they were the victim of a crime. It seems like if the door opens to that, you could have a lot of potential, you know, opportunities for people to use this technology to try to make a victim statement on behalf of someone who can't actually. Right. On their own behalf. Right.

[00:02:54] And you have to think, is it prejudicial? Is it unfair to the defendant? And how much does it influence somebody's decision making? And, you know, in this case, it was a judge sentencing, which is not always the case. And if a judge was impacted by an inauthentic version of, you know, a deceased victim, could you imagine a jury? And so and this was a criminal case.

[00:03:23] And so this was, you know, sentencing in Arizona for the criminal case. The rules of evidence are very low. Pretty much everything is fair game so long as it is not, you know, duly unfair. Right. And so this was believed by the appellate court to be to rise to that level, even though they didn't. The defense didn't object to it. They did object to the Senate, the ultimate 10 and a half year sentence.

[00:03:50] The appellate court found that it was fundamental. It was fundamental error because it was it was just that unfair. I believe they got it right, because if this were to leak into, let's say, a civil case, I practice, you know, personal injury, civil litigation. And if we were able to have our plaintiff in a wrongful death case who, you know, is no longer here, be able to express through A.I.

[00:04:16] what their future goals would have been and what they're missing out on. I mean, every case would be a runaway jury verdict. You know, it would be. And that's why in Texas, in fact, there was a case. It was not A.I., but it was just a lawyer who argued in a wrongful death case that the value of a life could be compared to. And he used, you know, a jet or, you know, a very expensive painting.

[00:04:45] And that was overturned by the appellate court because they felt like, you know, there wasn't enough connection with actually a jury awarding an appropriate amount. And so if we were able to use highly prejudicial, you know, you have a balance between what has probative value, which has value. And I can hear like I think through like what you're saying. What if it was a child? What if it was someone who's mentally handicapped?

[00:05:13] You know, can we create something that could speak for them? Again, it would just go back to how do we value what is prejudicial, what is fair and what is authentic to what is actual evidence to, you know, what is art and entertainment and, you know, is is not a bright line. It's blurring the lines to, you know, something that seeps into a courtroom that we can no longer rely upon.

[00:05:41] So, yeah, I do think that the appellate court got this right. And I think across the country there's, you know, in pleadings, there's hallucinations, which are cases that are referenced that are not real cases. And I think in 2025, there's somebody who's actually trying to, you know, create or at least archive all the data.

[00:06:04] In 2025, there are something like 200 hallucinations, which were cases that lawyers cited in pleadings presented and filed in the court that were not real cases. And that has increased from 2026 in January. There was 719, I think. And now June, there's almost 1600. Oh, my goodness. Hallucinations.

[00:06:26] And there have been over $144,000 worth of sanctions awarded against lawyers who are erroneously putting in, you know, cases that don't exist, which are hallucinations in their pleadings. And in Texas, they are trying to put some kind of, not just a rule, but some kind of penalty.

[00:06:51] And then also maybe even have an agreement to where you sign off saying whether or not you checked your sources before you filed the document as an extra measure to ensure you didn't just, you know, put, you know, a case site in there that wasn't real. I think in Nebraska, there was an attorney who was suspended because he filed a family law appellate brief with 52 hallucinations out of his 63 sites. Wow.

[00:07:21] There have even been judges who have erroneously relied on staff who have put the wrong party names or in orders. And, you know, and so they've had to retract those orders. But AI is a great tool. But at the same time, we can move so quickly that we're not actually doing the work or even checking it. Oh, my goodness. And that, you know, that is something that I'm glad you brought that up because, you know, I was wondering about that.

[00:07:51] Many, you know, it may be in many cases people falsely, which by now I think people you should know to check what it tells you and double check your sources. But I think there is kind of this automatic trust that a lot of people have. This is such a great tool. And so it's going to be objective or it's only going to give me things that are actually true. And that's just not the case, as you were saying. And so it's crazy to hear how that has increased. But we're about to go to a break.

[00:08:18] We're talking with Lindsay McKay and on how artificial intelligence is changing the legal profession, things to watch out for. And when we're talking about these AI generated, you know, videos that might impact a judge or potentially a jury. I mean, that that has to do with the future of people's lives or sentencing their rights under the Constitution. This is really important that we get this right and we draw those lines and those boundaries correctly. But we'll be right back after this break.

