Point of View September 6, 2024 – Hour 1 : Weekend Edition

[00:00:22] [SPEAKER_04]: Penny Dexter, host, Pentadex News, September 6, 2020

[00:00:34] [SPEAKER_04]: But oh my goodness, I'm so happy to have Kelly Shackelford

[00:00:38] [SPEAKER_04]: from First Liberty Institute

[00:00:39] [SPEAKER_04]: and also Jeff Mateer from First Liberty Institute.

[00:00:43] [SPEAKER_04]: Kelly is CEO and Chief Counsel.

[00:00:45] [SPEAKER_04]: Jeff is Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer.

[00:00:48] [SPEAKER_04]: Probably, I don't know, you guys are the top two lawyers

[00:00:51] [SPEAKER_04]: at First Liberty, I think.

[00:00:52] [SPEAKER_04]: And I've got Ian here with me

[00:00:54] [SPEAKER_04]: to talk about all these very important issues.

[00:00:56] [SPEAKER_04]: And I think, first, Kelly, thanks for being here.

[00:01:00] [SPEAKER_03]: No, it's good to be here.

[00:01:01] [SPEAKER_04]: It's good to have you, and Jeff, you too.

[00:01:03] [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, this is great.

[00:01:04] [SPEAKER_04]: I just want to talk about your cases

[00:01:07] [SPEAKER_04]: and the things before you,

[00:01:09] [SPEAKER_04]: but first I want to talk about a letter.

[00:01:11] [SPEAKER_04]: This was a great letter that you, Kelly,

[00:01:13] [SPEAKER_04]: and some former attorney generals wrote

[00:01:17] [SPEAKER_04]: in order to really kind of, I don't know,

[00:01:20] [SPEAKER_04]: there are ways in which we can affect the election.

[00:01:23] [SPEAKER_04]: And one way is to get the information out via a debate.

[00:01:27] [SPEAKER_04]: That's probably the best way.

[00:01:28] [SPEAKER_04]: So you're kind of taking advantage

[00:01:30] [SPEAKER_04]: of that opportunity here, aren't you?

[00:01:32] [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, I mean, one of the most overlooked,

[00:01:36] [SPEAKER_03]: I think, right now, issues for most Americans

[00:01:40] [SPEAKER_03]: is the danger of what's going on with regard to our courts.

[00:01:45] [SPEAKER_03]: And I think most people are aware

[00:01:47] [SPEAKER_03]: that certainly on the Democratic side,

[00:01:49] [SPEAKER_03]: they're very upset with Roe v. Wade being overruled

[00:01:53] [SPEAKER_03]: and they didn't like the immunity decision.

[00:01:56] [SPEAKER_03]: And so they've gone into just, I don't know,

[00:02:00] [SPEAKER_03]: a bloodlust or I don't know what you'd call it,

[00:02:02] [SPEAKER_03]: but really a really irrational attempt.

[00:02:06] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, they want to destroy the Supreme Court.

[00:02:09] [SPEAKER_04]: Don't you think that predated though?

[00:02:11] [SPEAKER_04]: I mean, there's been a sense

[00:02:13] [SPEAKER_04]: that they'd wanted to destroy the court,

[00:02:15] [SPEAKER_04]: the more conservative court for a while.

[00:02:17] [SPEAKER_03]: I think it started with Dobbs,

[00:02:19] [SPEAKER_03]: so I really do, Roe v. Wade.

[00:02:20] [SPEAKER_03]: And it's just ratcheting up and it's getting worse.

[00:02:23] [SPEAKER_03]: And so I would just say to listeners,

[00:02:26] [SPEAKER_03]: if you watch every day,

[00:02:27] [SPEAKER_03]: they're proposing something new

[00:02:30] [SPEAKER_03]: on how to restructure the US Supreme Court.

[00:02:34] [SPEAKER_03]: They call it reform the Supreme Court.

[00:02:38] [SPEAKER_03]: And of course, reform means

[00:02:39] [SPEAKER_03]: you get rid of the conservative justices

[00:02:41] [SPEAKER_03]: and you put on more liberal justices.

[00:02:43] [SPEAKER_03]: That's what it really means.

[00:02:45] [SPEAKER_03]: But the problem with this is

[00:02:46] [SPEAKER_03]: it's ridiculous on a lot of levels.

[00:02:49] [SPEAKER_03]: For instance, oh, we want term limits.

[00:02:51] [SPEAKER_03]: Well, that's unconstitutional.

[00:02:53] [SPEAKER_03]: The founders said that it's lifetime tenure

[00:02:56] [SPEAKER_03]: and that was in the Federalist Papers.

[00:03:00] [SPEAKER_03]: There's all kinds of arguments for why we have that.

[00:03:02] [SPEAKER_03]: Well, we want ethics.

[00:03:03] [SPEAKER_03]: We want the Senate to control the ethics of the court.

[00:03:06] [SPEAKER_03]: Well, you can't do that.

[00:03:07] [SPEAKER_03]: That violates separation of powers.

[00:03:09] [SPEAKER_03]: But there's one thing they can do.

[00:03:10] [SPEAKER_03]: And so they're talking about all these things

[00:03:12] [SPEAKER_03]: because their base is very excited about this.

[00:03:16] [SPEAKER_03]: But there's only one thing that they could do if they win.

[00:03:19] [SPEAKER_03]: So if you have one party,

[00:03:20] [SPEAKER_03]: have the House, the Senate, and the presidency

[00:03:23] [SPEAKER_03]: with just a majority vote,

[00:03:25] [SPEAKER_03]: you can add as many justices as you want.

[00:03:27] [SPEAKER_03]: You can add five, 10 justices.

[00:03:29] [SPEAKER_03]: And not only is this something that could happen,

[00:03:33] [SPEAKER_03]: there are literally articles, if you watch,

[00:03:36] [SPEAKER_03]: coming out from leaders saying,

[00:03:37] [SPEAKER_03]: this is what we should do.

[00:03:39] [SPEAKER_03]: This is exactly the answer.

[00:03:41] [SPEAKER_03]: And the problem with that is in other countries

[00:03:43] [SPEAKER_03]: where we've seen that happen,

[00:03:45] [SPEAKER_03]: Venezuela, Argentina,

[00:03:47] [SPEAKER_03]: they even tried it in the United States.

[00:03:48] [SPEAKER_03]: If you do that, you're done as a country the first time

[00:03:52] [SPEAKER_03]: because your court collapses

[00:03:54] [SPEAKER_03]: and it's simply underneath the political power.

[00:03:58] [SPEAKER_03]: It really isn't an independent branch.

[00:04:00] [SPEAKER_03]: And whatever rights you think you have,

[00:04:02] [SPEAKER_03]: they can just add however many justices they want

[00:04:04] [SPEAKER_03]: and take them away.

[00:04:05] [SPEAKER_03]: And so you've lost the courts.

[00:04:06] [SPEAKER_03]: You've lost the rule of law

[00:04:08] [SPEAKER_03]: and you devolve into totalitarianism immediately.

[00:04:11] [SPEAKER_03]: That could happen to us.

[00:04:13] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, literally six months from now.

[00:04:15] [SPEAKER_03]: And so we thought if there's one debate,

[00:04:18] [SPEAKER_03]: and right now for president there is,

[00:04:21] [SPEAKER_03]: we thought it's really important.

[00:04:23] [SPEAKER_03]: And four former United States attorneys general

[00:04:26] [SPEAKER_03]: had joined us in sending this to ABC

[00:04:29] [SPEAKER_03]: and to the questioners saying,

[00:04:32] [SPEAKER_03]: you have to look at all the talk

[00:04:34] [SPEAKER_03]: about reforming the court and all this.

[00:04:37] [SPEAKER_03]: You have to ask this question.

[00:04:39] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, I can't think of a more important question to ask

[00:04:41] [SPEAKER_03]: that voters need to know where they stand.

[00:04:44] [SPEAKER_03]: Hopefully they would both come out and say,

[00:04:47] [SPEAKER_03]: no, this would be really bad.

[00:04:49] [SPEAKER_03]: But they haven't said that yet.

[00:04:51] [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, Biden kind of said it when he was running in 2020.

[00:04:55] [SPEAKER_04]: I remember he said,

[00:04:56] [SPEAKER_04]: at least spoke against packing the court.

[00:04:59] [SPEAKER_04]: He said it was a boneheaded idea.

[00:05:01] [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, when he was on the Senate,

[00:05:03] [SPEAKER_03]: when he was actually in the Senate,

[00:05:05] [SPEAKER_03]: he said it was a bonehead idea.

[00:05:07] [SPEAKER_03]: And he was a little more resistant

[00:05:09] [SPEAKER_03]: when they were pushing him to do it.

[00:05:11] [SPEAKER_03]: Kamala Harris said when she was running in the primary

[00:05:13] [SPEAKER_03]: said she was quote, absolutely open to it.

[00:05:16] [SPEAKER_03]: Now we're five years later now.

[00:05:19] [SPEAKER_03]: So what is the position?

[00:05:21] [SPEAKER_03]: They have got to force this issue.

[00:05:23] [SPEAKER_03]: Every Senator running for Senate

[00:05:24] [SPEAKER_03]: needs to have to answer this question.

[00:05:27] [SPEAKER_03]: This is a serious, serious issue

[00:05:28] [SPEAKER_03]: that could destroy our country really.

[00:05:31] [SPEAKER_03]: And so I'm hopeful that in the ABC debate

[00:05:35] [SPEAKER_03]: that they will ask the question,

[00:05:36] [SPEAKER_03]: but if they don't America needs to demand

[00:05:39] [SPEAKER_03]: that they get the answer to this.

[00:05:41] [SPEAKER_03]: This is just too important a question.

[00:05:42] [SPEAKER_04]: Well, Jeff, what do you think?

