Boycotts, Cancel Culture, The Equality Act, And More – On Foundations Of Freedom: Is there a difference between boycotts and cancel culture? Did the Equality Act pass? How does China place sanctions on people? Is it constitutional for Congress to regulate elections? How many times did the Texas Democrats have to show their IDs on their get-away trip where they repeatedly called legislation requiring an ID to vote “racist”? Tune in to learn the answers to these questions and more on today’s Foundations of Freedom program!

Air Date: 08/12/2021

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


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

Thomas Jefferson said, “The Constitution 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 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.”


Welcome to the intersection of faith and the culture. This is WallBuilders Live. Thanks for joining us, where we talk about the hot topics of the day from a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective. 

I’m Rick Green, former Texas legislator and America’s Constitution coach; here with David Barton; he’s America’s premier historian and our founder at WallBuilders; Tim Barton, national speaker and pastor and president of WallBuilders.

Send in Your Questions

And you, your questions, that’s what we’re zeroed in on today. Send them in [email protected]. That’s [email protected]. Email them in, they can be about the Founding Fathers, founding documents, anything about the principles of liberty and how to apply them today. And it may be about how some of our policies as a nation are working right now in the country. 

So send those in [email protected]. And then also visit our radio site at You can get archives of the program, any shows that you might have missed, some of the interviews, the Good News Fridays and previous Foundations of Freedom Thursday programs as well.

And then most importantly, at that website, at least most importantly, if you’d like having a listener-supported program and you want to expand it, make a donation there at the website as well, can be one-time or monthly. We appreciate you coming alongside us.

Alright, David and Tim, we got a ton of questions to get to. You guys ready to knock them out?


Let’s do it.


First one is going to be from Angie from New Mexico. It’s been a while since we had a question from New Mexico. We’ve had Pennsylvania, New York, all over the place. Anyway, New Mexico is asking via Angie.


“For many years I’ve listened to and agreed with WallBuilders teaching when it comes to boycotts, as I have always understood it, boycotts are one of our two votes. We have a vote at the ballot box and a vote in the marketplace. We have seen where boycott has helped in changing the stance of many big companies because their bottom line was affected, for instance, when Airbnb changed their actions with regard to the BDS movement in Israel. However, now we’re seeing that same tactic being unleashed in a huge way against conservative voices, viewpoints, and businesses. 

“On paper, the two can appear to be the same thing. But I believe there’s a difference. Could you please explain for me and the listeners what the difference is between consumer boycotts and the Left’s cancel culture? 

“What is the difference between someone like me not wanting to purchase Nike products because they support abortion all around the world and what many of the big businesses like Bed Bath and beyond have done with Michael Landell and his MyPillow products? 

“Or is there a difference? Do you still believe boycotts are a good idea in this cancel culture atmosphere? Thank you for all you’ve done and continue to do to wake up Americans and particularly the church. I’m very grateful to you.”

Alright, Angie, fantastic question. David and Tim, difference between or is there a difference between what we call right now cancel culture, and what we’ve done for years in terms of consumer boycotts and voting with your dollars?


Yeah, there’s a major difference. It’s a very good question. But there is a major difference. The biggest distinguishing factors in a boycott what you’re telling somebody is I will no longer give you my business. But you’re not saying they shouldn’t have a business and you’re not promoting that somebody should burn the business down. Right?


Great distinction, yeah.

Cancel Culture


In cancel culture, people are saying that you should not be allowed to have a business if you don’t do what we want. In a boycott, what happens is if you get enough thousands, or hundreds or tens of thousands or millions, right, depending on where you are and what’s going on, if you’re in a city and you have a restaurant in a city. 

Or you have a business in a city that is embracing crazy policies, and you get enough people from the community say, we’re not going to do business here until they change and you need to let them know, right, don’t just, randomly don’t show up one day and they don’t know what’s going on. You need to let them know, hey, I’m not doing business here again until you change whatever the policy is.

