16th Amendment Unconstitutional: It’s Foundations of Freedom Thursday, a special day of the week where we get to answer questions from you, the listeners! Always answering your questions from constitutional principles! Tune in today as we answer your questions such as is the 16th Amendment unconstitutional? Is the Naturalization Act of 1790 evidence of institutional racism? And so much more, right here on WallBuilders Live!

Air Date: 05/24/2018

On-air Personalities: David Barton, Rick Green, and Tim Barton


Listen:

Download: Click Here

Transcription note:  As a courtesy for our listeners’ enjoyment, we are providing a transcription of this podcast. Transcription will be released shortly. However, as this is transcribed from a live talk show, words and sentence structure were not altered to fit grammatical, written norms in order to preserve the integrity of the actual dialogue between the speakers. Additionally, names may be misspelled or we might use an asterisk to indicate a missing word because of the difficulty in understanding the speaker at times. We apologize in advance.

Faith And The Culture

Intro:

President Thomas Jefferson said, “€œI know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform Rick:

You”€™ve found your way to the intersection of faith and the culture. This is WallBuilders Live! We”€™re talking about the day”€™s hottest topics on policy, faith, and the culture. Always from a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective.

In fact, constitutional perspective is our focus today. It’s Foundations of Freedom Thursday and that’s a chance for you to send in your questions to WallBuilders. You can send them in to radio@WallBuilders.com, that’s radio@WallBuilders.com. Might be about the founding fathers, or a particular constitutional issue, or a policy issue of the day, and what the perspective of the founders might have been on that. We’re going to dive into those foundational questions here in just a moment.

David Barton is with us. He’s America’s premier historian and the founder of WallBuilders. Tim Barton’s with us. He’s a national speaker and pastor and he”€™s president of WallBuilders. My name is Rick Green, I”€™m a former Texas legislator.

You can find out more about us and the program at that website – WallBuildersLive.com. And then WallBuilders.com is our main website. You also want to visit there because that’s where you can get the tools that will equip and inspire your family to be better citizens and help restore this constitutional republic.

David, Tim, Foundations of Freedom Thursday. That means we”€™ve got a ton of questions. We’ll see how many we can get to today. They came in from all over the country. You all ready to dive into the foundations?

The Chick-fil-A Answer

Tim:

Rick, what is the Chick-fil-A answer for “€œyes.”€ I can’t say “€œmy pleasure”€. But I want to sound cheerful and loving and make people want to go, “€œOh, we should go there all the time.”€

Rick:

Well, the Chick-fil-A answer would be “€œmy pleasure”€. You mean what’s the non Chick-fil-A answer?

Tim:

No, no, no, because you said, “€œAre you guys ready for this?”€ So, “€œmy pleasure”€ is not the appropriate response.

Rick:

Oh, yeah, no, you’re right – that wouldn’t fit. Yeah, I see–

Tim:

So”€¦

Rick:

Pleasurably yes. No, no, that wouldn”€™t–

Tim:

But thanks for trying to help.

Rick:

Yeah, yeah.

Tim:

No, that was your chance to say, “€œmy pleasure”€. See, we were doing Chick-fil-A–

Rick:

Oh, well see, had you brought some Chick-fil-A into the studio today–

Tim:

That would have been my pleasure.

Rick:

That would have been my pleasure to have that Chick-fil-A .

Tim:

We all would have had the pleasure of eating Chick-fil-A.

If You Work at Chick-fil-A

Rick:

We’re not even getting sponsored by Chick fil A, why are we talking so much about Chick-fil-A?

Tim:

Oh my goodness, yes, Chick-fil-A, hey, if you’re listening–

Rick:

Yes.

Tim:

–and if you work at Chick-fil-A–

Rick:

Somebody talk to the Cathy family please.

Tim:

–we are totally open to sponsorships with chicken and sweet tea and waffle fries.