[00:05:44] [SPEAKER_04]: Do you think that ABC,

[00:05:46] [SPEAKER_04]: because the debates on ABC Tuesday night,

[00:05:49] [SPEAKER_04]: do you think that these attorney generals,

[00:05:52] [SPEAKER_04]: which is William Barr, Edwin Meese,

[00:05:56] [SPEAKER_04]: Michael Mukasey and Jeff Sessions,

[00:05:58] [SPEAKER_04]: these four contemporary attorney generals

[00:06:01] [SPEAKER_04]: in recent years they've served.

[00:06:03] [SPEAKER_04]: And they're going to,

[00:06:04] [SPEAKER_04]: they've signed onto the letter with you, Kelly.

[00:06:06] [SPEAKER_04]: So do you think that that's going to,

[00:06:09] [SPEAKER_04]: is ABC gonna care?

[00:06:11] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, well, they probably don't.

[00:06:12] [SPEAKER_00]: They probably don't care.

[00:06:13] [SPEAKER_00]: But I do think their credibility is on the line here

[00:06:16] [SPEAKER_00]: because if it's perceived

[00:06:18] [SPEAKER_00]: that Harris isn't getting asked the tough questions,

[00:06:22] [SPEAKER_00]: then that really does question whether ABC is biased.

[00:06:26] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, no one wants to be perceived as biased, right?

[00:06:29] [SPEAKER_00]: Now we know ABC News is bias,

[00:06:33] [SPEAKER_00]: but they don't want to be perceived as that.

[00:06:35] [SPEAKER_00]: And so I think they do want to ask,

[00:06:37] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I think they should want to ask

[00:06:39] [SPEAKER_00]: some tough questions,

[00:06:41] [SPEAKER_00]: especially when you have Harris

[00:06:42] [SPEAKER_00]: dodging every issue, right?

[00:06:45] [SPEAKER_00]: And I mean, she needs to go on the record.

[00:06:48] [SPEAKER_00]: This is, as Kelly says,

[00:06:49] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, this is the central issue.

[00:06:51] [SPEAKER_00]: And quite frankly,

[00:06:53] [SPEAKER_00]: the Trump campaign needs to go on the record.

[00:06:55] [SPEAKER_00]: Donald Trump needs to go on the record as well.

[00:06:58] [SPEAKER_00]: And I would hope then that his campaign would realize,

[00:07:02] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, this is a central critical issue

[00:07:04] [SPEAKER_00]: and it's something that should be a winner

[00:07:07] [SPEAKER_00]: for the Trump campaign.

[00:07:09] [SPEAKER_00]: And maybe then, like some other issues we're hearing

[00:07:13] [SPEAKER_00]: with Harris, I mean,

[00:07:14] [SPEAKER_00]: she's her views on fracking are changing.

[00:07:17] [SPEAKER_00]: Maybe if she puts her finger in the air

[00:07:20] [SPEAKER_00]: and she'll realize this is a loser issue

[00:07:22] [SPEAKER_00]: and we can get her standing up against this

[00:07:24] [SPEAKER_00]: because Kelly's absolutely right.

[00:07:27] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, this does destroy,

[00:07:29] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, we're not, this isn't just one issue.

[00:07:31] [SPEAKER_00]: This destroys every issue.

[00:07:34] [SPEAKER_00]: There won't be any more religious liberty.

[00:07:36] [SPEAKER_00]: There won't be any economic liberty.

[00:07:38] [SPEAKER_00]: It's whatever the party in control wants.

[00:07:40] [SPEAKER_00]: Then you have a Supreme Court rubber stamping it.

[00:07:43] [SPEAKER_00]: And how's that worked out for Venezuela?

[00:07:45] [SPEAKER_04]: That's just another political branch.

[00:07:46] [SPEAKER_04]: It's not a court.

[00:07:47] [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, how's it work out for Venezuela?

[00:07:49] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, is that what we want?

[00:07:51] [SPEAKER_00]: We just want one party rule and a court not checking on it?

[00:07:54] [SPEAKER_00]: Well, that's not what the founders envisioned.

[00:07:56] [SPEAKER_00]: So it's critical.

[00:07:58] [SPEAKER_00]: So I hope ABC will raise this question.

[00:08:01] [SPEAKER_04]: All right, we're gonna move on,

[00:08:04] [SPEAKER_04]: not move on from this issue,

[00:08:06] [SPEAKER_04]: but move on within this issue

[00:08:07] [SPEAKER_04]: because there was a Wall Street Journal

[00:08:10] [SPEAKER_04]: little editorial about what Justice Jackson,

[00:08:14] [SPEAKER_04]: Katonji Jackson said.

[00:08:16] [SPEAKER_04]: She's on a book tour and she said

[00:08:19] [SPEAKER_04]: that the Supreme Court needs an enforceable ethics code.

[00:08:23] [SPEAKER_04]: Enforceable, that word is a little bit,

[00:08:25] [SPEAKER_04]: I don't know, concerning, I would say,

[00:08:27] [SPEAKER_04]: because nobody's supposed to enforce anything

[00:08:29] [SPEAKER_04]: on the Supreme Court.

[00:08:31] [SPEAKER_04]: She doesn't see any difference, according to this,

[00:08:33] [SPEAKER_04]: between Supreme Court justices

[00:08:35] [SPEAKER_04]: and other courts' justices.

[00:08:37] [SPEAKER_04]: So we're gonna talk a bit about that.

[00:08:39] [SPEAKER_04]: I wanna get to Kelly and Jeff's take on it.

[00:08:42] [SPEAKER_04]: And we also wanna talk about

[00:08:43] [SPEAKER_04]: what will happen on religious liberty

[00:08:45] [SPEAKER_04]: under a Harris administration.

[00:08:48] [SPEAKER_04]: We'll be back after this.

[00:08:58] [SPEAKER_01]: This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson.

[00:09:02] [SPEAKER_02]: If you type the words tablet kids into a search engine,

[00:09:06] [SPEAKER_02]: up will pop all sorts of tablets for young children.

[00:09:09] [SPEAKER_02]: If you look far enough,

[00:09:10] [SPEAKER_02]: you will see a press report of a medical study

[00:09:12] [SPEAKER_02]: that should warn you not to purchase one of those tablets.

[00:09:16] [SPEAKER_02]: The Journal of the American Medical Association

[00:09:18] [SPEAKER_02]: on Pediatrics documents such concerns

[00:09:20] [SPEAKER_02]: in an article on early childhood tablet use

[00:09:23] [SPEAKER_02]: and outbursts of anger.

[00:09:25] [SPEAKER_02]: The researchers found that children who spend 75 minutes

[00:09:28] [SPEAKER_02]: or more per day on a computer screen at age three and a half

[00:09:32] [SPEAKER_02]: are more likely to experience anger

[00:09:34] [SPEAKER_02]: and frustration outbursts a year later.

[00:09:36] [SPEAKER_02]: The study also warned that this cycle may continue

[00:09:39] [SPEAKER_02]: as children who are more likely to express anger

[00:09:41] [SPEAKER_02]: and frustration at age four and a half

[00:09:44] [SPEAKER_02]: may spend even more time on a tablet a year later.

[00:09:47] [SPEAKER_02]: As you might imagine,

[00:09:48] [SPEAKER_02]: the study was greeted by many skeptics with comments like,

[00:09:51] [SPEAKER_02]: tell me something I didn't know.

[00:09:52] [SPEAKER_02]: Any parent or grandparent who has children or grandchildren

[00:09:55] [SPEAKER_02]: who have become addicted to digital devices

[00:09:57] [SPEAKER_02]: have seen this behavior.

[00:09:59] [SPEAKER_02]: The value of this study is to document it

[00:10:01] [SPEAKER_02]: and predict that it will get worse over time.

[00:10:04] [SPEAKER_02]: There is some value obviously

[00:10:06] [SPEAKER_02]: in allowing a young child to look at a computer screen

[00:10:08] [SPEAKER_02]: for a few minutes just to get some sanity

[00:10:10] [SPEAKER_02]: as you're walking through the valley of the diapers.

[00:10:13] [SPEAKER_02]: Giving a computer tablet to a young child

[00:10:15] [SPEAKER_02]: might distract them for a moment.

[00:10:17] [SPEAKER_02]: It might even help avoid a temper tantrum,

[00:10:20] [SPEAKER_02]: but the long-term impact on the child is not good.

[00:10:23] [SPEAKER_02]: It will perpetuate a cycle where a parent gives a tablet

[00:10:26] [SPEAKER_02]: to an angry child only later to have an even angrier child.

[00:10:30] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, this study warns against allowing young children

[00:10:33] [SPEAKER_02]: to become addicted to digital devices.

[00:10:35] [SPEAKER_02]: If we allow that to continue,

[00:10:37] [SPEAKER_02]: you will create an unsocialized tech-dependent angry child.

[00:10:41] [SPEAKER_02]: I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

[00:10:47] [SPEAKER_01]: Go deeper on topics like you just heard

[00:10:50] [SPEAKER_01]: by visiting pointofview.net.

[00:10:53] [SPEAKER_01]: That's pointofview.net.

[00:10:58] [SPEAKER_01]: You're listening to Point of View,

[00:11:00] [SPEAKER_01]: your listener-supported source for truth.

[00:11:04] [SPEAKER_04]: I'm Penna Dexter.

[00:11:05] [SPEAKER_04]: Welcome back to Point of View.

[00:11:06] [SPEAKER_04]: Kelly Shackelford and Jeff Matier are in studio with me

[00:11:10] [SPEAKER_04]: for our Friday weekend edition.

[00:11:12] [SPEAKER_04]: And posted at pointofview.net is this piece

[00:11:14] [SPEAKER_04]: that I mentioned from the Wall Street Journal,

[00:11:15] [SPEAKER_04]: Justice Jackson's Enforceable Ethics Code.

