Looking at Bill O’Reilly, the Constitution, Jefferson, Socialism, and more! On Foundations Of Freedom Thursday: 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 should taxes pay for moms to stay home one year after baby? What does Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution mean? What”€™s the truth about Jefferson?  Is the historical context of Bill O’Reilly’s books reliable? And so much more, right here on WallBuilders Live!

Air Date: 01/18/2018

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.  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.

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 their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”€

Faith And The Culture

Rick:

Welcome to WallBuilders Live! Its Foundations of Freedom Thursday, so we’re diving into those Constitutional principles which you can ask the questions about. In other words, you get to drive the conversation here on WallBuilders Live today and on our regular Thursday program. Send your e-mails to radio@WallBuilders.com, that’s radio@WallBuilders.com. If you’re new to the program, we’re always talking about today’s hottest topics on policy, faith, and the culture.

But we always look at it from a Biblical, historical, and Constitutional perspective.

We’re here with David Barton, America’s premier historian and the founder of WallBuilders. Also, Tim Barton, national speaker, pastor, and president of WallBuilders. And my name is Rick Green, I’m a former Texas state legislator.

You can find out more about us and the program at our two websites – WallBuildersLive.com, that’s the radio site.  So, list of stations there, archives, the last few weeks or programs. And then WallBuilders.com, that’s our main website. And there’s a lot of great tools for you there to equip and inspire your family, so check that out today as well.

David, Tim, we got a lot of questions coming in from our audience on all kinds of areas of Constitutional principles, application of these principles to our current culture. So, you guys ready to get started?

David:

Absolutely. Let’s go.

Historical Context of Bill O”€™Reilly”€™s Books

Rick:

Alright. First one comes from Randy Parker and he says, “€œGood day and may God bless you and your ministry. I’ve purchased two founders Bible–“€ smart man, Randy, I’m going through it completely page by page for the first time and loving it. When you mix those incredible articles with God’s Word, it’s just powerful. Anyway, you’re smart getting those.

He goes on to say, “€œI”€™ve got foundations of freedom, several books on the Second Amendment, Thomas Jefferson Lies, and the Constitution course, and have loved them all. Truly a blessing. Can you address the historical context of Bill O’Reilly’s books? He seems to “€˜find out new history”€™ that he states others have not. I trust David and WallBuilders and wonder if the new history he’s discovered is true or embellished.

“€œI first heard David speak at Central Christian Church in Wichita, Kansas when Joe Wright was senior pastor. Been a fan ever since. And love the work that Rick and the families of David and Rick share with us.”€ So, great question from Randy. And David, Tim, O’Reilly’s books have been very popular and have covered a lot of different topics.

I haven’t actually read all of them. I know the Reagan one I was disappointed in because he really kind of emphasized some of the naysayers out there about Reagan that I don’t think has much credibility. And then the same on the founders sometimes he seemed to want to tear them down rather than emphasize the good that they did for us. That’s my take on it. What do you guys think?

There Is No Such Thing As New History

David:

Well, let me hit the idea first of new history. There is no such thing as new history. You don’t have new history. You may have history you’ve not seen before, but it’s not new.

Tim:

Well, and let me jump in real quick. So, if perhaps somebody”€™s great grandmother had in their trunk a letter that nobody had ever seen before, that might be new history.

David:

Well, it’s new to you, but it actually occurred because that letter was written.

Tim:

But in the sense of it’s not been known before–

David:

Right, it’s unknown history.

Tim:

–it’s new because it’s never been known. However–

David:

Let me jump on that for a second, Tim, because I was just going to mention one of the things that we were able to acquire with the groups we work with was a series of letters by Abraham Lincoln’s pastor. And this is pastor of Abraham Lincoln, it also included the Lincoln family Bible. Mary Todd Lincoln had her writing in it and a note from her to the pastor etc. And in this letter, the pastor’s saying, “€œWell, Abraham Lincoln was in my church these years. I hosted the Bible Society meetings at my church.

“€œAnd I asked Abraham if he would speak to the meeting and he said, Abraham said, “€˜No you don’t want me speaking at that.”€™ And he said, “€œYes I do.”€ And he goes on to say that Abraham Lincoln spoke to the meeting. He gave a brilliant lecture on the Ten Commandments and how it applied today. Now, I will tell you, that that is a letter that, until we purchased it, was absolutely unknown.

There is no history book we’ve ever seen that has referenced that. There’s no reference to Lincoln ever having done a lecture on the Ten Commandments. But this comes from the pastor and with Mary Todd Lincoln’s own handwritten notes. Now, it”€™s not new history because Lincoln did it. He actually stood there and gave the speech.