Rick:

I was thinking cash, but, yeah, I’ll take waffle fries and chicken for sure.

Tim:

Yeah, that’d be fine, but hey, I will wear Chick-fil-A stuff, I’ll say “€œmy pleasure”€.

Rick:

Will you put on the cow?

Tim:

I would do it. Yes.

Rick:

Alright, alright. You love chicken.

Tim:

Rick whatever, yes, whatever the appropriate “€œyes”€ is, yes, we are ready.

Rick:

Alright, so our first question comes from Charlie. He says, “€œDear friends, since Article 1 Section 2 states that representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned according to their respective numbers. Wouldn’t the 16th Amendment be unconstitutional? Love your show. I binge it on Saturday morning.”€ Hey Charlie, that’s a great idea. We should encourage that of folks – if you can’t listen during the week binge WallBuilders Live on Saturdays or Sundays.

Apportionment by Numbers

Rick:

Alright, great question, guys. The question is if Article 1 Section 2 says you’ve got to do taxes one way can an amendment, in this case the 16th Amendment, actually be unconstitutional? Or does it actually modify the Constitution?

David:

What you have, Rick, is– the basis of question is the original way the founding fathers did taxation was called capitation taxation. That is apportionment by numbers. So, taxes have to be spread across all the people whether– it’s really the same for all the people percentage wise. It’s much like the tithe in the Bible where God says, “€œHey, everybody does 10 percent.”€ You can call that a tax if you want. Everyone is treated the same.

Now, the wealthy will always pay more than the poor will because if you make a hundred million a year then you’re going to pay 10 million a year in tithe. If you make ten dollars a year you’re going to pay one dollar a year in tithe. So, the wealthy will pay more. But everyone is treated exactly the same and that’s an apportionment or a capitation taxation.

What happened was in the late 1800″€™s Congress said, “€œWe need some extra money, so we’re going to look for the super wealthy and we’re going to add a 3 percent income tax on them. We’re going to tax the super wealthy an extra 3 percent because we need more money in the federal treasury.”€

Tim:

But it’s only 3 percent, right. So, hey–

Rick:

They”€™ll never go more than that, sure, yes.

Tim:

Yeah, don’t get nervous because the government’s not going to take more than that. It’s only 3 percent and it’s only of the super wealthy. It would never go beyond the super wealthy – oh wait a second, how do we define super wealthy? Can we clarify that real quick?

The Three Percent That Will Never Grow

David:

That’s that’s a real problem. And by the way that 3 percent that’ll never grow, do you know what the top tax rate was under Ronald Reagan?

Tim:

My recollection is like– I don’t know if it was under Reagan, but it seems like it was up to like 70 percent or something obnoxious.
David:

86 percent.

Tim:

86 percent.

David:

86 percent of your income gets taken by the federal government every year.

Tim:

You can totally live on 14 percent of your income.

David:

Or if you’re super wealthy you can.

Tim:

Okay, that’s ridiculous.

David:

It is real ridiculous. And Reagan had those tax cuts that rearranged all that and knocked it back down. It was still an obnoxious number for where we are today, but it was much lower. And “€œsuper wealthy”€, that”€™s the problem is super wealthy as compared to who? I may be super wealthy compared to a homeless guy on the street, but I’m not super wealthy compared to Zuckerberg, or Gates, or those guys.

One of the Dangerous Things

Tim:

Right. And this is one of the dangerous things anytime the government gets to come in and say, “€œHey, I’m going to pick who’s going to pay what percentage.”€ Instead of saying, “€œEverybody pays this flat tax or an equal percentage.”€ And as you mentioned, the tithe where everybody pays 10 percent. Instead of the government saying, “€œHey, I treat you all equally because under justice there is equality.”€ And actually justice in and of itself is treating everyone equally. And this is why justice is blind because she doesn’t play favorites.