[00:11:19] [SPEAKER_04]: And she's on a media tour for her new memoir,

[00:11:22] [SPEAKER_04]: according to the journal.

[00:11:24] [SPEAKER_04]: She's thrown her support behind the idea,

[00:11:26] [SPEAKER_04]: at least in theory,

[00:11:27] [SPEAKER_04]: of an enforceable Supreme Court ethics code.

[00:11:30] [SPEAKER_04]: A binding code, this is a quote of hers,

[00:11:33] [SPEAKER_04]: a binding code of ethics is pretty standard for judges,

[00:11:37] [SPEAKER_04]: she told CBS.

[00:11:39] [SPEAKER_04]: She said, I guess I have not seen a persuasive reason

[00:11:42] [SPEAKER_04]: to why the court is different from the other courts

[00:11:44] [SPEAKER_04]: that have binding ethics codes.

[00:11:46] [SPEAKER_04]: The Supreme Court has an ethics code.

[00:11:48] [SPEAKER_04]: They've written it themselves, they police themselves,

[00:11:50] [SPEAKER_04]: and that's the way it should be.

[00:11:52] [SPEAKER_04]: And Kelly, when you hear that word enforceable,

[00:11:55] [SPEAKER_04]: I guess she means that Congress would enforce it

[00:11:58] [SPEAKER_04]: against the court, and that's exactly what we don't want.

[00:12:02] [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, and that's the question,

[00:12:03] [SPEAKER_03]: is what she really means by that.

[00:12:05] [SPEAKER_03]: And Justice Kagan said something about a month earlier.

[00:12:09] [SPEAKER_03]: And I think it's really disturbing

[00:12:13] [SPEAKER_03]: to see them say these types of things.

[00:12:16] [SPEAKER_03]: Number one, the Chief Justice is the one

[00:12:19] [SPEAKER_03]: who is in charge of the court.

[00:12:22] [SPEAKER_03]: And they should have a discussion about this,

[00:12:25] [SPEAKER_03]: but they shouldn't be talking in public

[00:12:27] [SPEAKER_03]: in ways to invite outside branches

[00:12:31] [SPEAKER_03]: to become involved in the court.

[00:12:34] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, you could tell what Justice Roberts is trying to do,

[00:12:38] [SPEAKER_03]: Chief Justice Roberts,

[00:12:40] [SPEAKER_03]: is he's trying to keep the independence of the judiciary,

[00:12:43] [SPEAKER_03]: which our founders put in place in the Constitution.

[00:12:46] [SPEAKER_03]: We did a poll a month ago.

[00:12:50] [SPEAKER_03]: 87% of Americans believe that the independence

[00:12:54] [SPEAKER_03]: of the judiciary is critical to their civil rights.

[00:12:59] [SPEAKER_03]: People get this, and you don't have,

[00:13:03] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, think of it, think of if Congress came up

[00:13:05] [SPEAKER_03]: with an ethics code for the President of the United States.

[00:13:08] [SPEAKER_03]: And they said, hey, we've got an ethics code for you.

[00:13:11] [SPEAKER_03]: And do you know what the President would say?

[00:13:14] [SPEAKER_04]: Well, they've kind of tried to do that, actually,

[00:13:16] [SPEAKER_04]: in some ways.

[00:13:17] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, you've got impeachment that's in the Constitution,

[00:13:20] [SPEAKER_03]: but that's really it.

[00:13:21] [SPEAKER_03]: Other than that, you can't go to the head

[00:13:24] [SPEAKER_03]: of the other branch and say, hey,

[00:13:26] [SPEAKER_03]: we're gonna tell you what you can and can't do.

[00:13:29] [SPEAKER_03]: You can't do that.

[00:13:30] [SPEAKER_03]: That's a violation of separation of powers.

[00:13:33] [SPEAKER_03]: And the President has that authority.

[00:13:35] [SPEAKER_03]: In the same way, the supreme authority

[00:13:38] [SPEAKER_03]: in the judiciary is the Supreme Court.

[00:13:41] [SPEAKER_03]: They've got an ethics code.

[00:13:43] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, do we really think the Senate's better at ethics

[00:13:46] [SPEAKER_03]: than the Supreme Court?

[00:13:47] [SPEAKER_03]: I don't.

[00:13:49] [SPEAKER_03]: So I think that the question with Justice Jackson is,

[00:13:56] [SPEAKER_03]: is she talking about some sort of cobbling together

[00:14:00] [SPEAKER_03]: some sort of judges who are within the courts?

[00:14:05] [SPEAKER_03]: That's like a special ethics enforcer.

[00:14:10] [SPEAKER_04]: So the lower courts would police the Supreme Court?

[00:14:12] [SPEAKER_03]: Yes, and you see how that gets really problematic too.

[00:14:15] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, so anything you do seems to violate

[00:14:18] [SPEAKER_03]: what the Constitution is doing.

[00:14:21] [SPEAKER_03]: And what's funny is what is the need for all this?

[00:14:24] [SPEAKER_03]: Why are we doing all this?

[00:14:26] [SPEAKER_03]: We're doing all this really because of no reason.

[00:14:29] [SPEAKER_03]: I am not aware of a single,

[00:14:32] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, they've been scurrilous articles.

[00:14:34] [SPEAKER_03]: There's a whole, there's this group called ProPublica

[00:14:37] [SPEAKER_03]: that's formed by the extreme left and they've been funded

[00:14:40] [SPEAKER_03]: and they just keep tacking Thomas and Alito

[00:14:43] [SPEAKER_03]: and the court to try to delegitimize the court.

[00:14:46] [SPEAKER_04]: And nothing they bring up is anything

[00:14:48] [SPEAKER_04]: that should really concern us.

[00:14:50] [SPEAKER_04]: They try to magnify normal things

[00:14:53] [SPEAKER_04]: that people do in their life, like go on a vacation

[00:14:56] [SPEAKER_03]: or have friends.

[00:14:58] [SPEAKER_03]: That's, that's.

[00:14:59] [SPEAKER_04]: And also the fact that all the people,

[00:15:01] [SPEAKER_04]: all the entities that they say are undue influence

[00:15:05] [SPEAKER_04]: because they're friends

[00:15:06] [SPEAKER_04]: or because they provided something.

[00:15:08] [SPEAKER_04]: These people don't have any cases

[00:15:10] [SPEAKER_04]: in front of the Supreme Court.

[00:15:11] [SPEAKER_03]: So that's, that's the thing.

[00:15:13] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, why do you have ethics for judges?

[00:15:15] [SPEAKER_03]: Because you don't want judges influenced in an opinion

[00:15:20] [SPEAKER_03]: by somebody that, you know, there's,

[00:15:22] [SPEAKER_03]: there's a inappropriate relationship or whatever

[00:15:25] [SPEAKER_03]: that would influence.

[00:15:27] [SPEAKER_03]: There's not been a single allegation of any case

[00:15:30] [SPEAKER_03]: with any of the justices where that has been even alleged.

[00:15:34] [SPEAKER_03]: And so we're going through this whole process.

[00:15:37] [SPEAKER_03]: By the way, Justice Ginsburg spoke at the ACLU convention

[00:15:43] [SPEAKER_03]: when there were ACLU cases before the court.

[00:15:46] [SPEAKER_03]: That wasn't a problem then.

[00:15:48] [SPEAKER_04]: She didn't recuse herself from any of those cases?

[00:15:50] [SPEAKER_03]: She did not.

[00:15:51] [SPEAKER_03]: And she shouldn't.

[00:15:52] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, the way the ethics rules are really made for judges.

[00:15:56] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, people live in small communities.

[00:15:58] [SPEAKER_03]: The idea that you can't know one another

[00:15:59] [SPEAKER_03]: and express opinions on things.

[00:16:02] [SPEAKER_03]: And I mean, it really is silly.

[00:16:03] [SPEAKER_03]: What they're, like you say,

[00:16:04] [SPEAKER_03]: what they're doing is they're trying to,

[00:16:06] [SPEAKER_03]: for people who don't understand judicial ethics,

[00:16:08] [SPEAKER_03]: they're trying to make everybody unethical on the right.

[00:16:12] [SPEAKER_03]: They're not focusing on the same things on the left.

[00:16:15] [SPEAKER_03]: But in the process, they're really endangering the court

[00:16:18] [SPEAKER_03]: because they want to take away

[00:16:19] [SPEAKER_03]: the independence of the court.

[00:16:21] [SPEAKER_03]: And so I think I'm a little disappointed

[00:16:24] [SPEAKER_03]: in some of these justices who are speaking out of turn,

[00:16:27] [SPEAKER_03]: I think, and not protecting the court

[00:16:30] [SPEAKER_03]: and the independence of the court.

[00:16:32] [SPEAKER_03]: Because I think that's really crucial.

[00:16:36] [SPEAKER_03]: When you lose the independence,

[00:16:38] [SPEAKER_03]: you will politicize the court.

[00:16:40] [SPEAKER_03]: And so think of whoever these people would be

[00:16:43] [SPEAKER_03]: that are now, you know, would be over the court

[00:16:46] [SPEAKER_03]: and the quote, ethics, and telling justices

[00:16:49] [SPEAKER_03]: which cases they can sit on and which cases they can't.

[00:16:53] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, that's not the system our founders put in place.

[00:16:56] [SPEAKER_03]: And it's incredibly dangerous.

[00:16:58] [SPEAKER_03]: Now you put power and you will have politics

[00:17:00] [SPEAKER_03]: in who those people are and who controls the court.

[00:17:04] [SPEAKER_03]: It's a very dangerous trail we're going down

[00:17:07] [SPEAKER_03]: and it needs to be stopped.

[00:17:09] [SPEAKER_04]: This is what the journal said,

[00:17:11] [SPEAKER_04]: that what she said was cagey,

[00:17:13] [SPEAKER_04]: the way she explained it, Katonjia Brown Jackson.