If it’s something like saying a business decided that it’s totally acceptable for the men to go into women’s restrooms, and you say, I don’t feel comfortable being here having my wife, my daughter come here, we’re not going to shop here until you change that policy. If you get enough people who embrace that idea and say, we will not do business here as long as you are condoning or endorsing or promoting whatever the said behavior activity is, when those people stop shopping there, it hurts the bottom line, the budget, the dollar.

Again, the differences in cancel culture, you don’t have people saying we won’t shop here, you have people that are actively trying to close the business down because they disagree with them. Boycotts have been effective at times. They’re not always effective, because sometimes people don’t really care about some of those decisions being made, and so they’re not maybe as consistent. They don’t persevere as long in some of those boycotts as would be needed in order to ultimately change enough of the bottom line for businesses to recognize we need to change.

Most businesses do not have huge profit margins. And so if they have a 10% decrease in their clientele, it’s enough, they go, wow, something has changed, we really can’t afford because of the overhead, the expenses, we can’t afford to lose that much. We need to go back to whatever was making the most people happy. We need to try to bring that clientele back. Again, that is a different scenario.

Nike and China

And that’s why we encourage, we would say, if there are people that are doing bad things, why would you want to give your money to people who are doing bad things? It doesn’t make a lot of sense, right? Is the reason that just personally, we don’t buy Nikes anymore. We know that in China, there’s in many occasions there’s literal slaves that are involved in the making of Nike shoes in that process.

Well, then why would I buy something that is supporting a country that is using slave labor to do these things? There’s enough other companies, there’s enough other shoe companies out there, we’ll buy something else, that is a level of a boycott. Now, the reality is, Nike is not going to stop doing it necessarily because I’m not buying their shoes anymore. 

However, it is something that from a conscience standpoint, from a moral standpoint, I say, I don’t want to support somebody that’s enslaving people and using slaves to build their product, their merchandise for their services, etc.

So there are different levels where it does make sense to say, I’m going to boycott, I’m not going to spend my money here. And even encouraging other people, will tell other people, hey, you shouldn’t buy things from China when they’re using slave labor to make those things. China should not profit off enslaving other people. 

I will encourage other people not to buy some of those said things, that is very different than cancel culture today where someone says that you had a mean tweet, and therefore you should not be allowed on social media, you should not be allowed to be in public, right? Whatever the case is, you should be fired from your job. All of those things happen under cancel culture.


And I would add to that with things like as, Tim you’re saying, boycotting things that come out of China. I don’t do that because I think I’m necessarily going to win that battle. I may not win that battle. I do that because in my case I know that everything I have comes from God; in him, I live, move, and have my being, Acts tells us. There’s no possession I have that I don’t have but with his blessing in some way.


And so for me, it’s also stewardship in his resources. I can’t say that God wants his stuff being invested in places that directly violate what he wants done. Now, that doesn’t mean I’m perfect with that. I’m human. I’m flawed. I make mistakes in judgment along the way. But when it’s really clear to me that God doesn’t support this, I can’t see that I’m putting stuff in.

Now, also, in lesser areas, areas of conscious well like America, I think God has blessed America. I think there’s a lot of good things about America. Sure, we got problems. We’re made up of humans, we’re going to have problems. But when Nike comes out and says hey, we’re not going to honor the American flag, I mean, we’re taking our Betsy Ross sneakers off and etc, I’m going to boycott Nike because they’re really going against a country that I love, values that I hold dear, even they’re not perfect, they’re dear.

So you look at and that boycott didn’t have any effect at that point in time. You saw that Nike immediately went up and stock after that. Their price went way up. Their stock went way up. But as time goes on, you also see that Nike is now having trouble. They’re struggling, we saw quarter recently where they were down 28%. So maybe over time things, level out.

In the case of Michael Landell, the Left has gone ballistic over him and he’s being pulled from all these stores and yet we’re getting the report that he is actually selling more pillows now than what he had before when he had all those stores…


Or sheets or whatever he’s selling.


Yeah, whatever he’s selling, because people have come alongside. So the Left can boycott him. But the Right says yeah, but you got our values like Chick-fil-A. The Left can boycott Chick-fil-A, but the people came alongside said yeah, but you’ve got our values, I’ll give you my business. And so Chick-fil-A is now what the third largest restaurant chain in the nation, I think. So there’s ways of rewarding.