But instead of that the government says, “€œLet’s determine who’s going to pay what percentage. Anytime government does that it’s only a matter of time before they change the category, and they change the configuration. And there’s not going to be consistency because this is where the government is playing favorites and will use it to their advantage based on however they determine. So, this definitely is something we could point to and say, “€œThat’s not what the founding fathers ever intended.”€

David:

And significantly, you’re right. It’s not what the Founding Fathers intended. And that’s why the U.S. Supreme Court struck down that 3 percent tax is unconstitutional. They said under the Constitution you cannot tax someone’s income, you cannot take an extra 3 percent, you have to treat them just like you treat everyone else.

So, the Supreme Court struck down the tax and then here came progressive’s and said, “€œNo, no, no, no, people need to pay their fair share.”€ So, under Woodrow Wilson the 16th Amendment gets ratified that says, “€œNo, you can do progressive taxes.”€ And progressive taxation means that you don’t treat everyone the same. Your taxes progress from one group to another. I have to know what group you”€™re in before I know how to treat you. If you’re in this group I treat you with this amount, if you’re in this group I treat you with this amount. So progressive taxation, that literally is what it”€™s called, was done by progressives and that’s the 16th Amendment.

So, the question is alright, now you’ve got a constitutional amendment that says you can treat people differently, but that definitely contradicts what the Founding Fathers said in the Constitution. So, isn’t the 16th Amendment unconstitutional?

So, isn’t the 16th Amendment Unconstitutional?

Tim:

Well, and that’s the bigger question and that’s interesting. Because if it is a amendment to the Constitution then by definition it’s part of the Constitution. Therefore it cannot be unconstitutional, although, it is directly opposite of what the Constitution does state.

David:

And what happens when you get an amendment, everything in the Constitution that contradicts that amendment is then changed to go with the new amendment. So, if you take the 12th Amendment which changed the way that we choose vice presidents. That 12th amendment, I think it was 1804, it changed the parts of the Constitution whereby the President/Vice-President were the top two vote getters. The vice president was the presidential candidate who had the second most votes. Well, they got rid of that with the 12th Amendment. Apportionment–

Rick:

Basically overrides the previous sections that it contradicts.

David:

That’s right and apportionment was the same way. The Constitution said, “€œYou get one congressman for every 30,000 people in your state.”€ Not today. It’s one congressman for every 750,000 in your state.

Tim:

Yeah, that would be way too many congressman.

David:

Way too many congressmen. And so what happens is when you have a constitutional amendment, that becomes the new standard and everything that disagrees with that in the Constitution is changed to reflect the new amendment ratified by the states.

In Violation of Original Intent

Tim:

But reading the Constitution would certainly give you indication that this was not at all the intent or the design of what the framers of the Constitution, the signers of the Constitution, had in mind when they did this. And so certainly it’s in violation of the original intent of the Constitution. But as mentioned, once it’s adopted it becomes now what is constitutional.

So, although we would love to say this is unconstitutional, if it’s a constitutional amendment it is now constitutional because it’s now what the Constitution says.

David:

I will point out that you do get some crazy decisions at times. I remember a few years back, I think it was the Nevada Supreme Court struck down one of their constitutional amendments as being unconstitutional. And it’s like, “€œNo, you can’t.”€ If it’s a constitutional amendment you have amended the constitution to reflect what the people just passed in that amendment. It’s not unconstitutional, but that’s one of the ironies that occasionally happens even with goofy judges.

Tim:

And this would be interesting, right, if we changed some of these things. For example, if you had a few more progressives on the U.S. Supreme Court and then we had Congress do something, or are the states adopt, say, a balanced budget amendment, or some of these things that progressives don’t always agree with, right – a flat tax, or a penny plan, or all these different things. It would be interesting to see how the Supreme Court handled that because even if it was a constitutional amendment there is precedent set from judges and throughout history we’ve seen where judges have come along and said, “€œOh, that’s not constitutional.”€ Even though, as you mention, it’s part of the Constitution.