[00:09:00] This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson. Alicia Finley documents something I've been talking about for two decades. The title of her Wall Street Journal column says it all. Yes, children really are getting dumber. In the past, I've talked about the impact that the pandemic and lockdown have had on student learning. Although that is true, it is unlikely to be a primary cause. We had different levels of shutdowns between various countries.

[00:09:26] She documents that scores fell in countries that kept schools mostly open. Now, one important factor is classroom order. About one-third of students on average in developed countries reported that noise and disorder disrupted lessons. A significant percentage said that classmates don't listen to teachers. It's not surprising that students in countries with the most strict discipline, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, experience small or no learning declines. The most important reason for educational decline is media.

[00:09:56] In the past, the concern was over smartphones and social media. Now, the focus is on artificial intelligence. Nearly half of students in developed countries say they use chatbots every day. Here is where we see a significant difference in performance. Students who do not use AI for writing text scored 28 points higher on average than those who use it almost every day. That is the equivalent to one and a half school years. AI is making it easier to succeed in school without doing the work and learning something.

[00:10:26] Nearly half of the students in the Fordham study admitted to using AI to solve math problems, and more than a third used AI to summarize books so they didn't have to read them. Students are getting dumber, especially now that AI does much of the work for them. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my Point of View. Go deeper on topics like you just heard by visiting pointofview.net.

[00:10:55] That's pointofview.net. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. All right, welcome back to Point of View. So let's keep talking about this, Lindsay. We've been talking about the different ways that AI is impacting the legal field. And so we were talking about that case out of Arizona. Again, you can watch a video on that at pointofview.net if you want to see what we've been talking about there

[00:11:23] and with regard to an AI-generated video, posthumously generated victim statement. And let's talk more about the ways that AI might impact young attorneys or people who are in law school. You know, we've got several lawyers and even JD candidates that join us on Point of View as co-hosts around the roundtable often. And I have seen studies that somewhere between 80% of college students reportedly use AI.

[00:11:50] And so how concerned are you with the development of the kind of discernment and understanding of the law that you really need to practice? And is that going to be shortchanged if people are relying on AI too much in different aspects of what you do for work?

[00:12:11] Yes, I would say what's interesting is apparently English majors are actually more sought after now because AI is kind of like a library catalog. And it only generates answers based on the strength of the question or what the information that it is fed.

[00:12:33] And so English majors are more sought after now than, you know, maybe someone with a science background that actually has the answer. Okay. I've heard that. Wow. Interesting. Yeah, so but I think what I'm seeing with young lawyers in my practice, for example, they can definitely draft fast and they have a really good draft of a pleading or of a motion. But I can tell that it is AI generated.

[00:13:02] And when I ask the lawyer details about the case and the facts of the case and what may not just be in that pleading, they don't have the answer. And my question is, how could you have written this motion without knowing the case behind it? And it's because they relied on AI to review the file and draft the motion.

[00:13:25] And the problem is you're not going through the process of legal research and writing, but also you're shortchanging the process of as you're having to force yourself to draft, to read, to peruse. You begin to know the case and you know the facts.

[00:13:44] And so you're not developing as a lawyer when you are a young attorney who needs to learn these skills and learn the art of law and learn the practice and know the client and have the passion you need in the courtroom if you are just relying on AI to do the work for you. So it is a great tool to use to help save time where you need to save time. But it is definitely not something to eradicate the practice of law.

[00:14:13] And interestingly, I was just in a mediation with a mediator who is a graduate of Princeton. And he said, I'm about to retire and I'm so relieved because I believe in eight years lawyers will become irrelevant. Wow. And I don't know that that is the case for all lawyers. I do think he said he believed that there will be robots in the courtroom. And we will see more robots in the courtroom. I don't like that.

[00:14:42] Now, I asked my son who is 13 what he thought and he said, no, you know, a robot can't present emotion to a jury, you know, and can't connect with a jury. So for my sake, I hope that's not true. Yeah. That we become irrelevant in eight years. But I think what what is happening, though, is a lot of the legal work that had required more staff and more attorneys is you can handle more now.