[00:17:16] [SPEAKER_04]: And we suggest that Justice Jackson look more closely

[00:17:19] [SPEAKER_04]: at the political pressure her endorsement may help to unleash

[00:17:23] [SPEAKER_04]: and what we just explained.

[00:17:25] [SPEAKER_04]: Jeff, the fact, the call for recusals

[00:17:30] [SPEAKER_04]: for them to be required to recuse,

[00:17:33] [SPEAKER_04]: that's their decision, first of all.

[00:17:35] [SPEAKER_04]: But also the fact that there's only nine justices,

[00:17:38] [SPEAKER_04]: which, you know, also First Liberty is really,

[00:17:41] [SPEAKER_04]: really pushing to keep it that way.

[00:17:43] [SPEAKER_04]: But that makes it hard because if you have someone recused,

[00:17:48] [SPEAKER_04]: you have an even number.

[00:17:49] [SPEAKER_04]: So that changes the dynamics of the court, doesn't it?

[00:17:52] [SPEAKER_00]: Well, and as the journal points out,

[00:17:54] [SPEAKER_00]: you're basically, it's a vote against

[00:17:57] [SPEAKER_00]: because if Thomas doesn't participate in a case,

[00:18:00] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, and Kelly's point, let me just underscore it.

[00:18:03] [SPEAKER_00]: There is no evidence.

[00:18:05] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I've read John Gresham.

[00:18:06] [SPEAKER_00]: I know what the story would be.

[00:18:08] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, the story would be that a conservative justice

[00:18:11] [SPEAKER_00]: has been given something in exchange for a vote

[00:18:15] [SPEAKER_00]: that he wouldn't normally otherwise have made.

[00:18:18] [SPEAKER_00]: Well, that's not here.

[00:18:20] [SPEAKER_00]: Is there one Thomas?

[00:18:21] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, we pretty, for Thomas and Alito especially,

[00:18:25] [SPEAKER_00]: we pretty much can predict.

[00:18:27] [SPEAKER_00]: I think with certainty, I mean,

[00:18:31] [SPEAKER_00]: I might not say that about the three in the middle

[00:18:33] [SPEAKER_00]: because I'm not always, I mean,

[00:18:35] [SPEAKER_00]: pretty good with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett on most cases,

[00:18:39] [SPEAKER_00]: but there might be a case that we can't determine.

[00:18:41] [SPEAKER_00]: But for Alito and Thomas, I can't figure out any,

[00:18:46] [SPEAKER_00]: any case in which he hasn't voted,

[00:18:50] [SPEAKER_00]: they haven't voted in the way that we all knew

[00:18:52] [SPEAKER_00]: they would vote.

[00:18:53] [SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, like someone would be able to persuade them.

[00:18:55] [SPEAKER_00]: So that they would have to recuse themselves

[00:18:57] [SPEAKER_00]: from a case that, and again, there isn't any of that.

[00:19:02] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, it might, you know, the other would be like

[00:19:04] [SPEAKER_00]: on a case where there's something in the middle

[00:19:07] [SPEAKER_00]: and then somebody you're not sure where they're going to be

[00:19:09] [SPEAKER_00]: and there was some undue influence.

[00:19:11] [SPEAKER_00]: That's the John Gresham novel.

[00:19:13] [SPEAKER_00]: It just doesn't exist here.

[00:19:15] [SPEAKER_00]: And so that, and I do think as the journal points out,

[00:19:18] [SPEAKER_00]: maybe the reason Jackson is being cagey is,

[00:19:21] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, it's not like she's completely complied either.

[00:19:24] [SPEAKER_00]: Right?

[00:19:25] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, she failed to disclose some things.

[00:19:27] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, mistakes do happen and they shouldn't be penalized.

[00:19:32] [SPEAKER_00]: But again, on Jackson, I'm pretty certain

[00:19:35] [SPEAKER_00]: that I could look at her record and she hasn't, you know,

[00:19:39] [SPEAKER_00]: been influenced in such a way to make a vote a certain way.

[00:19:42] [SPEAKER_00]: We can pretty much predict where Jackson's going to go.

[00:19:46] [SPEAKER_00]: So, I mean, this is just an effort.

[00:19:50] [SPEAKER_00]: It's partisan pressure to try to convince Thomas

[00:19:54] [SPEAKER_00]: and Alito not to vote the way we all know

[00:19:57] [SPEAKER_00]: they're going to vote.

[00:19:59] [SPEAKER_00]: They're upset because they keep losing

[00:20:02] [SPEAKER_00]: in front of the Supreme Court.

[00:20:03] [SPEAKER_00]: They don't like that Coach Kennedy won six to three.

[00:20:07] [SPEAKER_00]: Right?

[00:20:08] [SPEAKER_00]: They don't like that.

[00:20:09] [SPEAKER_00]: And so they're upset about,

[00:20:10] [SPEAKER_00]: they don't like the Dobbs decision.

[00:20:12] [SPEAKER_00]: And so they're just trying to put pressure

[00:20:14] [SPEAKER_00]: on these justices.

[00:20:16] [SPEAKER_04]: Do you think she, in a sense, I mean, her book tour,

[00:20:21] [SPEAKER_04]: maybe she's trying to call attention to her book.

[00:20:24] [SPEAKER_00]: Well, exactly.

[00:20:25] [SPEAKER_00]: That's what she's trying to do.

[00:20:26] [SPEAKER_00]: That's how they make their money.

[00:20:27] [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, they don't make money very much.

[00:20:28] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, you know, all of this should change by the way.

[00:20:31] [SPEAKER_03]: The idea that the justices get paid

[00:20:34] [SPEAKER_03]: where they get paid is ridiculous.

[00:20:36] [SPEAKER_03]: Because if you're a justice,

[00:20:37] [SPEAKER_03]: you could go work at a major law firm

[00:20:39] [SPEAKER_03]: and make, you know, 10 times what you're getting paid.

[00:20:42] [SPEAKER_04]: So all the justices should get a raise.

[00:20:44] [SPEAKER_03]: They should, they should be paid how they would be paid

[00:20:48] [SPEAKER_03]: if they were in the private sector

[00:20:50] [SPEAKER_03]: or something close to that.

[00:20:51] [SPEAKER_04]: Maybe they wouldn't have to write books then.

[00:20:53] [SPEAKER_03]: So they won't have to do things to supplement their income.

[00:20:58] [SPEAKER_03]: But, and the books are the way people do that.

[00:21:00] [SPEAKER_03]: And then again, think of that.

[00:21:02] [SPEAKER_03]: Some book publishers giving you money.

[00:21:04] [SPEAKER_03]: Do they give it?

[00:21:05] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, you know, and they give some justices

[00:21:06] [SPEAKER_03]: more money than other justices.

[00:21:09] [SPEAKER_03]: And you know, you can see how that's dangerous.

[00:21:12] [SPEAKER_03]: You know, she's paying well, but you know,

[00:21:15] [SPEAKER_03]: this is all partisanship,

[00:21:16] [SPEAKER_03]: but it's incredibly dangerous

[00:21:18] [SPEAKER_03]: because it literally could change our country forever.

[00:21:22] [SPEAKER_04]: Okay, next up, we're going to talk about Trump v. Harris,

[00:21:26] [SPEAKER_04]: their record of religious freedom on several key issues.

[00:21:29] [SPEAKER_04]: You don't want to miss it, we'll be back.

[00:21:30] [SPEAKER_01]: It almost seems like we live in a different world

[00:21:33] [SPEAKER_01]: from many people in positions of authority.

[00:21:36] [SPEAKER_01]: They say men can be women and women, men.

[00:21:39] [SPEAKER_01]: People are prosecuted differently or not at all,

[00:21:42] [SPEAKER_01]: depending on their politics.

[00:21:44] [SPEAKER_01]: Criminals are more valued and rewarded

[00:21:47] [SPEAKER_01]: than law abiding citizens.

[00:21:49] [SPEAKER_01]: It's so overwhelming, so demoralizing.

[00:21:52] [SPEAKER_01]: You feel like giving up, but we can't, we shouldn't.

[00:21:56] [SPEAKER_01]: We must not.

[00:21:58] [SPEAKER_01]: As Winston Churchill said to Britain

[00:22:00] [SPEAKER_01]: in the darkest days of World War II,

[00:22:02] [SPEAKER_01]: never give in, never give in, never, never, never,

[00:22:06] [SPEAKER_01]: never yield to force,

[00:22:08] [SPEAKER_01]: never yield to the apparently overwhelming

[00:22:10] [SPEAKER_01]: might of the enemy.

[00:22:12] [SPEAKER_01]: And that's what we say to you today.

[00:22:15] [SPEAKER_01]: This is not a time to give in,

[00:22:17] [SPEAKER_01]: but to step up and join Point of View

[00:22:20] [SPEAKER_01]: in providing clarity in the chaos.

[00:22:22] [SPEAKER_01]: We can't do it alone, but together with God's help,

[00:22:27] [SPEAKER_01]: we will overcome the darkness.

[00:22:29] [SPEAKER_01]: Invest in Biblical Clarity today at pointofview.net

[00:22:33] [SPEAKER_01]: or call 1-800-347-5151,

[00:22:38] [SPEAKER_01]: pointofview.net and 800-347-5151.

[00:22:47] [SPEAKER_01]: Point of View will continue after this.

[00:22:57] [SPEAKER_01]: You are listening to Point of View.

[00:23:01] [SPEAKER_01]: The opinions expressed on Point of View

[00:23:04] [SPEAKER_01]: do not necessarily reflect the views

[00:23:06] [SPEAKER_01]: of the management or staff of the station.

[00:23:09] [SPEAKER_01]: And now, here again is Penna Dexter.