David:

You can go to that even with the Affordable Care Act or what we call Obamacare. The Constitution specifically says that all tax increases have to originate in the House of Representatives – not the Senate. That tax increase, that Obamacare tax increase, came out of the Senate. And yet the U.S. Supreme Court found a way to say, “€œWell, it was really the House.”€

Obamacare

Tim:

Which, by the way, saying it’s a tax increase, the reason the U.S. Supreme Court said it was legal, it could be upheld, is because it really is just a tax on the people is all this Obamacare healthcare was. It’s just a tax. But if it’s a tax, as was defined by, in this case, Justice Roberts. it was a travesty to find it this way. But when he delivered this decision, if it’s a tax well then it’s become unconstitutional because this was completed and done in the Senate with this tax provision idea. And so at that point it should have been unconstitutional.

But we could digress talking about the frustrations of what Obamacare has become and we probably should move on with other questions.

Rick:

Alright, let’s take a quick break. We”€™ve got another question coming up right after the break. Stay with us you’re listening to WallBuilders Live on Foundations of Freedom Thursday.

Outro:

Abraham Lincoln said, “€œWe the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”€

Leadership Training Program

Rick:

Hey, friends! We’ve got a great program to share with you today. It”€™s the WallBuilders Leadership Training Program and it’s an opportunity for 18 to 25 year olds to come spend two weeks diving into the original documents we’re always talking about here on WallBuilders Live.

Tim, you’ve already been doing this a couple of summers and seen the results of young people coming to this program. We’re going to see more of them coming this year.

Tim:

Yeah, Rick, it”€™s something that”€™s been cool to see the transformation with young people coming in. The emphasis, for us, largely is a pursuit of truth. We have a culture that doesn’t know what truth is. We don’t know what biblical truth is, or constitutional truth, or the American heritage that we have. And so we really dive into original documents and say, “€œWell, what did they actually write? What did they actually do? Not just what did somebody say, what is actually true, and the truth is what’s transformational.

David:

Yeah, guys. This really is a remarkable opportunity. And for those who want to spend time with us and spend time in the original documents, this is a great program. So, if you’re from 18 to 25, or you know someone who’s 18 to 25, send them to sign up for one of our three sessions this summer at WallBuilders.com/leadershiptraining.

Intro:

Thomas Jefferson said, “€œThe constitutions of most of our states, and of the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people that they may exercise it by themselves that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. That they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.”€

Racism in Early America

Rick:

Welcome back. Thanks for staying with us on WallBuilders Live. This is Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Taking your questions, you can send them into radio@WallBuilders.com. Next one comes from Susan and it has to do with racism in early America.

She says, “€œI really enjoy your program and have learned a lot, particularly, about our early history and the founding of our country. I recently learned that the Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted citizenship to whites only which has been used as evidence of institutional racism early in our founding. Can you explain how this came to be as I have understood from much of your material that a good many of the founding fathers were abolitionists, and I would think, not racist. Thanks.”€

Alright, great question. David, Tim–

David:

This one is a tricky one because it deals with semantics. Clearly, when you say that you have to be a free white person to immigrate to America that would appear to be racism and it certainly sounds like it. The right word to use there is you have to be European to come to America. What they were after was assimilation and it was not a matter of white color or race.

They”€™re saying, “€œWe want you having come out of Europe because that’s where government is closest to what we have here. When you come out of India, when you come out of Africa, when you come out of Australia, when you come out anywhere else you have a different form of government.”€

And this is something they debated very extensively in the Constitutional Convention. They debated it when they– and by the way, this is the first immigration law passed, 1790. They had two more in the 1790s as well. So, what they’re after and what they made really, really, clear is we want assimilation.

An Assimilation Thing

David:

Seven of the 39 guys who signed the Constitution of the United States were themselves immigrants. Butler was one of those guys. He said, “€œLook, I’ve been here a number of years and I think you ought to have a 14 year requirement before you can be a citizen in America. Because I came here from Europe and even coming from Europe it is so different from what America actually is.