And the thing that I’d point out too is what we do as a boycott, that’s genuine. That’s from our heart. That’s not necessarily trying to take someone out from maliciousness which a lot of the cancel culture is. 

The AT&T Example

But it’s also not fake. And I would point to groups like American Legislative Exchange Council. I think they’ve got like 2,500 state legislators. They tend to be conservative.

And they were supportive about many businesses, like AT&T and others that generally they want legislators who have conservative business policies, because that’s good for business. And then all of a sudden, AT&T got, I forget the numbers like 250,000 letters that came in saying, hey, if you don’t break off your relationship with American Legislative Exchange Council, we’re going to forever not use your business. And I mean, it just happened, so sponsor after sponsor with Alec and they lost so many sponsors, and suddenly their money had dried up and they weren’t able to functioning more.

And so they took the time. And in wisdom, I think, they said, I’m wondering where all these contacts and emails and letters came from. And they brought in forensic specialists who traced all back to three professors sitting at a server in Chicago who found a program or made a program where that they could take and have it looked like it came for 200,000 people, the message was different for everyone. It wasn’t a cut and paste message. They could send it through different routers, different servers, get a different place. It looked like that many individuals.

And so it turned out it really wasn’t that many people that were upset with AT&T, was these three professors, and they did that for a number of conservative businesses trying to put them out of business and shut them down. That’s not a boycott. That is extortion. I mean, that is just bad stuff. And so Tim had it right at the start. It’s a difference in motivation. We’re not trying to wipe out others. We’re just saying we’re not going to put our resources where that’s going.


And we would love to see some of those behaviors change.


That’s right.

The Right to Choose


Not to be misled. No. We definitely don’t want them doing that anymore. The difference is when you boycott someone, what you generally are recognizing is they have a right to make a choice. 

But if they make choices that you disagree with, morally, fundamentally, you don’t have to continue to support them in their freedom of choice. Cancel culture says you have no freedom of choice: you do what we want, or we will shut you down. That’s a very different concept. 

And boycotting, you recognize someone has the freedom of choice, but you will not give them money, as long as they are making choices that you disagree with on a moral, on a conscience, or even on a constitutional level.


Alright, guys, well, the next question is on the H.R.5, that’s they call it the Equality Act, we call it the inequality act, and of course, a lot of pressure in Washington DC to get this thing done.  Manchin has said no to it so far. But the question is, “Did the Equality Act become law or was I seen lies?” And so I kind of already gave away the answer. But I mean, this battle continues, and they are pushing hard to get this passed.


Yeah, it has not become law. It is lies. The Equality law has not passed. And by the way, short story is they’re trying to take constitutional protections and reduce them to the level of just legislation and using legislation to change what our constitutional protections. 

So even if they got it passed, it’s highly dubious that it would stand up when it hit the courts. But nonetheless, they’re hanging everything they’ve got on this. And Rick, as you said, Joe Manchin and Sinema also to some degree are standing between the Democrats and this becoming law. 

But if it does become law, it’s going to be a problem, I think, constitutionally, because once again, this is taking constitutional protections and reducing them to statutory level. And you can’t do that. But yeah, the answer is, this is a lie. It has not become law.


Alright, guys, we’re going to take a quick break. When we come back, we’ve got more questions from the audience. Stay with us, folks you’re listening to WallBuilders Live.


Have you ever wanted to learn more about the United States Constitution, but just felt like man, the classes are boring, or it’s just that old language from 200 years ago, or I don’t know where to start? People want to know, but it gets frustrating because you don’t know where to look for truth about the constitution either.

Well, we’ve got a special program for you available now called Constitution Alive! With David Barton and Rick Green. And it’s actually a teaching done on the Constitution at Independence Hall in the very room where the constitution was framed. We take you both to Philadelphia, the cradle of liberty and Independence Hall and to the WallBuilders’ library, where David Barton brings the history to life to teach the original intent of our Founding Fathers. 