[00:15:10] And so you don't need as many. So one thing that I read from there was a Thomas Reuters report earlier this year that due to the efficiency that AI can bring in some of those areas you were talking about, that lawyers could be expected to say five hours of work a week. I don't know. Sounds like it might even be more than that.

[00:15:28] But it also went on to talk about like what is termed syntactic work, like documentation, pattern recognition, compilation, like these maybe what you're saying, like things that maybe you had staff doing before. But semantic work where you're that's the difference of exercising independent judgment, understanding context, that relationship building with the client and kind of the two different areas there.

[00:15:58] And it seems to me that like one of those really can't be replaced by a robot or AI. Like you need your human discernment and context for that. I see art. I mean, I'm sorry. I see law as an art. And my the number one, the most important person in my law firm is who the client and it's their story. It's who they are. It's connecting with them as a person.

[00:16:22] And when you use AI, you shortchange that communication and getting to know them on a personal level and having that authentic relationship that is then depicted. I'll just give you an example. We write demands. And so, you know, if somebody is in a car wreck or a truck wreck, we will send what's called a demand package to the insurance company. And it outlines what their injuries are, how much their medical is and what their story is.

[00:16:50] And many firms are and I I actually tried AI. There are a lot of softwares that say, oh, you know, you can eliminate this position in your firm just by pulling the data and putting it into this software. And it will write the demand for you. And every demand that it that it put forth, I would have never presented to it was not good enough. And they said, you know, well, you can teach it and, you know, put your form and, you know, what you think matters.

[00:17:19] But the nuance, it could not pull the nuance. So it would only do the same pattern for every case. So it would just do here, the medical specials. Here's, you know, a version of the story. And, you know, but if every case is different, I might not want to focus so much on the medical. In this case, I want to focus more on the story or, you know, there are other I met. I might want to include the property damage photos. I might not.

[00:17:47] It just and so it can't do nuance. And by the time you're in there editing what it does and doesn't do, you might as well do it yourself. And so I haven't been able. I mean, that's just one example to kind of what you're saying. Yeah. As you know, but a lot of firms are using AI demands, you know, on a regular basis. And it has eliminated that position in their firm.

[00:18:11] But it's just hard for me when I see the lack of personalization that I can put my signature on that. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that seems so important. And I see that in different fields, too, where, you know, AI can compile a lot of stuff. It can pull a lot of information together.

[00:18:32] But there is a difference between something that spouts information and actually knowing something, you know, on a deep human level and creating that nuance. It's so interesting for me to talk about this and hear from you and really like what this means for the legal profession. And so I know that that matters to a lot of our listeners, too. I don't know if you want to comment on this or not.

[00:18:55] But if you we kind of started the segment out talking about, OK, what are the ways that, you know, a young lawyer might be thinking about how to use AI or whether or in what cases and how that might impact their ability to develop those skills that you need? Are you going to advise like one of your kids if they wanted to go into the legal profession right now? Is that something that you would advise them to pursue considering what some people are saying about being replaced? Well, I have six kids and they have two choices. You either be a doctor or a lawyer.

[00:19:24] No, I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. No, I have no idea. But of course, you know, I would love to work with all my children in any capacity. So if I can find a place for them at my law firm and it's still in existence by the time, you know, that day comes, you know, I hope they'll join me, whether it's marketing or being a lawyer. So but would I encourage them? I don't think lawyers will ever become irrelevant.

[00:19:53] I also don't think doctors will become irrelevant. I do think there's there's parts of the medical field that can be replaced. For example, radiology can be replaced. Can a surgeon be replaced? Well, you have robotic surgery. But do you feel comfortable having a robot do the surgery? And in fact, I had a medical malpractice case where the doctor placed a trocar too close to an artery and it nicked the artery and the patient died. Wow.

[00:20:23] And that was a robotic, just routine hernia surgery. So, you know, I don't know that everyone is comfortable with, you know, a robot surgeon. But radiology is just reading, you know, and it could actually read MRIs and x-rays probably with more accuracy than a human. So same thing with lawyers. I don't think trial lawyers would be replaced.