David:

So, what they’re doing is they’re not saying, “€œOh we don’t want blacks”€ per se. What they’re saying is we want Europeans who already think somewhat in the terms of reformation. Remember Europe is where the Reformation took place. That’s what led to Republican forms of government.

In Europe is where you’re having the pushback against monarchies. Which, you”€™re not having that in Africa, you’re not having that in other places. It’s Europe that is starting to become free. And so that’s really it. But there’s no way you can get around the fact that it says, “€œyou’ve got to be a free white”€. They’re not saying necessarily this is a race thing they’re saying this is an assimilation thing where we’re really looking for Europeans.

Tim:

Well, and I would even point out – so, certainly there’s no way you can read this and not see that it sounds very racist.

David:

That”€™s right.

Tim:

It sounds incredibly racist. And I would even argue that there could be a hint of racism in it, but the intent of this was not “€œwe want to keep all blacks out of America”€ as you’re suggesting. The intent of the law was “€œwe want to make sure there are people that have these core beliefs that we have that are here”€.  And this is certainly what you see unfolded.

The Notions of Racism Were Different

Tim:

Now, with that being said, this is also an era of time when the notions of racism, what we consider today to be racist, certainly were not always the same perception of previous times. For example, we can point to founding fathers who said that slaves should be set free and returned to Africa. And people today go, “€œOh my gosh, how racist, they”€™re saying send blacks back to Africa”€. Well, the majority of the slaves they’re referring to were kidnapped from Africa.

So, this is not a racist statement saying “€œsend them back to Africa”€. They’re actually saying, “€œHey, we should set them free and send them home.”€ Sometimes there’s more context to the phrase than the credits given of what’s actually being said. And so looking even in some of this context certainly again, as we read this law you go, “€œOkay, that seems to have some tones of racism in it.”€ And again, we could argue, well, by today’s standards, yeah, we would say that’s very racist. How dare you say that, why don’t you just say what you mean? And certainly if everything were clarified in terms that we understand it would solve a lot of those problems.

However, when you do go back and see some of these arguments, see some of these debates, some of these things were covered during the arguments and debates that are not clearly explained in the laws. So, when you just read the law you go, “€œOh my gosh, these guys were racist.”€

But when you look at the debates, even when you go to the Constitution Convention, you can see the guys from the north arguing with the guys from the south and saying, “€œLook slavery is a violation of the laws of nature. It is wrong. You can’t call them property, you can’t count them in your accounts when it comes to representation.”€ And that’s what led to the three fifths compromise, although, there were even debates of what percentage of blacks should be counted in the south. At least from the non free blacks, specifically, the blacks in slavery, what percentage can you count.

So Much Research to Come to the Right Answer

Tim:

So, all of these debates are there, but generally there’s so much research involved to come to the right answer. And people don’t want to put in the time to discover what was all this debate about and what was really the position they’re coming from. So, we do the lazy thing and just read what the law says and go, “€œOh my gosh, they’re all racist.”€

Well, certainly again, as we read that today and we go “€œthat’s a pretty racist law”€ and I think we can make a very valid argument that seems to be very racist. But when you go back and read the debates and why did they come up with the wording they did. Why did they come to conclusion they came to, it was not because– you’re not going to find in their writings that they said, “€œWe hate black people and therefore only whites can come.”€ That’s not what they said.

David:

See that’s the problem we have with interpretation today. Because we are taught today that racism is white on black. I’m sorry, racism is human on human. There is, as Tim you’ve pointed out before, there is every single race in the history of the world has number one been slaves, and number two owned slaves.

Tim:

Yeah. You can’t point to a single people group, no matter ethnicity, color, nation, nothing. You can’t point to a single people group that has not been enslaved at some point and enslaved other people at some point. Slavery is not a Anglo problem in America, slavery is a problem of human nature.