We call it the Quickstart Guide to the Constitution, because in just a few hours through these videos, you will learn the citizen’s guide to America’s constitution, you’ll learn what you need to do to help save our constitutional republic. It’s fun, it’s entertaining, and it’s going to inspire you to do your part to preserve freedom for future generations.

It’s called Constitution Alive! With David Barton and Rick Green. You can find out more information on our website now at

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


Welcome back to WallBuilders Live on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Thanks for staying with us. We’re diving into your questions. Be able to be sure to send them in so we can be able to answer your questions. Send them into [email protected], [email protected]

Next one comes from Christie in Missouri. “What does it mean for China to place sanctions on people, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and others? Thank you for sharing your knowledge.” Yeah, I’m totally ignorant on this one, guys, so I don’t have any knowledge to share. China placing sanctions on people, what does that mean?

China Sanctioning Individuals


Well, what happened is you had a number of people in the Trump administration that did not take a favorable position toward China, and they would criticize them and they would work to keep businesses from doing business in China. So there were a lot of people then Trump administration putting a lot of pressure on China. So China says okay, we’re going to sanction those individuals.

Now, don’t think of it like sanctions in terms of American law where you sanction someone, there’s legal repercussions. What this meant, literally, and I’ll just read from China’s press release on this. By imposing sanctions, what China said is, “These individuals and their immediate family members,” now who are we talking about? 

This 28 people’s, that’s it’s Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, you had Assistant Secretaries of State right on down through there were people, some I don’t know, Peter Navarro, Robert O’Brien, David Stonewall, Matthew Pottinger, Alexis Azar, Keith Kraft, Kelly Kraft, others. Those are folks that were in the Trump administration that were not seen as being favorable toward China.

So China imposes sanctions on them. This is China’s version of doing what it wants to. And here’s what they said. They I said, “These individuals, these 28, and their immediate family members are prohibited from entering the mainland, Hong Kong and Macau of China.” 

So in other words, they’re saying, we’re not going to let you come into our country. We’re banning you from our country like these guys were asking to get in or wanted to get out, you know, that’s not what was happening. They continue, they said “They, and companies and institutions associated with them are also restricted from doing business with China.” 

So it’s the same thing we do when we say, hey, we’re not going to do business with Iran, you know, we’re putting sanctions on Iran, it doesn’t mean anything to people in Iran unless they try to come here.

Communist Control Ideology

Now, that does mean if we cut off businesses that can hurt them. So what they’re saying in China is, if you’re doing business with Mike Pompeo, or others, we’re not going to let you do business in China. So it is a way that a nation can put his foot down about people or things have offended that nation, and they’re just saying, we don’t want you to come here and we don’t want your businesses here.


Well, and also remember too, in communist nations, and especially in China, they do things like a Shuman kind of credit score, where you actually get grades, and they can penalize you and not allow you to go places and do things. This is very much a communist control ideology, which in a free nation, that’s not really scary for people that are free what a communist might be doing on some level somewhere, but it definitely is a control mechanism.

Certainly, in this case, China does make things very personal. And dad, as you mentioned, these are probably these individuals who are part of the Trump administration are probably not hankering or in a hurry, or had desiring at all to go to China, is probably not going to affect them. But it could be that there are people around them that maybe they have some level of business deals with China. 

So certainly, China’s trying to do something to impact some of what’s going on. Don’t think it’s much more than just the kind of boastings of a communist nation. Nonetheless, they are trying to do things to impact what’s happening with these individuals who were part of the Trump administration.


Probably a badge of honor to Mike Pompeo, right?


I would sure think so. Yeah.


Now where this surely might hurt and Tim hit it, you know, Mike Pompeo is a very distinguished individual. And it could be that a lot of businesses would love to have him on their board of directors, etc. And so let’s say GM wants Mike Pompey on the board of directors, well, China just now said, if he’s on your board of directors, or if he’s associated with your company, you can’t do business in China.

China Opposes Trump Administration

So that would eliminate GM from doing business in China. So what that probably means is these companies that might want someone like Mike Pompeo on their board, probably won’t put him there.