[00:23:13] [SPEAKER_04]: On the issue of the Supreme Court

[00:23:16] [SPEAKER_04]: remaining the Supreme Court

[00:23:18] [SPEAKER_04]: and remaining constitutional in its function,

[00:23:23] [SPEAKER_04]: I think you know where we stand

[00:23:24] [SPEAKER_04]: and I think you've got to understand,

[00:23:27] [SPEAKER_04]: ladies and gentlemen,

[00:23:28] [SPEAKER_04]: that the election really matters on this front.

[00:23:31] [SPEAKER_04]: Whether the court remains as it should be

[00:23:34] [SPEAKER_04]: has a lot to do with who wins the election,

[00:23:37] [SPEAKER_04]: the presidential election and also Senate.

[00:23:41] [SPEAKER_04]: So, on that note, I think it behooves us

[00:23:46] [SPEAKER_04]: to look at where the candidates stand

[00:23:49] [SPEAKER_04]: on religious liberty issues,

[00:23:51] [SPEAKER_04]: other religious liberty issues.

[00:23:53] [SPEAKER_04]: And first of all, a lot of people have been talking

[00:23:57] [SPEAKER_04]: about the free speech issues

[00:23:58] [SPEAKER_04]: and where other people stand.

[00:24:00] [SPEAKER_04]: We've been hearing interviews of Kamala Harris by CNN

[00:24:03] [SPEAKER_04]: where she says that speech on, for instance,

[00:24:07] [SPEAKER_04]: social media like Twitter or X should be a privilege.

[00:24:11] [SPEAKER_04]: She said that in 2019.

[00:24:13] [SPEAKER_04]: And that's handed out, I guess, by the government.

[00:24:18] [SPEAKER_04]: She has quite, at least back then,

[00:24:21] [SPEAKER_04]: I mean, I don't know if she's changed.

[00:24:22] [SPEAKER_04]: She hasn't really been asked this

[00:24:23] [SPEAKER_04]: or she hasn't answered,

[00:24:24] [SPEAKER_04]: but she said back in 2019 on CNN,

[00:24:28] [SPEAKER_04]: there should be a consequence.

[00:24:30] [SPEAKER_04]: She was talking about Trump.

[00:24:32] [SPEAKER_04]: She wanted him thrown off Twitter.

[00:24:33] [SPEAKER_04]: At that time, she wasn't persuasive.

[00:24:37] [SPEAKER_04]: For them to do so, even Jack Dorsey,

[00:24:39] [SPEAKER_04]: who owned Twitter then,

[00:24:41] [SPEAKER_04]: wouldn't throw Trump off at that point.

[00:24:43] [SPEAKER_04]: But she was demanding the silencing of a sitting president.

[00:24:48] [SPEAKER_04]: So, and here's another quote from her.

[00:24:50] [SPEAKER_04]: She said, they're directly speaking to millions of people

[00:24:53] [SPEAKER_04]: without any level of oversight or regulation.

[00:24:56] [SPEAKER_04]: And that has to stop.

[00:24:58] [SPEAKER_04]: So again, her sensibilities are that the government

[00:25:02] [SPEAKER_04]: would be able to be in charge

[00:25:04] [SPEAKER_04]: of what gets to go out on social media.

[00:25:08] [SPEAKER_04]: That's kind of, that's a bit concerning.

[00:25:11] [SPEAKER_04]: And I don't know if this is going to be,

[00:25:14] [SPEAKER_04]: Zuckerberg out there testified before Congress,

[00:25:17] [SPEAKER_04]: will the debate cover this issue?

[00:25:19] [SPEAKER_04]: I don't know.

[00:25:20] [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I mean, the reality is,

[00:25:22] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, we should step back

[00:25:24] [SPEAKER_00]: and it's not the packaged Kamala Harris

[00:25:27] [SPEAKER_00]: that we're seeing today.

[00:25:28] [SPEAKER_00]: But let's go back and look at her

[00:25:31] [SPEAKER_00]: prior to her being vice president, for instance.

[00:25:35] [SPEAKER_00]: She comes out of the very left wing of the Democratic Party

[00:25:41] [SPEAKER_00]: and for as does her running mate, Governor Walz.

[00:25:45] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, they're hardcore and I use the word liberal,

[00:25:49] [SPEAKER_00]: but I think that's unfair to call them liberals

[00:25:52] [SPEAKER_00]: is probably unfair to liberals

[00:25:55] [SPEAKER_00]: because they're really leftists.

[00:25:57] [SPEAKER_04]: And when you talk-

[00:26:00] [SPEAKER_04]: That the government would control speech on the internet.

[00:26:03] [SPEAKER_00]: No, or that it's a privilege that can be taken away.

[00:26:06] [SPEAKER_00]: Free speech like religious liberty is not a privilege

[00:26:10] [SPEAKER_00]: because privileges are something that governments give.

[00:26:14] [SPEAKER_00]: Rights are something that God gives.

[00:26:16] [SPEAKER_00]: So free speech, religious liberty are God given rights.

[00:26:20] [SPEAKER_00]: And it's not up to the government to say,

[00:26:22] [SPEAKER_00]: oh, you were revoking your privilege,

[00:26:25] [SPEAKER_00]: whether it's Donald Trump or Kelly Shackelford

[00:26:27] [SPEAKER_00]: or quite frankly, Kamala Harris or Tim Walz.

[00:26:31] [SPEAKER_00]: They have free speech rights and they can say crazy things.

[00:26:35] [SPEAKER_00]: They can say things that are wrong,

[00:26:38] [SPEAKER_00]: but that doesn't mean that those free speech rights

[00:26:40] [SPEAKER_00]: can be limited.

[00:26:42] [SPEAKER_00]: And I think, I mean, this goes back to,

[00:26:44] [SPEAKER_00]: and I know the article that I think you've attached

[00:26:49] [SPEAKER_00]: by Schreier talks about the whole idea

[00:26:54] [SPEAKER_00]: of this really bad Supreme Court decision

[00:26:57] [SPEAKER_00]: from this last term.

[00:26:58] [SPEAKER_00]: We've been talking about the Supreme Court.

[00:26:59] [SPEAKER_00]: Well, guys, well, occasionally the court does-

[00:27:02] [SPEAKER_00]: The Murphy decision.

[00:27:02] [SPEAKER_00]: The Murphy decision, which I mean,

[00:27:05] [SPEAKER_00]: the evidence in that case,

[00:27:07] [SPEAKER_00]: I really was very surprised at that.

[00:27:09] [SPEAKER_00]: I know a little bit about some of the background

[00:27:11] [SPEAKER_00]: in that case and the government had some really,

[00:27:17] [SPEAKER_00]: had some damning evidence against them in that case

[00:27:22] [SPEAKER_00]: in which you had government officials

[00:27:25] [SPEAKER_00]: telling the social media companies what to do,

[00:27:29] [SPEAKER_00]: what not to do, which actually resulted

[00:27:31] [SPEAKER_00]: in the social media companies taking actions.

[00:27:35] [SPEAKER_00]: And now we know about things.

[00:27:37] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, they use the word.

[00:27:38] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, the word that's always thrown out

[00:27:39] [SPEAKER_00]: is quote misinformation, close quote.

[00:27:42] [SPEAKER_00]: Well, misinformation is what the government viewed

[00:27:45] [SPEAKER_00]: at that particular time.

[00:27:47] [SPEAKER_00]: And we know the best example of that is

[00:27:49] [SPEAKER_00]: they were so wrong about COVID

[00:27:52] [SPEAKER_00]: and they were saying things were false

[00:27:54] [SPEAKER_00]: when now we know today we're absolutely correct and true.

[00:27:59] [SPEAKER_00]: And so you had people being shut down

[00:28:01] [SPEAKER_00]: and their messages being shut down

[00:28:02] [SPEAKER_00]: at the direction of government officials

[00:28:05] [SPEAKER_00]: that we now know that the things that were being said

[00:28:08] [SPEAKER_00]: weren't misinformation, but they were the truth.

[00:28:10] [SPEAKER_00]: And that is scary.

[00:28:12] [SPEAKER_00]: And if Kamala Harris, if that's her view of free speech,

[00:28:16] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I don't think there's been a,

[00:28:17] [SPEAKER_00]: we haven't had a president who's had that view.

[00:28:20] [SPEAKER_00]: I don't think even Obama had that view,

[00:28:22] [SPEAKER_00]: let alone Clinton or someone earlier.

[00:28:24] [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, it's very dangerous because this decision,

[00:28:29] [SPEAKER_03]: I just couldn't agree with, disagree with it more.

[00:28:33] [SPEAKER_03]: What you essentially had in this decision

[00:28:35] [SPEAKER_03]: is you had the all kinds of evidence of government officials

[00:28:39] [SPEAKER_03]: calling social media companies and saying,

[00:28:42] [SPEAKER_03]: censor this, take this down, do this.

[00:28:45] [SPEAKER_03]: And this is to private citizens

[00:28:46] [SPEAKER_03]: that this is being done to or private organizations.

[00:28:49] [SPEAKER_03]: The evidence was just overwhelming.

[00:28:52] [SPEAKER_03]: But what the court ended up saying was,

[00:28:56] [SPEAKER_03]: well, you can't really prove

[00:28:58] [SPEAKER_03]: that they wouldn't have taken it down anyway,

[00:29:00] [SPEAKER_03]: even if the government did.

[00:29:02] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, that's just, I mean, I'm sorry, but that's-

[00:29:06] [SPEAKER_03]: It's wimpy.

[00:29:06] [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, that's a judge trying to avoid their duty.

[00:29:13] [SPEAKER_03]: And everybody worries about activist judges.

[00:29:16] [SPEAKER_03]: This to me is an activist judge from the opposite direction.

[00:29:19] [SPEAKER_03]: It's, you know, I'm gonna see

[00:29:20] [SPEAKER_03]: if I can avoid issuing a decision.