[00:20:49] But would a probate lawyer or, you know, somebody who's drafting wills and contracts, you know, it might look a little bit different. Well, we're talking with Lindsay McKay about the different ways that AI is impacting or might impact legal profession. We're about to go to a break, but we'll talk for a few more minutes. When we come back, we started off talking about an AI generated video that was used in a sentencing hearing and how the sentencing was actually overturned by an appeals court because of that.

[00:21:19] But let's talk about what that might look like if a jury was presented an AI video in different circumstances and how that might impact the jury. We'll be right back. In 19th century London, two towering historical figures did battle, not with guns and bombs, but words and ideas.

[00:21:42] London was home to Karl Marx, the father of communism, and legendary Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon. London was in many ways the center of the world economically, militarily, and intellectually. Marx sought to destroy religion, the family, and everything the Bible supports. Spurgeon stood against him, warning of socialism's dangers. Spurgeon understood Christianity is not just religious truth.

[00:22:11] It is truth for all of life. Where do you find men with that kind of wisdom to stand against darkness today? Get the light you need on today's most pressing issues delivered to your inbox when you sign up for the Viewpoints commentary at pointofview.net. Every weekday in less than two minutes, you'll learn how to be a person of light to stand against darkness in our time.

[00:22:37] It's free, so visit pointofview.net. Sign up right now. Pointofview.net. Point of view will continue after this. You are listening to Point of View.

[00:23:04] 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 Liberty McCartney. Okay, back for a few more minutes with Lindsay McKay, trial attorney. She's got a practice headquartered in Sulphur Springs, Texas, and nine additional offices around Dallas and Oklahoma. We've been talking about the impact of AI on the legal profession.

[00:23:30] We talked about a case out of Arizona where an AI-generated video was actually used in a sentencing hearing and how the appeals court in Arizona overturned that sentencing, saying that that was not fair to use the AI-generated video of a victim who had died. And so we've been talking about the other ways that AI might impact, you know, a young attorney developing their skills. But let's go back to the issue of AI-generated video.

[00:23:56] This is actually a question I had, Lindsay, when I'm thinking about, okay, this is the first case I've heard of this, but I am sure it's not the only example or the only example that, you know, as people are thinking of or ways that they might use it. And so if we're talking about a jury or any sort of case and you have something, for instance, like that you work in, like an injury,

[00:24:21] you've got a car accident, you know, are people using AI to generate videos that might show, you know, how something happened? And then is that going to be different than, say, the victim statement of somebody who's died and can't actually speak for themselves being used? Like what other ways might we see AI-generated video specifically in court? Absolutely. I can speak for myself.

[00:24:46] In personal injury, for example, if you have, let's say, a truck case and it's a contested liability to where we don't know exactly what happened, there's no dash camera, nobody captured, you know, what happened, and it's kind of a word v. word, we will hire what's called an accident reconstructionist expert who will go out there, take measurements,

[00:25:12] look at the vehicles and look at the scene and try to recreate with a report based on his experience what happened. We can then use his report to generate an AI-generated video. So it's not pie in the sky. It is backed by science. It's backed by an expert. It can't be so prejudicial that it outweighs the probative value.

[00:25:39] So probative value is what the value it is to a jury, to be able to understand a complex issue. And so AI videos can be used in order to show a jury based on our hired expert how we believe the wreck happened, what we believe the speed of the truck was, or, you know, who made the unsafe lane change.

[00:26:06] However, you know, the defense would then have their expert and their version of the same if they would like to present it. And all goes before the judge to decide what is admissible and what is not. So we could see, you know, on appeal, let's say there was, you know, a video that showed impact and victims,

[00:26:30] victims, let's say plaintiffs, you know, in a vehicle showing head injury. And the defense objected to that and says, well, you know, we don't believe it's an accurate rendition of what happened. It's not really based on any science or expert report. If the judge lets it in, that could be a potential issue that they raise on appeal if, you know, it was a plaintiff verdict.

[00:26:57] But we do see, like, if you have a back injury case where you have a complex surgery, like a 360 fusion in the cervical neck, how do you describe it's so much easier to show a jury? I mean, think about a jury these days. You do have to kind of entertain them because everybody is so addicted to their phones. Yeah.

[00:27:18] And they are in the jury box sitting there with no phone, no food, no drink usually, and just sitting there listening. And a lot of times they fall asleep or zone out and not pay attention. And so sometimes, you know, videos and AI really helps kind of entertain them and keep them engaged. So they're actually paying attention to the evidence presented. So in those ways, it's so helpful.