Tim:

But in the sense of people didn’t know it, right?

David:

That”€™s right. It”€™s new– it”€™s undiscovered.

“€œNew Revelations”€

Tim:

So, we could say it”€™s new. However, what Bill O’Reilly does, is he does not have documents that no one has ever seen before. He takes their writings that have already existed and he finds “€œnew revelations”€ from their existing writings. Now, if you’re going through their existing writings and all of sudden you discover what they believe that nobody else ever knew they believed until you read it. And then you discovered that nobody else has ever known, that’s where you have a little bit of a problem.

Just for example, in his most recent book, Killing England, one of the things he documents is Thomas Jefferson was very conflicted on the issue of slavery. Because there were times in Jefferson’s life when he was very seemingly pro-slavery and then times he was very seemingly against it. He says, “€œSo, Jefferson was just very conflicted, didn’t really know where to stand on the issue.”€ Well, we would completely disagree with Bill O’Reilly’s “€œnew revelation”€ on that. In fact, Dad, you wrote a book called Jefferson Lies and in it, you document Thomas Jefferson’s ardent abolitionist position for really the majority of his life.

He happened to live in a state that didn’t allow him to free his slaves. But he tried to pass legislation and he lost by one vote when he was there in the state of Virginia. And then as governor, he’s trying to do things and–

David:

Well, actually, he lost by one vote when he brought it to a national issue. When he brought it in the state of Virginia, they crushed it. They slapped him down for, “€œHow dare you try to abolish slavery in Virginia.”€

Tim:

So, it was Congress that lost by one vote.

David:

It was Congress that lost by one vote.

Tim:

I guess I need to go back and reread the book so I can remember.

David:

Oh, that”€™s a “€œnew revelation”€ I had for you. I discovered new truth.

Tim:

Oh, brand new information.

David:

That”€™s right.

Tim:

No, that’s been known. But the point is, when you are reading his writings and coming to a different conclusion, it makes us wonder, “€œWell, what writings are you reading?”€ Because we’ve read all of Jefferson’s writ– well, we’ve read a lot. I don’t know if you say we”€™ve read them all.

No Doubt – Jefferson is Against Slavery

David:

Yeah, there’s probably some writings out there we haven”€™t– haven’t been discovered yet and they may bring a new perspective. But so far, we’ve got writings that span 100 volumes, that span his entire life, and there is no equivocation there – the guy”€™s against slavery.

Rick:

And by the way, just for our listeners maybe that are new, because I know you, David, I know you won’t say these things, but I’m going to say them. You have probably read more of the founding fathers, and Jefferson specifically, then maybe all but maybe a handful of like less than five people on the planet. There’s just there’s no comparison. Not only the ones in your library, but others that you’ve had access to. And sometimes, our listeners don’t know that.

This isn’t just a collection that you’ve got in your library, you’ve read most of this stuff. That’s important to know. That’s part of why your Jefferson Lies book was so incredible because you’re familiar with their writings and the things they did. Sorry, Tim, go ahead.

Tim:

No, I was saying, Rick, even to that end, when even people talk about Jefferson and religion. Certainly the phrase “€œthe separation of church and state”€ gets attributed to Jefferson. Well, Jefferson did write that in one of his letters. However, he has over 600 letters he wrote on religion. Which, to that end, I think my dad’s probably read them all – all those six hundred.

And of those, he has maybe one or two dozen where he says negative things against, at that time, theology, or doctoral positions, or some people might view it generally as Christianity, religion. But that’s only, what, two dozen out of 600? Well, what about the other 570 whatever letters he wrote on religion?

600 Letters

David:

And in none of those 600 letters was he ever anti-Jesus, was he ever anti-God, was he ever anti-Christianity. There were times he would pick on a particular doctrine. There was a time when–

Tim:

Which made people sometimes think he was against Christianity–

David:

That”€™s right.

Tim:

–because he attacked a doctrine or said, “€œThis is– how foolish that you would believe this”€ or “€œHow dumb they believe that”€ or “€œThey say this.”€ So, there definitely were things in him that people can attribute and say, “€œWell, he wasn’t religious”€ or “€œHe was against religion.”€ But you have to read the rest of his letters.

David:

That’s right. You have to read all 600.