[00:29:23] [SPEAKER_03]: This, I mean, it should be completely forbidden

[00:29:27] [SPEAKER_03]: in the United States of America

[00:29:28] [SPEAKER_03]: for the government to call a social media company

[00:29:33] [SPEAKER_03]: and lightly threaten that they will maybe do something

[00:29:38] [SPEAKER_03]: if they don't censor American citizens.

[00:29:41] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, that is the government

[00:29:43] [SPEAKER_03]: trying to censor private speech.

[00:29:45] [SPEAKER_03]: It's a violation of the First Amendment.

[00:29:47] [SPEAKER_03]: So in light of that opinion,

[00:29:50] [SPEAKER_03]: which seems that the Supreme Court is going

[00:29:53] [SPEAKER_03]: to not enforce the First Amendment against the government

[00:29:57] [SPEAKER_03]: in those situations,

[00:29:58] [SPEAKER_03]: that makes it very dangerous based upon,

[00:30:01] [SPEAKER_03]: you need to check who's gonna be president.

[00:30:04] [SPEAKER_03]: You need to check who controls

[00:30:05] [SPEAKER_03]: all those executive branch agencies,

[00:30:08] [SPEAKER_03]: because evidently they can do kind of what they want.

[00:30:12] [SPEAKER_03]: As long as they don't try to put you in jail,

[00:30:14] [SPEAKER_03]: they can come and call the different social media companies

[00:30:18] [SPEAKER_03]: and say, hey, you know, PENA shouldn't be saying this.

[00:30:21] [SPEAKER_03]: You really should take that down.

[00:30:23] [SPEAKER_03]: And what do you do if you get a call from the FBI

[00:30:27] [SPEAKER_03]: and name three or four other federal agencies?

[00:30:31] [SPEAKER_03]: You probably take it down.

[00:30:33] [SPEAKER_04]: You probably would.

[00:30:34] [SPEAKER_04]: And Mark Zuckerberg says he's not going to anymore,

[00:30:36] [SPEAKER_04]: but when the rubber meets the road

[00:30:39] [SPEAKER_04]: and you're really pressured,

[00:30:41] [SPEAKER_04]: well, let's go now to religious liberty

[00:30:42] [SPEAKER_04]: because first of all,

[00:30:45] [SPEAKER_04]: we'll tell everybody how they can get information

[00:30:48] [SPEAKER_04]: on the election and everything

[00:30:49] [SPEAKER_04]: that you have the perfect right to do during the election.

[00:30:53] [SPEAKER_04]: But this comes out of all that literature

[00:30:56] [SPEAKER_04]: that First Liberty Institute provides.

[00:30:59] [SPEAKER_04]: The two presidential candidates on religious freedom.

[00:31:03] [SPEAKER_04]: So Donald Trump, I remember back during his presidency,

[00:31:07] [SPEAKER_04]: how many things he did to support religious liberty.

[00:31:10] [SPEAKER_04]: First thing, and you've got it here.

[00:31:13] [SPEAKER_04]: He created a task force at the Department of Justice,

[00:31:16] [SPEAKER_04]: a religious liberty task force.

[00:31:18] [SPEAKER_04]: Can you imagine a President Harris doing that?

[00:31:25] [SPEAKER_00]: I can imagine the opposite.

[00:31:27] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, is it gone?

[00:31:28] [SPEAKER_00]: Is that task force gone?

[00:31:30] [SPEAKER_00]: Yes.

[00:31:30] [SPEAKER_00]: Oh yeah, yeah, no, it doesn't exist anymore.

[00:31:33] [SPEAKER_00]: You imagine the opposite occurring.

[00:31:36] [SPEAKER_04]: Okay, all right, what about the contraceptive mandate?

[00:31:40] [SPEAKER_04]: That was a big piece of news during the Trump administration.

[00:31:44] [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, no, the Trump administration

[00:31:47] [SPEAKER_00]: provided for religious exemptions

[00:31:50] [SPEAKER_00]: for religious organizations from the contraceptive mandate.

[00:31:56] [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, within Obamacare.

[00:31:58] [SPEAKER_00]: And what we know is that the opposite is true.

[00:32:01] [SPEAKER_00]: Harris is on the record of,

[00:32:03] [SPEAKER_00]: she opposes any religious exemptions

[00:32:06] [SPEAKER_00]: for contraceptive mandates.

[00:32:08] [SPEAKER_04]: So what about the Johnson Amendment?

[00:32:11] [SPEAKER_04]: That's something that-

[00:32:13] [SPEAKER_03]: Trump wrote-

[00:32:14] [SPEAKER_04]: Trump loves to talk about that.

[00:32:17] [SPEAKER_03]: Wrote an executive order basically not to enforce it.

[00:32:20] [SPEAKER_03]: But so number one, that's great

[00:32:24] [SPEAKER_03]: for the four years he's in office,

[00:32:25] [SPEAKER_03]: but then as soon as he's not in office,

[00:32:28] [SPEAKER_03]: it's not like the law was changed.

[00:32:29] [SPEAKER_03]: So if people don't know where the Johnson Amendment is,

[00:32:32] [SPEAKER_03]: it's this idea that the IRS can take away

[00:32:35] [SPEAKER_03]: your tax exempt status if you're an organization,

[00:32:40] [SPEAKER_03]: but in particular, we're talking about here,

[00:32:43] [SPEAKER_03]: if you're a religious organization

[00:32:44] [SPEAKER_03]: and you endorse a candidate for office

[00:32:48] [SPEAKER_03]: or you support one candidate over another,

[00:32:51] [SPEAKER_03]: then you should have your tax exempt status stripped away.

[00:32:56] [SPEAKER_03]: Well, that was never even really discussed in past.

[00:33:01] [SPEAKER_03]: It was shoved into the back of some legislation

[00:33:04] [SPEAKER_03]: really because LBJ didn't like a conservative,

[00:33:08] [SPEAKER_03]: secular nonprofit who was criticizing him.

[00:33:12] [SPEAKER_03]: So it was never really meant for religious groups,

[00:33:15] [SPEAKER_03]: but now-

[00:33:15] [SPEAKER_04]: It did a lot of damage.

[00:33:17] [SPEAKER_03]: It intimidates a lot of religious groups.

[00:33:19] [SPEAKER_03]: It really shouldn't because the restrictions

[00:33:21] [SPEAKER_03]: that are even there are really narrow.

[00:33:24] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, what church wants to say

[00:33:25] [SPEAKER_03]: our church entity backs candidate A?

[00:33:28] [SPEAKER_03]: The pastor can back whoever they want.

[00:33:30] [SPEAKER_03]: This is just about the entity.

[00:33:32] [SPEAKER_03]: So the restrictions that are even there

[00:33:34] [SPEAKER_03]: are really not as bad as people say,

[00:33:35] [SPEAKER_03]: but they really should get rid of it to avoid the confusion.

[00:33:39] [SPEAKER_04]: We will tell you after the break,

[00:33:41] [SPEAKER_04]: we've got a long break,

[00:33:42] [SPEAKER_04]: how you can get more of this type of information.

[00:33:45] [SPEAKER_04]: We'll be right back.

[00:33:48] [SPEAKER_04]: Because of a new rule,

[00:33:56] [SPEAKER_04]: the Biden-Harris administration issued last spring,

[00:33:59] [SPEAKER_04]: students in nearly half the states

[00:34:00] [SPEAKER_04]: face some disturbing changes

[00:34:02] [SPEAKER_04]: as they return to their schools and colleges.

[00:34:04] [SPEAKER_04]: The rule is the result of a rewrite

[00:34:06] [SPEAKER_04]: of Title IX of the Education Amendments

[00:34:08] [SPEAKER_04]: enacted in 1972,

[00:34:11] [SPEAKER_04]: specifically to protect women and girls.

[00:34:13] [SPEAKER_04]: Title IX forbids discrimination on the basis of sex

[00:34:16] [SPEAKER_04]: in any federally funded education program.

[00:34:19] [SPEAKER_04]: The new rule expands the definition of sex

[00:34:21] [SPEAKER_04]: to include gender identity.

[00:34:23] [SPEAKER_04]: Title IX was a hard-won feminist goal

[00:34:26] [SPEAKER_04]: that has resulted in groundbreaking opportunities

[00:34:28] [SPEAKER_04]: and protections for women.

[00:34:30] [SPEAKER_04]: In issuing the rewrite,

[00:34:31] [SPEAKER_04]: U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona stated,

[00:34:34] [SPEAKER_04]: for more than 50 years,

[00:34:36] [SPEAKER_04]: Title IX has promised an equal opportunity

[00:34:38] [SPEAKER_04]: to learn and thrive in our nation's schools,

[00:34:41] [SPEAKER_04]: free from sex discrimination.

[00:34:42] [SPEAKER_04]: With the stroke of a pen,

[00:34:44] [SPEAKER_04]: the president erased this progress.

[00:34:46] [SPEAKER_04]: Attorney Sarah Partial Perry

[00:34:47] [SPEAKER_04]: is the Heritage Foundation's expert in Title IX.

[00:34:50] [SPEAKER_04]: She explains that in over half the nation,

[00:34:53] [SPEAKER_04]: girls and women will no longer

[00:34:55] [SPEAKER_04]: have any sex-separated bathrooms, locker rooms,

[00:34:58] [SPEAKER_04]: housing accommodations, or other educational programs.

[00:35:01] [SPEAKER_04]: Despite disclaimers, Sarah Perry says,

[00:35:03] [SPEAKER_04]: women's sports are likely on the chopping block too.

[00:35:06] [SPEAKER_04]: On August 1st, the new Biden rule went into effect

[00:35:09] [SPEAKER_04]: with no celebratory statement from the White House.