[00:27:46] And, like, how do you describe a 360 fusion? You can have, you know, a really boring neurosurgeon. Have you ever talked to a neurosurgeon? They are the most boring doctors to talk to. And how do you make their monotone voice exciting for a jury, you know? Well, one thing you could do is create a video of the actual surgery that that doctor performed and say, Doctor, do you think this is an accurate depiction of the surgery you did?

[00:28:16] Because you can back it up with an expert. Yes, you can back it up by an expert. Something that actually happened. Yes. And so that's a way of verifying the evidence before, you know. So it's not usually just pie in the sky, you know. So AI, you know, is definitely a great tool. And there are already rules of evidence that govern what evidence can come in.

[00:28:41] Do you think that there would be more rules that just by necessity are going to have to get written to kind of for the nuance of all the things you were talking about? Like, just, you know, what's the parameter for if you're going to generate one of these videos? And is it going to be admissible? Like, you know, there are existing rules. But is that going to be something that we'll see more of as like different, you know, courts having to decide? Like, what are the boundaries for using this kind of thing? Right. And also, I mean, think about the robots.

[00:29:10] I do think that something is coming in the future with robots in the courtroom. I don't know how. But that would be kind of, you know, I guess fast forward in time. But, yes, absolutely, there's going to be more case law on proper use of AI, what is, you know, beyond the scope of what is fair. And I guess that's how we're going to basically define appropriate uses of AI.

[00:29:37] And I do think it also helps just AI can help in our explanation for complex issues or even injuries with clients. You know, I mean, I do use AI daily. I mean, I'm not at all against AI. I absolutely think it is going to revolutionize our ability to be better at our craft.

[00:30:01] But that's exactly what it should do is help us be better and use it in safe ways that enhance our skills, not replace. Yeah. One thing that I'm wondering, too, it was so interesting when you said, like, you've got to entertain the jury nowadays. And I talk about that a lot, you know, here with the different ways that social media and screens kind of like have impacted our brains and everything. I don't know if this is something that you've thought about.

[00:30:29] And I've never actually served on a jury. I've gotten a summons one time and I was able to get out of it due to, you know, having to stay home and take care of my kid. But is that something I wonder if jurors are actually using AI to help them deliberate through or process or understand what is being presented to them? And are they allowed to? Well, there's OK. They're not allowed to. They're not allowed to have their phones in deliberation.

[00:30:56] Do I believe that they are obeying that rule? No, I don't. I absolutely believe that they, you know, especially if it's, you know, they get an opportunity to leave the courtroom that they will go to Claude or go to ChatGPT or, you know, whichever their interface they prefer. And, you know, perhaps, you know, see what AIs, whatever those conflicting facts are. Absolutely. I do think that that does seep into deliberations.

[00:31:26] Unfortunately, I wish it didn't. But I do think we all have just a tendency to go there now. And it's almost just out of habit, you know. And so, yes, I do think so. But what's interesting is there was a judge in Texas that warned that overuse of AI in the courtroom, even with the video renditions that I mentioned before, could really hinder the trial process.

[00:31:56] Yes, because jurors would then dismiss an actual dash camera because they would assume it's AI when it's not. And so he really warns against it because, like, I have fun with my kids and I'll say, I'll show them a video and they'll say, oh, that's AI. I cannot tell it's AI at all, you know, but they notice it immediately. It's getting so advanced. And they are not thrilled to see AI.

[00:32:22] So what will be interesting is, you know, there are some trial attorneys who truly believe less technology, the better, and keep it simple. And they really don't want to utilize AI in the courtroom as much. They would use a whiteboard and just, you know, and kind of be interactive in the old school ways.

[00:32:41] And I think there's something organic and something to say about that that might actually, you know, resonate with a jury when there could be a risk of those that resist, like, oh, well, it's AI, you know, and just dismiss something that we thought might be really helpful and push them the opposite direction. So it really could be, you know, like I said before, it truly is an art, you know. Wow. Well, Lindsay, thank you so much for being on Point of View today.