Tim:

So to that end, so back up to even where Bill O’Reilly talks about Jefferson’s conflicted on slavery. If you really study his life, he’s not conflicted. It’s just he was in some positions that were very difficult. And he did say some things that today we’d look and go, “€œOh, that was racist.”€ Well, at the time, those were pretty common beliefs where many of them said, “€œWe’re not sure how smart the black man can be.”€

But Jefferson then continues and says, “€œHowever, we’ve never seen him fully educated. And it could be he’s even smarter than a white man if he was fully educated.”€ So, Jefferson acknowledges part of the lack we have seen in the midst of–

Benjamin Banneker

David:

And by the way, let me jump in, Tim, because there was a time when Jefferson was under George Washington in the administration. And at that time, he came across Benjamin Banneker, a self-taught black mathematician and scientist who, unbelievably complicated formulas that he came up with. He was able– he was self-taught and he was able to predict eclipses, solar and lunar, years in advance to the very minute they were going to occur. Unbelievable.

Tim:

Came up with an almanac–

David:

Yeah.

Tim:

–all kinds of information. Sure.

David:

And so Jefferson took that and sent it to France and said, “€œGuys, you’re fighting slavery over here. And the question is whether blacks are as smart as whites. Let me show you, they are. Here”€™s, take this Benjamin Banneker, reprint it, get it across France. It shows that blacks are as smart as whites.”€

Tim:

Well, and so let me back up now to Bill O’Reilly’s book. So, I’m not trying to be critical of Bill O’Reilly because I’m sure–

David:

I doubt that he wrote the book actually.

Tim:

Well, and that’s true. Generally a guy like that you have, generally you hire a professor who does most of the research, most of the writing, and Bill O’Reilly will be the editor of that. And I don’t think I’m giving anything away, that’s how many notable people do it. They pay somebody to do the research, do the writing, and then it comes to them fairly well done. But then they are the editors, so they try to make it sound like themselves, whatever.

We don’t actually do that. We don’t have the money to hire somebody to write all of our books. So, we study and try to write ourselves. Nonetheless, when you look at Bill O”€™Reilly’s books, I don’t think he’s trying to be misleading necessarily.

David:

Right. It’s not malicious

How Did General Patton Die?

Tim:

No, I think there’s just some information he doesn’t have. Now there are some moments when we can point out that we know a guy who actually– So one of Bill’s books on Killing Patton, he talks about how General Patton died and actually it was a drug overdose kind of situation. Well, we know the guy who actually owns the death tag that was on the toe, the toe tag for General Patton, and it was a military toe tag. And it was the medical guy who was there in the military, and on the toe tag, it says he was in a jeep, wreck the jeep rolled, crushed his neck, he dies. Well, that’s on the actual toe tag which contradicts this story that that Bill puts in this book.

Again, I don’t think Bill necessarily did all the research. And I’m not trying to take away anything from Bill as I’m saying this. But as we read it, we can go, “€œWait a second, we have an original artifact–“€

David:

Toe tag.

Tim:

Right. This is an original thing from the military explaining how he died. And actually, so we know a guy who contacted Bill and said, “€œHey Bill, you know this looks like you’ve got this wrong in the book.”€ And Bill said, “€œWell, it’s already printed. We”€™ll let it go.”€

And so it’s like, “€œOh my gosh, bro, we want to be truthful and accurate in this.”€ But, and again, I don’t think Bill’s trying to be dishonest in any regard, but there are certainly things we read and we would disagree with. And we have historical reasons to disagree with those, historical evidence we can point to. More times than not, Bill does try to show a good tone. But one of the things Bill even said he”€™s even trying to do is present a human side of many of our heroes, show how human they are.

And by “€œhuman”€ meaning show their faults. And so, Rick, even as you mention with Reagan where Bill says, “€œI want to show you the human side.”€ So, really with Ronald Reagan, he tries to show the sex life of Ronald Reagan before he’s president. And that’s, to me, that was the majority of what the book was about. So, as I’m going through the book, I’m going, “€œOh my gosh, this is ridiculous.”€

More to the Story Than What is Presented

Tim:

Because I really only know much of Reagan from his presidency forward, at least to that point I did. But I knew as president there were a lot of very pro-religious things he did. But Bill didn’t spend time talking about the great things he did economically for the nation. He didn’t spend time talking about how under Reagan, the whole nation is transformed. The majority of the book was really before the presidency.

Or when he gets to be president and then kind of those thoughts that Nancy really is the one that ran much of the presidency and Ronald was in the background. He wasn’t really lucid. And all these accusations have been put against him, but he didn’t highlight the positive things that Reagan did as president, or the Bible, or the faith, or the things he promoted as president. And so it just seems that there’s not a complete image that’s given in some of these books. Having done a lot of reading, a lot of research, studying some of these people, I read them and go, “€œWell, there’s a little more to this story than what’s being presented.”€

And so not trying to take away from Bill or say, “€œDon’t buy his books.”€ That”€™s not what I’m saying, but there are many times there”€™s a little more to the story than what he presents.