[00:35:11] [SPEAKER_04]: Perhaps the administration didn't want to call attention

[00:35:13] [SPEAKER_04]: to the rule's unpopularity.

[00:35:15] [SPEAKER_04]: 26 states and several membership organizations

[00:35:18] [SPEAKER_04]: and individual plaintiffs

[00:35:19] [SPEAKER_04]: filed a total of 10 lawsuits against the new rule.

[00:35:23] [SPEAKER_04]: The lawsuits described the administration's action

[00:35:25] [SPEAKER_04]: as illegal, unconstitutional,

[00:35:27] [SPEAKER_04]: and arbitrary and capricious

[00:35:29] [SPEAKER_04]: under the Administrative Procedure Act.

[00:35:31] [SPEAKER_04]: Sarah Perry says, ultimately,

[00:35:33] [SPEAKER_04]: the bulk of the litigation over the Title IX rule

[00:35:35] [SPEAKER_04]: seems destined for resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[00:35:38] [SPEAKER_04]: Meanwhile, in most of the lawsuits,

[00:35:40] [SPEAKER_04]: the new rule is temporarily enjoined from taking effect.

[00:35:43] [SPEAKER_04]: There's going to be some uncertainty out there.

[00:35:46] [SPEAKER_04]: Hopefully, the court stops this nonsense.

[00:35:48] [SPEAKER_04]: For Point of View, I'm Penna Dexter.

[00:35:54] [SPEAKER_01]: You're listening to Point of View,

[00:35:57] [SPEAKER_01]: your listener-supported source for truth.

[00:36:00] [SPEAKER_04]: We're trying to do a bit of a comparison

[00:36:02] [SPEAKER_04]: on how religious liberty would fare

[00:36:06] [SPEAKER_04]: if Donald Trump wins the presidency

[00:36:08] [SPEAKER_04]: or if Kamala Harris wins it.

[00:36:10] [SPEAKER_04]: And we were talking earlier in the program

[00:36:13] [SPEAKER_04]: about the Supreme Court,

[00:36:14] [SPEAKER_04]: and one of the articles that First Liberty

[00:36:18] [SPEAKER_04]: sends out in The Insider,

[00:36:20] [SPEAKER_04]: George Gomez wrote,

[00:36:22] [SPEAKER_04]: Harris could be even further to the left

[00:36:23] [SPEAKER_04]: on overhauling the high court,

[00:36:26] [SPEAKER_04]: even further to the left than Biden,

[00:36:28] [SPEAKER_04]: which we said.

[00:36:30] [SPEAKER_04]: We don't know for sure because she hasn't said,

[00:36:33] [SPEAKER_04]: but hopefully she's asked about this at the debate.

[00:36:35] [SPEAKER_04]: Kelly, and three, is it three former attorneys general?

[00:36:40] [SPEAKER_04]: Four.

[00:36:40] [SPEAKER_04]: Four.

[00:36:41] [SPEAKER_04]: Attorneys general of the United States

[00:36:44] [SPEAKER_04]: have asked ABC to go ahead

[00:36:46] [SPEAKER_04]: and bring this issue up of court packing

[00:36:49] [SPEAKER_04]: and reforming the court, quote unquote,

[00:36:52] [SPEAKER_04]: reforming the court.

[00:36:53] [SPEAKER_04]: But right now we're talking religious liberty.

[00:36:56] [SPEAKER_04]: What would a Harris presidency be like?

[00:36:58] [SPEAKER_04]: And what do you think would be religious liberty,

[00:37:02] [SPEAKER_04]: just the climate for religious liberty, Kelly,

[00:37:04] [SPEAKER_04]: if Harris is president?

[00:37:06] [SPEAKER_03]: Well, the great thing is a lot of times in these elections,

[00:37:08] [SPEAKER_03]: you're having to guess, right?

[00:37:10] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, first, what do people say?

[00:37:13] [SPEAKER_03]: And then even if they say it,

[00:37:16] [SPEAKER_03]: what do they really do?

[00:37:18] [SPEAKER_04]: What do they really mean?

[00:37:19] [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, but in this case,

[00:37:20] [SPEAKER_03]: you've got Trump was there for four years

[00:37:22] [SPEAKER_03]: and Biden Harris was there for four years.

[00:37:25] [SPEAKER_03]: And you can,

[00:37:26] [SPEAKER_03]: and there's a stark difference.

[00:37:28] [SPEAKER_03]: And it's not like a big question.

[00:37:32] [SPEAKER_03]: It's just a matter of which one you like more, right?

[00:37:35] [SPEAKER_03]: But the reality is, I mean,

[00:37:38] [SPEAKER_03]: Harris was for a law that would have stripped

[00:37:42] [SPEAKER_03]: the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act,

[00:37:45] [SPEAKER_03]: which is the federal law that protects religious freedom,

[00:37:47] [SPEAKER_03]: would have stripped all the protections out of it.

[00:37:50] [SPEAKER_03]: And on any LGBT issue.

[00:37:53] [SPEAKER_03]: So LGBT always wins against religious freedom.

[00:37:57] [SPEAKER_03]: Whereas you got things like you mentioned,

[00:38:00] [SPEAKER_03]: President Trump started a religious liberty task force

[00:38:03] [SPEAKER_03]: in the administration under the Department of Justice.

[00:38:07] [SPEAKER_03]: And they literally went,

[00:38:09] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, we met with them a lot.

[00:38:10] [SPEAKER_03]: They did a lot of work

[00:38:11] [SPEAKER_03]: in going through all the federal agencies

[00:38:14] [SPEAKER_03]: and trying to make sure

[00:38:15] [SPEAKER_03]: that religious freedom is protected.

[00:38:16] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, even take the little things like Title IX,

[00:38:20] [SPEAKER_03]: which is protects women and sports.

[00:38:24] [SPEAKER_03]: The Biden and Harris just came up with this interpretation

[00:38:28] [SPEAKER_03]: where they're trying to force this new definition of sex,

[00:38:32] [SPEAKER_03]: not just man and woman now,

[00:38:33] [SPEAKER_03]: but it means all these other things.

[00:38:35] [SPEAKER_03]: So that a biological male

[00:38:38] [SPEAKER_03]: can now go into the women's locker room,

[00:38:40] [SPEAKER_03]: the girl's locker room and all this stuff.

[00:38:42] [SPEAKER_03]: Well, Trump has said he's against that.

[00:38:44] [SPEAKER_03]: And so you've got two very different positions.

[00:38:48] [SPEAKER_03]: And I would just tell people that we've got at our website,

[00:38:51] [SPEAKER_03]: it's first, you spell out firstliberty.org

[00:38:54] [SPEAKER_03]: forward slash elections.

[00:38:56] [SPEAKER_03]: And it's got a number of these one pagers.

[00:39:00] [SPEAKER_03]: And one of them compares Biden and Harris.

[00:39:03] [SPEAKER_03]: It is totally objective.

[00:39:05] [SPEAKER_03]: It doesn't tell you who's the good guy

[00:39:07] [SPEAKER_03]: and who's the bad guy,

[00:39:09] [SPEAKER_03]: because we're a 501 C3,

[00:39:11] [SPEAKER_03]: just like churches or nonprofit.

[00:39:13] [SPEAKER_03]: We want every church to be able to show the information.

[00:39:15] [SPEAKER_03]: And it says, I mean, for instance,

[00:39:17] [SPEAKER_03]: Trump appointed to the Supreme Court,

[00:39:21] [SPEAKER_03]: Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh,

[00:39:26] [SPEAKER_03]: Senator Harris voted against all three.

[00:39:28] [SPEAKER_03]: So it's kind of an obvious back and forth of,

[00:39:32] [SPEAKER_03]: okay, I can see the differences of these

[00:39:34] [SPEAKER_03]: on what kind of judges they pick

[00:39:36] [SPEAKER_03]: on what their position on religious liberty

[00:39:38] [SPEAKER_03]: on what their position on life.

[00:39:40] [SPEAKER_03]: And so it's an easy way,

[00:39:41] [SPEAKER_03]: but we have other things there like,

[00:39:43] [SPEAKER_03]: what can a church do?

[00:39:44] [SPEAKER_03]: What is the law on what a church can do

[00:39:46] [SPEAKER_03]: with regard to elections?

[00:39:47] [SPEAKER_03]: Real easy, real easy to follow.

[00:39:50] [SPEAKER_03]: And even how the court affects your right.

[00:39:52] [SPEAKER_03]: How should, why should a Christian vote?

[00:39:54] [SPEAKER_03]: Are they supposed to be voting on who they like the most?

[00:39:58] [SPEAKER_03]: The answer is no.

[00:39:59] [SPEAKER_03]: They're supposed to be voting on what they will do

[00:40:01] [SPEAKER_03]: and how it impacts their kids or grandkids,

[00:40:04] [SPEAKER_03]: really the biblical principles that the Lord lays out.

[00:40:07] [SPEAKER_03]: And we have all those things to try to help people

[00:40:09] [SPEAKER_03]: and especially churches

[00:40:11] [SPEAKER_03]: be able to give these things to people.

[00:40:13] [SPEAKER_03]: And we were gonna have TV commercials,

[00:40:15] [SPEAKER_03]: which we finished,

[00:40:16] [SPEAKER_03]: which do this in real simple ways,

[00:40:18] [SPEAKER_03]: 30 seconds, 60 seconds that anybody can use as well.

[00:40:22] [SPEAKER_04]: We'll start looking for them.

[00:40:23] [SPEAKER_04]: They sound awesome.

[00:40:24] [SPEAKER_04]: And I would say, Jeff,

[00:40:26] [SPEAKER_04]: here we are very close to an election

[00:40:29] [SPEAKER_04]: and people want to influence the election.