[00:33:10] This has been very fascinating to think about the real and important implications of AI in the legal field and different ways that it might be helpful or definitely unhelpful. So I do want to mention that people can go to pointofview.net and you can click on Lindsay's picture right there and you can click on the link and see information about her practice if you would like to do that. But, Lindsay, thanks so much for being in studio with us today. Thank you for having me. Yeah, it's been great.

[00:33:34] So when we come back, let's talk for a few more minutes about a few more news items and how we can pursue happiness, what that actually means. I'll be right back after this break. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth.

[00:34:04] Back for a few more minutes today. Go back to pointofview.net and catch up on anything that you missed. Just had a great talk with Lindsay McKay, a trial attorney on the different ways that AI is impacting the legal profession. That was a very educational conversation for me, and it's something we need to think about. As what happens in the court system and the judicial system is impacting our rights. It's impacting our lives in so many practical ways.

[00:34:28] And so whether you're thinking through this from the perspective of an attorney or somebody who's thinking about going into law or somebody who, you know, you've got an issue or maybe you get a jury summons. Like all of these different ways that it might impact your life and the precedents that might be set. We need to think about this. So I would recommend sharing that interview as well. But for a few more minutes here, let's talk about a couple of other issues.

[00:34:51] Earlier in the show, I kicked us off starting started talking about the rise of the DSA, Democratic Socialists of America. And it was super interesting because we were talking about how they went from 21 chapters in 2013 to 204 chapters in all states except for two in today. So they have grown. And it's not just been because of influential figures like AOC or Zoran Mondani.

[00:35:17] But it's because they've been working at the local and the state levels. And many of the victories that are happening across the country are victories we haven't even heard about. We get focused on some of these people, you know, they keep making the headlines. But their ballot initiatives, local candidates, state level candidates winning primaries. And we haven't even heard their names. But that's how the change is happening. So I wanted to talk about another change that's happening in politics.

[00:35:42] This is an article I highly recommend from Compact Magazine, how woke one radicalized the GOP. They are arguing and I'm not sure I buy this 100 percent. I'm going to need to like do a little more recollecting here and reminiscing. But that there's more daylight between Trump one and Trump two versus Obama and Trump one, basically because the right has shifted that much.

[00:36:07] And I'm not sure if it's that drastic, but I definitely think that a lot of what they argue is true is that the GOP really has shifted to the right in some big ways. And a lot of that has to do with what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, AOC, the congresswoman from New York, called woke one. We played that clip a while back when she went on a talk show and she said woke one was crazy.

[00:36:32] And she started laughing basically, you know, maybe trying to, you know, she is preparing for a presidential run. Dismiss some of the crazier policies. But what they argue is that the GOP's rightward shift is the legacy of peak woke. So they go through multiple different examples and actually argue that for all of the, you know, kind of controversial things that Trump says and the way that he talks, you know, really, he's pretty moderate and has been.

[00:36:59] He is not as as dramatically far right as the MAGA base in many ways has become or the new, you know, woke right, as some people might say. OK, so let's go through, you know, some of the different examples. So one of them has to do with affirmative action, how they argue that really, you know, even during Trump's first term, that a lot of people just kind of went along with it.

[00:37:23] It was kind of a you know, they they use the analogy of Clinton era slogans safe, legal and rare. Don't ask, don't tell. Like everybody knows it's happening a little bit, but we're not really going to make a big deal of it. They talk about how Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes pursued affirmative action in federal contracting. And even if a lot of conservatives, you know, weren't really in favor of that, they just went along with it anyway.

[00:37:49] And so then by 2020, though, things changed dramatically on the left. It became very extreme. Companies advertised fellowships that explicitly excluded whites and Asians, for instance. And you had all of these examples that was very explicit discrimination and that radicalized the right. And so now we've gone from everybody's kind of accepting affirmative action to now you have, you know, you are undoing affirmative action.

[00:38:17] Even the transgender debate really came, you know, it was kind of a third rail issue. And we were talking about kind of some victories in that regard lately on how people are waking up to common sense. And you have, you know, different different court precedents and executive orders that are protecting young girls are protecting girls sports. But if you think back to the 2016 era, you know, Trump was talking warmly about, you know, Caitlyn Jenner.