Rick:

Alright. We’ll be right back, guys. We’ve got another question coming at you on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Stay with us. You’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

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.”€

Moment From American History.

This is Tim Barton from WallBuilders with another moment from American history. American Patriot Paul Revere road to alert Americans of the impending arrival of the British. But he also sought patriot leader Samuel Adams and John Hancock to warn them that the British were seeking their execution.

Adams and Hancock were staying with the Reverend Jonas Clark in Lexington. When they asked Pastor Clark if his church was ready for the approaching British he replied, “€œI’ve trained them for this very hour. They will fight and, if need be, die under the shadow of the house of God.”€

Later that morning 70 men from his church, and several hundred British in the first battle of the War for Independence. As Pastor Clark affirmed, “€œThe militia that morning were the same who filled the pews of the church meeting house on the Sunday morning before.”€

The American church was regularly at the forefront of the fight for liberty. For more information on this pastor and other Colonial Patriots go to WallBuilders.com.

Intro:

Thomas Jefferson said, “€œThe 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 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.”€

Rick:

Welcome back and thanks for staying with us here on WallBuilders Live on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday.

Why Wouldn”€™t Socialism Work Here?

Rick:

We”€™ve got our second question of the day and the question has to do with, David, Tim, this is that program we had Mark David Hall on talking about the different forms of government. He’s a professor from George Fox University we have on quite often. And someone sent in a question responding to that saying, “€œThe part where you talked about socialism, or where Mark David Hall talked about socialism, where the mother gets to take a year off. Why would that not work here? I know Scandinavian countries tend to be much smaller than the U.S..”€

So, he was talking about how a lot of folks will point to the Scandinavian countries they see socialism’s working because some of the aspects of socialism that they have. But this question is, “€œWhy would that not work here to have the government pay for that.”€

David:

Well, I think it definitely could work here, but the question is, does the government pay for anything that we don’t give it the money to pay for? So, if we give everybody a year off, that’s coming out of my pocket. That might be nice to have a year off, but that’s not the government paying for it. Because the government’s going to come to me and say, “€œOh, we’ve had an increase of 47 billion dollars over the last 10 years because we’re paying for one year of maternity.”€ Nobody– that”€™s the same with businesses.

Businesses never pay taxes, so let’s let the business pay for it. No, no, no. Business is going to pay that one year salary of that woman who’s taken off, and they’re going to put it in the cost of their products, and I’m going to pay for it.

Tim:

And by the way, why not just give her a raise? Because her life just got harder now that she’s a mom, and she’s getting less sleep, she”€™s having to do more work. So she deserves–

David:

And–

Tim:

Not only time off, she deserves a raise.

David:

And businesses have lots of money to give. They can do that.

Tim:

Right.

David:

They can give that money away.

Tim:

These wealthy people. Yeah, for sure. And I’m sure businesses didn’t make their money from selling groceries, or selling products, or selling a service.

Rick:

They didn”€™t build that.

No Such Thing as a Free Lunch

Tim:

No, no. Yeah, so, why can’t they? Shouldn’t they just give it away? And this is, I mean guys, the idea of Socialism always sounds appealing when someone is going to give you something. Until we remember the concept, “€œThere’s no such thing as a free lunch.”€

And I’m totally in favor of the mom taking a year off. Absolutely.

David:

Well, the Bible actually says that if you’re married, you get a year off once you’re married from military. You do not have to serve in the military for the first year.

Tim:

For that first year, yeah. Because the husband should be dedicating his time to the wife, loving the wife, serving the wife, being with the wife, to help that relationship. To help two become one.

David:

But the government’s not paying for that. The guy is making his own living doing that.

Tim:

That”€™s right. But the government didn’t pay for it. So I think, honestly, I think it’s a great idea. Yeah, mom, stay home with your kid. Ultimately, when my wife and I get pregnant and have a kid, she wants to be a stay at home mom.

I hope we can afford to do that. But it’s going to be because we can afford to do that, not because somebody else is paying for us to be able to do that if that happens.

More Time Off Equals More Taxes and Higher Prices

David:

Well, Scandinavian nations do that. They allowed the woman to take a year off, but they’ve also got a tax rate that goes up 68 percent. So, somebody is paying for that. It sounds good to have that, but you can”€™t– And seek this is where the Bible also talks about “€œa little leaven leavens the whole loaf.”€ Oh man, the competing company gives 12 months off, we’re going to give you 13 months off if you come to work here.