[00:40:32] [SPEAKER_04]: And one way to do that is to make sure your friends vote

[00:40:34] [SPEAKER_04]: and make sure they understand

[00:40:37] [SPEAKER_04]: what they can do in church and what they can't do.

[00:40:39] [SPEAKER_04]: And that's all available.

[00:40:42] [SPEAKER_04]: You guys have put it together

[00:40:43] [SPEAKER_04]: and it's a resource

[00:40:45] [SPEAKER_04]: that I think people can avail themselves of.

[00:40:47] [SPEAKER_00]: Absolutely.

[00:40:48] [SPEAKER_00]: And I think it's,

[00:40:49] [SPEAKER_00]: our goal is one,

[00:40:51] [SPEAKER_00]: and I guess there are a couple of different goals,

[00:40:53] [SPEAKER_00]: but one is we do want people of faith voting.

[00:40:57] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I think it's important.

[00:41:01] [SPEAKER_00]: It is a duty that as an American,

[00:41:06] [SPEAKER_00]: as a person of faith who's an American-

[00:41:08] [SPEAKER_04]: It's a stewardship.

[00:41:09] [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I mean, I think so.

[00:41:10] [SPEAKER_00]: I really do.

[00:41:12] [SPEAKER_00]: And then the second is that when you vote,

[00:41:14] [SPEAKER_00]: you, as Kelly just said,

[00:41:15] [SPEAKER_00]: that you're actually an informed voter,

[00:41:17] [SPEAKER_00]: that you don't go by soundbites perhaps

[00:41:21] [SPEAKER_00]: or I like that person's color of eyes

[00:41:24] [SPEAKER_00]: or I don't, or whatever the case may be.

[00:41:27] [SPEAKER_00]: And one thing that we've tried to do,

[00:41:29] [SPEAKER_00]: for instance, on the Trump-Harrison record comparison,

[00:41:32] [SPEAKER_00]: yes, we've listed the issues

[00:41:34] [SPEAKER_00]: and yes, we've said, here's what President Trump,

[00:41:38] [SPEAKER_00]: this is where he stands,

[00:41:40] [SPEAKER_00]: this is where Vice President Harris stands,

[00:41:43] [SPEAKER_00]: but it's more than just First Liberty taking those things.

[00:41:46] [SPEAKER_00]: What we've done is for everything we say,

[00:41:48] [SPEAKER_00]: we footnote where that comes from.

[00:41:50] [SPEAKER_00]: And so someone can go back and, for instance,

[00:41:53] [SPEAKER_00]: if for some reason Kamala Harris said,

[00:41:57] [SPEAKER_00]: oh no, no, I didn't vote for Gorsuch

[00:42:00] [SPEAKER_00]: and I did vote in favor of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

[00:42:04] [SPEAKER_00]: No, no, no, we have a footnote

[00:42:06] [SPEAKER_00]: that cites to the congressional record

[00:42:08] [SPEAKER_00]: that shows where you voted.

[00:42:10] [SPEAKER_00]: And so everything is documented.

[00:42:12] [SPEAKER_00]: And I think that's the key.

[00:42:14] [SPEAKER_00]: We want people to be informed

[00:42:17] [SPEAKER_00]: and these are resources that they can be informed

[00:42:22] [SPEAKER_00]: and then they can share with others to inform them.

[00:42:25] [SPEAKER_00]: Because at the end of the day, I think we do,

[00:42:28] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, the advantage in this race is

[00:42:30] [SPEAKER_00]: there are two pretty clear differences.

[00:42:34] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, there are differences between the two candidates

[00:42:38] [SPEAKER_00]: and not a lot of people in the middle.

[00:42:40] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, there are two obvious ways

[00:42:43] [SPEAKER_00]: and it's looking at the record

[00:42:44] [SPEAKER_00]: and making that determination.

[00:42:47] [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, and I just encourage people to use the information

[00:42:51] [SPEAKER_03]: because a lot of people don't think about this,

[00:42:55] [SPEAKER_03]: and how many pastors, right?

[00:42:57] [SPEAKER_03]: God created three institutions,

[00:42:59] [SPEAKER_03]: the institution of marriage, the church and government.

[00:43:03] [SPEAKER_03]: How many sermons do you hear on the government, right?

[00:43:06] [SPEAKER_03]: And yet that's where we are.

[00:43:08] [SPEAKER_03]: And we're so privileged to live in a country

[00:43:11] [SPEAKER_03]: where we get to choose whether our policies

[00:43:14] [SPEAKER_03]: are good or evil.

[00:43:16] [SPEAKER_03]: We get to make those decisions.

[00:43:19] [SPEAKER_03]: God's placed those into our hands to be good stewards

[00:43:22] [SPEAKER_03]: for our kids, for our grandkids.

[00:43:24] [SPEAKER_03]: And the job of the pastor is to equip the saints

[00:43:26] [SPEAKER_03]: to represent Christ in every area of life,

[00:43:29] [SPEAKER_03]: including the voting booth.

[00:43:31] [SPEAKER_03]: Not necessarily the pastor's gonna tell people

[00:43:33] [SPEAKER_03]: who to vote for, but they should get them ready.

[00:43:35] [SPEAKER_03]: They should talk about these things

[00:43:37] [SPEAKER_03]: and these resources make it easy for anybody

[00:43:41] [SPEAKER_03]: to be able to do that and to encourage their people.

[00:43:44] [SPEAKER_03]: And I'm encouraged, I've heard a number of pastors,

[00:43:46] [SPEAKER_03]: I've heard of one who's given an election sermon

[00:43:49] [SPEAKER_03]: this weekend.

[00:43:50] [SPEAKER_03]: What a great thing.

[00:43:52] [SPEAKER_03]: I mean, that's what pastors are supposed to do

[00:43:55] [SPEAKER_03]: is bring the Bible to bear to every area of life.

[00:43:57] [SPEAKER_03]: And this is a big one coming up.

[00:43:59] [SPEAKER_03]: But the great thing about our election resources

[00:44:03] [SPEAKER_03]: is a lot of pastors, a lot of churches,

[00:44:06] [SPEAKER_03]: a lot of Christians are kind of scared about stuff

[00:44:08] [SPEAKER_03]: because they're not lawyers.

[00:44:10] [SPEAKER_03]: Well, we're a 501c3, we're a nonprofit

[00:44:13] [SPEAKER_03]: just like a church or whoever else.

[00:44:16] [SPEAKER_03]: And we are lawyers.

[00:44:17] [SPEAKER_04]: And you are lawyers and you're constitutional attorneys.

[00:44:20] [SPEAKER_03]: So we know all this stuff, they can know they're safe

[00:44:23] [SPEAKER_03]: if they take our materials and use them in any way.

[00:44:27] [SPEAKER_03]: They're totally safe in doing so.

[00:44:28] [SPEAKER_03]: They're totally compliant with the law.

[00:44:31] [SPEAKER_03]: And again, it might show a real difference

[00:44:33] [SPEAKER_03]: between the candidates, but we're not telling you

[00:44:35] [SPEAKER_03]: which is the good one.

[00:44:36] [SPEAKER_03]: We're just providing the differences for people

[00:44:39] [SPEAKER_03]: so they can see, okay, this is where they are differently

[00:44:42] [SPEAKER_03]: on this issue.

[00:44:44] [SPEAKER_03]: And then we even cite the data points

[00:44:46] [SPEAKER_03]: and the links where people can go if they want to.

[00:44:50] [SPEAKER_04]: You can go to pointofview.net

[00:44:51] [SPEAKER_04]: and click through to First Liberty Institute

[00:44:53] [SPEAKER_04]: or go directly to firstlibertyinstitute.org.

[00:44:59] [SPEAKER_04]: Firstliberty.org.

[00:45:00] [SPEAKER_04]: Firstliberty.org and then election resources.

[00:45:03] [SPEAKER_04]: And you should be able to get that.

[00:45:05] [SPEAKER_04]: Well, next up, we're gonna talk about this shooting

[00:45:07] [SPEAKER_04]: in Georgia.

[00:45:09] [SPEAKER_04]: The dad has now been arrested.

[00:45:10] [SPEAKER_01]: At Point of View, we believe there is power in prayer.

[00:45:14] [SPEAKER_01]: And that is why we have relaunched

[00:45:17] [SPEAKER_01]: our Pray for America campaign, a series of weekly emails

[00:45:21] [SPEAKER_01]: to unite Americans in prayer for our nation.

[00:45:26] [SPEAKER_01]: Imagine if hundreds of thousands of Americans

[00:45:29] [SPEAKER_01]: started praying intentionally together on a weekly basis.

[00:45:34] [SPEAKER_01]: You can help make that a reality by subscribing

[00:45:37] [SPEAKER_01]: to our Pray for America emails.

[00:45:40] [SPEAKER_01]: Just go to pointofview.net

[00:45:43] [SPEAKER_01]: and click on the Pray for America banner

[00:45:46] [SPEAKER_01]: that's right there on the homepage.

[00:45:48] [SPEAKER_01]: Each week, you'll receive a brief news update,

[00:45:52] [SPEAKER_01]: a specific prayer guide, and a free resource

[00:45:55] [SPEAKER_01]: to equip you in further action.

[00:45:58] [SPEAKER_01]: We encourage you to not only pray with us each week,

[00:46:02] [SPEAKER_01]: but to share these prayers and the resources

[00:46:05] [SPEAKER_01]: with others in your life.

[00:46:07] [SPEAKER_01]: Join the movement today.

[00:46:09] [SPEAKER_01]: Visit pointofview.net and click on the banner

[00:46:13] [SPEAKER_01]: Pray for America right there at the top.

[00:46:16] [SPEAKER_01]: That's pointofview.net.

[00:46:19] [SPEAKER_01]: Let's pray together for God to make a difference

[00:46:23] [SPEAKER_01]: in our land.

[00:46:25] [SPEAKER_01]: Point of View will continue after this.