[00:38:45] You had even Kristi Noem, who was governor of South Dakota at the time, actually vetoing a bill that banned biological males from participating in women's sports. Megyn Kelly, who's now a very far right podcaster, was on NBC at the time. And even as a supposed conservative, it did a segment that was very, you know, very much where she was kind of talking about you featuring children who had gender dysphoria and very sympathetic.

[00:39:13] You had articles in Christian magazines debating on whether or not we should use preferred pronouns of, you know, different things. And so many things that now it has gone radically to the right. It has changed. Other examples as well. Immigration is one of the biggest ones. Went from in 2016 saying that we needed to enforce border security, which was a bipartisan issue, by the way.

[00:39:38] Even Bernie Sanders said that if you have open borders, you're, quote, doing away with the concept of a nation state. I don't think there's any country in the world that believes that. Now we've moved to on the left. No human is illegal. Again, talking again about the DSA advocating for noncitizen voting, free movement for workers between different countries as much as they want. And so you had the border crisis under Biden.

[00:40:05] So I think what happened is that the left just kept getting more and more extreme. Now you have conservatives openly talking about or Republicans openly talking about getting rid of all immigration, even legal immigration, stopping immigration. People are much more comfortable talking about, you know, racial and ethnic components of the immigration debate. So it really I just think this is interesting to read as we look back. You know, we're kind of winding down.

[00:40:32] Trump is entering his lame duck era in his second term as president. And look at how far the nation has come. And I don't think we're done shifting to the right. And so they really argue that it was the what it was wokeness, not Trump, that really pushed conservatives farther to the right, push the GOP farther to the right. In this regard, because the Democrats didn't police their own flank enough. And as we talked about earlier, that Overton window has definitely shifted on the left. It's shifting on the right.

[00:41:02] So it's going to be an interesting time. What does the GOP, what is conservatism? What does the United States of America look like post Trump? Well, there's another article I don't have time to get to today from Rod Rehrer. What I heard from the new right in Jerusalem. The link is at pointofview.net under today's show. I would consider checking that out because it was very insightful as we think about, you know, where where is the GOP going? Where is the conservative movement going once Trump leaves office?

[00:41:30] But really quickly, I wanted to commend another article to you to kind of close us out today. This is from Arthur Brooks. He says, don't pursue happiness, even though 250 years ago, Thomas Jefferson declared that we all have the God given right to the pursuit of happiness. But what does that mean? Well, apparently our definition of happiness has changed in those 250 years since then. Probably not a surprise to you.

[00:41:56] The founders understood a more classical Greek concept of happiness, which really came from the Greek term eudaimonia. Broadly, it means the state of living well and fulfilling one's highest human capacities through a life of integrity and worthwhile activity. But today, happiness is often described as a feeling. I think that if you look around at a lot of the problems facing young Americans today, lots of the discontent that you see,

[00:42:26] you will really see that it boils down to a faulty definition of happiness that is extremely personal and feelings based and subjective. What's interesting, and research backs this up, which is why Arthur Brooks mentions this in his column, is that the more you pursue your own happiness, the less happy you'll actually be. What does lead to happiness? Happens to be the same thing taught in the Bible.

[00:42:51] Serving others, pursuing integrity, pursuing virtue, generosity, kindness. He says your happiness will come from the love that you give. So, we have the freedom to pursue happiness, but we should know what that means as Christians. Thanks for listening today to Point of View and joining me on this Monday. Thank you, Megan. Thank you, Derek, for helping to point the show together. And I'll see you next time on Point of View. The Bible tells us not to worry.

[00:43:17] And yet, there is a lot of worrying stuff in our world today. Thankfully, the Bible doesn't stop at telling us not to worry. God gives us a next step. He says we need to pray. But sometimes, even knowing what to pray can be difficult. And that is why Point of View has relaunched our Pray for America movement, a series of weekly emails to guide you in prayer for our nation.

[00:43:46] Each week, you'll receive a brief update about a current issue affecting Americans, along with a written prayer that you can easily share with others. We'll also include a short free resource for you in each email, so you can learn more about the issue at hand. Will you commit to pray for America? Go to pointofview.net. Click on the Pray for America banner at the top of the page to subscribe.

[00:44:17] Again, that's pointofview.net. Click on the Pray for America banner. Let's pray together for God to make a difference in America. Point of View is produced by Point of View Ministries.