But that’s not going to be a big deal to Mike necessarily, although that could cost him some income. He’s still going to have so many other opportunities and guys at that level do. So it’s not substitutive, but it’s the right of sovereign independent nations to determine who comes in their own borders, who wants to come in, and whether they want to keep people out. In this case, that’s what China did, issuing sanctions against 28 Trump administration folks, they just don’t want back in China.


Well, Christie from Missouri, great question. I had no idea that that even existed, so a great learning question for us today. The next one comes all the way from Poland. And I know, you know, David, Tim, you all been to Poland. I don’t know if you’ve been to this Poland? This is Poland, Indiana. Have you been to that Poland?


Well, if you hadn’t said Indiana, I was going to tell you that been to Paris, and to Rome, and all sorts of places, Paris, Texas, and Rome, Texas, and all these other places. But you said Poland, Indiana, and that took all the international sense out of it. So, yeah. But I don’t know that I’ve been to Poland, Indiana, quite frankly.


I don’t think I have either. But we have a great question from Katie in Poland, Indiana. And she’s asking about H.R.1. 

And that’s the bill the Democrats are trying to pass on elections. She said “I understand the bill will affect the outcome of every federal election from that point on if passed. My question is how can they go against the Constitution which gives the state and the people the right to each election? We, the people should be able to decide who is elected in office, not a handful of representatives in Congress.”

HR 1

So Katie, thank you for your question. Guys, kind of a couple of parts to cover here is one what does the Constitution allow Congress to do with regard to elections? And then two, even if H.R.1 passed, what does it actually do in terms of does it choose the representatives, or does it just manipulate the process for how the people would choose? 

So let’s break that apart. First question, does it go against the constitution for Congress to pass a bill that impacts elections like this?


Well, I heard a US Senator last night point out that it is unconstitutional for Congress to do any type of election bill, because the Constitution gives elections to the state. So let me just read the clause. Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution says “The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives”, that means your federal elections, “So the time, places, and matters for holding federal elections shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” So that’s pretty clear, the states do it except that does not end the clause.

There’s a semicolon right after that. It says, “But the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations except as to the places of choosing senators.” So Congress can’t decide how you choose your senators. 

But Congress can come in and say, hey, here’s how we want federal elections to be done; regardless of what the states want, here’s what we’re telling you for federal elections you’re going to do. The Constitution actually says that can be done.

It’s just that over the course of America’s two centuries, we have traditionally left this to the States. But because the states are doing security measures to keep people from illegally voting, and because Democrats don’t like that we’re keeping people from illegally voting, they want to federalize all federal elections and say, here’s the standards we’re going to have. And this is where the real rub comes in as to what they want done in this federal election law.

What Does the Constitution Allow?

But, again, going back to the point, the Constitution does allow the Congress to set out how federal elections can occur. Now they can’t regulate state elections, how you choose your governor, what kind of laws you have there. And this is where it gets interesting. 

You would then be forced into having two elections on Election Day. One is for the state officials, and here’s how you do it under state law. You can’t have no excuse absentee ballot. And you have to ask for an absentee ballot ahead of time.

Well, if you’re voting federal election that day, the federal law says well, you can have any time absentee balloting. So you would actually have to have two voting systems on the same day or choose it to a different day, because the states could still keep their regulations for state elections and state officials, but the federal elections would be run under a different set of laws. And that’s where it gets really tricky.


And that would be, of course, if the state does not want those federal requirements under H.R.1 to be applied to their state elections, which if you want free and fair and accurate elections, that’s exactly what you’d have to do. I think some states would not want to spend the extra money or time or effort and they would just give in to whatever these federal requirements are.

The “Cheating Bill”

But David, I’m so glad you pointed that out because I’ve been getting this question a lot in the constitution classes around the country, and people are like, wait a minute, I thought only the states could do that. So I’m actually for a constitutional amendment to strike that second half of that clause that you just read, and not allow the feds to impact that. The only reason that they put that in, Hamilton talks a little bit about this, they were concerned that the states would literally not even have an election, that they would just say, forget Congress, we’re sick of the federal government, we’re not even going to have an election.