Which actually, we’ve even pointed out there’s more people enslaved today than at any point in the history of the world. That the numbers identify there’s 40 million people currently in slavery. And that’s– we can recognize things like sex slavery and go, “€œOh my gosh, it”€™s so wrong and so evil.”€ This is not just sex slavery which we recognize is so wrong and evil. No, this is still legitimate slavery where people are sold to be a house slave, to be a cleaning slave, to be a farm slave, and a field slave, literal slavery is still happening today.

A Human Nature Problem

Tim:

So, this is not just a problem in the founding era of America with Anglos from Europe. This is, again, a human nature problem.

David:

And when you see the law and understand that its purpose was assimilation. And when you get rid of the notion that we hear today that racism, to say that you have to be a free white, that means you”€™re anti black. No, no, no, this meant we really don’t want Arabs coming here with the mentality they have. We don’t want East Indians coming with the mentality they– it was all colors and races, whether it’s Asians. We prefer Europeans who already have some concept of freedom.

And so what they’re doing in trying to build a nation is get some assimilation, get some basis down. So, don’t read a statement like that as being an anti black statement soley. That’s not the purpose.

Tim:

And this is one of the reasons it’s important to always ask, “€œWhat is the context of what that says?”€ Or, “€œWhat did they say when they were doing that?”€ Let’s look at the full context. Because even as we say this there were founding fathers who were racist.

David:

Sure.

Tim:

Right. There’s no way around that. And we would not defend racist positions because obviously that’s wrong. There were no doubt founding fathers, there are several of them who were racist. And we actually have been able to identify many that were and, actually, many more that weren’t. So, we would argue there were a vast more that were anti racist sentiment that had– and defended racist positions in sentiment.

So, with that being said, there’s no doubt some were anti, some were pro, but in the midst of this law we really need to go back and dig a little deeper and say, “€œWhat was the context?”€ Because certainly the way it’s worded today we’d say that”€™s incredibly racist. But when you read the debates, when you read the context, there’s more there than just the verbiage of the actual law.

If We Had the Debates Today

Tim:

And if we had the same debates today and came to the same conclusion, right, this is where even Trump at one point talked about bringing in immigrants from like the Syrian refugee crisis. And saying, “€œWait a second, we shouldn’t bring in more of these Muslims.”€ Well, people just flipped out and said, “€œOh my gosh, he’s anti Muslim.”€ Well, the deeper context is, well, right now, the majority of terrorists that are doing the majority of death in the death culture happen to be Muslims. Let’s just do a little more screening to make sure we’re not letting some extreme terrorists with terrible ideology come in. This is not an anti Muslim per se.

David:

And we know that even today those Muslim extremists that come in, they’re not going to assimilate. They go set up their separate communities, and they set up parallel cultures, and they set up their own courts. Rather than have any constitutional court that will have a Sharia court or they will set– There’s actually, I was just in Michigan last weekend and there’s places in Michigan that the police won’t go. They are are no go zones because of these strong Muslim communities that are not assimilating.

And so as you look across the world say who assimilates best? Man, you want people coming to America that will assimilate and that will fit into the culture, and the customs, and the constitutional government, rather than try to overthrow it or replace it.

Two Takeaways

Rick:

So, I”€™ve got two takeaways, guys. Number one, it”€™s a human problem. And number two, context matters.

Tim:

I would say that”€™s exactly right. And again, in the midst of this there’s no doubt historically we can point that founding fathers were racist. We can point to many more that weren’t. But when you look at the context of this it makes a big difference even as we understand the verbiage of this.

And, Rick, as you identified, that second point is, “€œYeah, this is a human nature problem.”€ And because it’s human nature there’s going to be people all over the world, including the founding fathers, that had this problem.

Rick:

Quick break. We’ll be right back for one more segment of Foundations of Freedom Thursday.