That type of radical situation is what they were talking about. I don’t think they ever dreamed that Congress would take over and micromanage and prevent states from being able to have like you’re saying safety measures to stop cheating. And that’s really what H.R.1 is all about. It’s the let’s allow “Cheating Bill”. That’s really what we should call it, because they’re preventing states from having any of these safety measures that you’re talking about.


Oh, I think Rick, probably the better explanation or title is the “Democrat Winning Election Bill” strategy.


Yeah, “Guaranteed Democrat Victory.”


Right. Because you know, so much of what’s happening right now, it’s so interesting the opposition that’s happening in certain states with we’ve joked about it before, and the jokes will not get old anytime in the near future where you add the Texas Democrats left. And one of the things they said they were leaving to oppose was this voting atrocity they were calling it, and the voting things they were opposing was specifically dealing with a voter ID law that was part of what Texas was doing and Republicans were in charge. And so that’s what they were pushing.

And these Democrats who are leaving the state to make sure that this voter ID law can’t pass because they said it’s racist. These same Democrats flew on a plane, which when you get on a plane, you have to show your ID, it’s to verify who you are, they brought alcohol with them on the trip, which when you buy alcohol, you have to show your ID and verify who you are, they went up to meet Vice President Kamala Harris and they went to the White House.

The Dem’s Hypocrisy

When you go to the White House, you got to show your ID and confirm where you are. And they had to show their ID so many times on a trip when they were leaving Texas because they said showing your ID is, in fact, racist. So much of what is happening is political posturing. It’s not intellectual honesty. It’s not an actual value measure. But they are fighting for things that they think will give them more control.

And it’s super interesting that they think if there are more secure elections, it might damage the amount of control they have over the nation. That should give you an indication that they think the better way for them to have control is to not have secure elections. And so I’m not saying necessarily that they say they have to cheat to win, or that they even cheat in these elections. 

I just think it’s super interesting that they’re exposing their hypocrisy, and doing the very thing that they say they oppose, that they say is racist, and they’re not in favor of secure elections. It doesn’t seem to make sense. As an elected official, you will make sure the elections are fair, they are just, there is transparency. And they seem to be fighting all of those things.


Well, the good news in all this is that the national media was really quick to point out the hypocrisy. I mean, oh, wait, maybe not. Maybe I didn’t hear that on CNN and MSNBC. And…


Well, you didn’t hear that there because you don’t watch those stations.


Well, that’s true.


In fairness, if they did say it, we would have no idea. We’re just going to pretend like they never say it because we’re pretty sure they don’t.

What Was the Founder’s Intention?


And by the way, Rick, you said you’re pretty sure that the Founding Fathers didn’t intend that when they put that clause in there, Hamilton talked about. I can guarantee you they did not intend to federalize elections. They had such a small view of the federal government through the enumerated powers in the Constitution. 

They did not ever intend for the federal government to get anywhere close to the size it is now. So I can guarantee you they did not intend to federalize elections, that’s for dead certain ensure.


And we don’t have to guess it that. You know, I mean, we can look at the letters, we can look at the debates, and it’s all there. It’s just such a shame that we’ve lost so much of that. 

And that’s why I love the fact that you guys bring that to life with your amazing museum with all the original artifacts. You’re taking so many people through there with “The American Journey Experience”, with the leadership training program. I mean, all of those things, folks can find out more at

Boycotts, Cancel Culture, The Equality Act, And More – On Foundations Of Freedom

In fact at, you can access a ton of these original documents and read them for yourself. And that’s really what we’ve got to do. We the citizens have got to seek that truth, we’ve got to learn that truth, and then we’ve got to spread that truth. We’ve got to speak it to as many people as we possibly can. 

So, all of you out there listening become a force multiplier today. Take this program, share it with your friends and family. You can get it at 

Start taking one of our Constitution classes. Start teaching it in your home, at your church, We’ll train you on how to do that. You can go to today and sign up, totally free. 

We will train you for free. We’ll give you materials for free. We have 8,000 coaches now across the country that are doing that. So there’s a wonderful awakening happening in the country. You need to be a part of it. Check that out today.

Thanks for listening today. You’ve been listening to WallBuilders Live.