Outro:

Calvin Coolidge said, “€œThe more I study the Constitution, the more I realize that no other document devised by the hand of man has brought so much progress and happiness to humanity. To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race.”€

The Courageous Leaders Collection  Use promo code WBL17 to receive 10% off your entire order!

Heroes of History  Use promo code WBL17 to receive 10% off your entire order!

Biographical Sketches

Hi friends! This is Tim Barton of WallBuilders.This is a time when most Americans don’t know much about American history or even heroes of the faith. I know, oftentimes as parents, we”€™re trying to find good content for our kids to read.

If you remember back in the Bible, the Book of Hebrews it has the Faith Hall of Fame, where they outlined the leaders of faith that had gone before them. Well, this is something that as Americans we really want to go back and outline some of these heroes not just of American history, but heroes of Christianity and our faith as well.

I wanted to let you know about some biographical sketches we have available on our website. One is called, “€œThe Courageous Leaders Collection“€ and this collection includes people like Abigail Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Francis Scott Key, George Washington Carver, Susanna Wesley, even the Wright brothers.

There’s a second collection called, “€œHeroes of History“€ in this collection you read about people like Benjamin Franklin, Christopher Columbus, Daniel Boone, George Washington, Harriet Tubman, the list goes on and on.

This is a great collection for your young person to have and read. And it’s a providential view of American and Christian history. This is available at WallBuilders.com.

President Calvin Coolidge said, “€œThe more I study the Constitution, the more I realize that no other document devised by the hand of man has brought so much progress and happiness to humanity. To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race.”€

Rick:

Welcome back to the WallBuilders Live Foundations of Freedom Thursday today. We appreciate your staying with us. And I’ve always enjoyed these Foundations of Freedom Thursday programs because, frankly, I get to ask questions too and learn from David and Tim both. We get– it causes us to dive further into the founding documents, and answer your questions, go do some homework and some some research. So, this has been a fantastic addition to our program over the last couple of years. We hope you enjoy it as well. You can get more of them at our website WallBuildersLive.com. But it’s a part of our effort to educate our nation.

Rebuilding the Walls

Rick:

What WallBuilders actually stands for is rebuilding the walls. It comes out of Nehemiah, “€œArise and rebuild the walls that we may no longer be a reproach.”€ So, we’re literally rebuilding the foundations, we’re bringing back those principles that worked so well and created the most successful nation in the history of the world.

Well, to do that we need your help. We’re asking you to come alongside us and be a part of this. You can do easy things like just simply share on Facebook and Twitter these programs as you listen to them. So, whether you’re bingeing on a Saturday or you’re listening one time share with other people. These are some of the comments we get from folks. “€œThank you for helping me understand the Founders intent more clearly. Excellent program. I’m in the education mountain, third grade, trying to keep the biblical worldview foremost in their thinking. And with your help I can keep it in my thinking as well. God bless you and your ministry.”€

One more, “€œI love you guys and I’m hoping that as this expands you will be able to get on more stations in California. Your message daily is perfect. I was blessed to get to hear and pray with Timothy at a speaking engagement in California last year. I”€™ve been a huge fan ever since first hearing David years ago. Keep speaking the truth, brothers. California needs to hear it more than anywhere else in this nation.”€ We sometimes joke about that, the Left Coast and all that, but it’s so true. And we’re on many stations in California, but the more we can grow the more people we can touch just like that.

Foundations of Freedom Thursday

Rick:

Well, you can be part of it. Spread the word on Twitter, and Facebook, and e-mail. Go to WallBuilders.com. You can actually help us financially, that helps get us on more stations, it helps us train more young people, put out more material, have more people doing research, all of those things that make this message possible. Right there at WallBuilders.com you get the opportunity to do that.

So, check that out today. Thank you so much for listening to Foundations of Freedom Thursday. You’ve been listening to WallBuilders Live.

Outro:

Thomas Jefferson said, “€œIn questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”€