No, we’ll do 14. Oh, we can beat that we can go 15. And so suddenly you’re going to be raising prices on everything trying to compete to get more benefits. And so you get– that’s where you get into an entitlement mentality. Instead of hard work, you say, “€œI need to take less time working.”€

And the Bible says, “€œSix days shalt thou work.”€ That’s God’s command, God’s into hard work and He wants us doing that.

Tim:

And that”€™s not to take away from the fact that we would love for the mom to stay at home.

David:

You bet. Absolutely.

Tim:

Right.

David:

That is hard work, by the way.

Tim:

That’s probably harder than whatever job she had before.

Rick:

No doubt.

Tim:

That’s right. It’s probably harder. And, guys, for us as predominately homeschool families, this is something that we are very much in favor of – the parent spending time with the kids, being around the kids, raising and growing up the kids. So, we are totally on board with this thought and idea. It just really is a question of who pays for it. And this is where the government should not pay for it, Constitution shouldn’t pay for it, the government does not need to pay for every good idea there is, right?

It”€™s Not the Government”€™s Job to Pay for It

Tim:

This is what the free market is for. And hey, if you have a good idea and want to make it happen, well God bless you. Good luck. I hope it works out really well for you. It’s not the government’s job to pay for it.

Rick:

That”€™s right.

David:

And just to drive it home, Starbucks wants to give a year off for every woman that has a child. Great – my price of drink just went from 4.50 to 5.25.

Tim:

I think you meant from 6.20 to 23.50.

David:

That’s right. That’s much higher. And that’s the thing – they can do this, but somebody is going to pay for it. Tim, you said earlier, “€œthere’s not a free lunch.”€ And that’s the deal that people do not look at with socialist nations.

They see all the free stuff, but they don’t look at the tax rate that goes with it. And the more you’re taxed, the less freedom you have, the less choices you have, of what to do with your own money.

Rick:

Quick break. We’ll be back with more of your questions. Folks, you can send them into radio@WallBuilders.com its Foundations of Freedom Thursday here on WallBuilders Live.

Outro:

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.”€

Share a veteran’s story

We Want To Hear Your Vet Story

Rick:

Hey friends! If you have been listening to WallBuilders Live for very long at all, you know how much we respect our veterans and how appreciative we are of the sacrifice they make to make our freedoms possible. One of the ways that we love to honor those veterans is to tell their stories here on WallBuilders Live.  Once in awhile, we get an opportunity to interview veterans that have served on those front lines that have made incredible sacrifices have amazing stories that we want to share with the American people.

One of the very special things we get to do is interview World War II veterans. You’ve heard those interviews here on WallBuilders Live, from folks that were in the Band of Brothers, to folks like Edgar Harrell that survived the Indianapolis to so many other great stories you heard on WallBuilders Live.

You have friends and family that also served.  If you have World War II veterans in your family that you would like to have their story shared here on WallBuilders Live, please e-mail us at Radio@WallBuilders.com.  Give us a brief summary of the story and we’ll set up an interview. Thanks so much for sharing here on WallBuilders Live!

Intro:

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.”€

Rick:

Welcome back. It”€™s Foundations of Freedom Thursday here on WallBuilders Live where we take your questions on foundational principles.

Question on the Constitution

Rick:

Here’s one about the Constitution. Comes from Kenneth, he said, “€œI was reading the Constitution and got confused. Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 2, “€˜Who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.”€™ This part of the paragraph confuses me. Meaning, when elected to this position, you’re no longer an inhabitant of the state?

“€œOr a person cannot cast a vote due to being a representative and that would be a conflict of interest? Please uncomplicate this for me. I really enjoy the show and the wealth of information. By the way, I took the Constitution test that was in your email and it was fun. I bought the Elementary Catechism on the Constitution 1828.”€

So, there’s a good one available on our website today at WallBuilders.com. David, so what does this mean about the be an inhabitant of the state/not an inhabitant of state, how is it supposed to work?

David:

Well, Rick, let me answer that by just reading the Constitutional language itself. Article 1 is the powers of Congress. So, that’s the legislative powers. And Section One very simply says, “€œAll legislative powers are in Congress and Congress is made up of the Senate and the House.”€ Section 2 says, “€œAlright, here’s how we get the House.”€

Then paragraph 1 says, “€œOkay, we’re going to have this many members and here’s how you elect them.”€ And here’s now Paragraph 2, and this is what he’s talking about. This is the paragraph that talks about qualifications for being a U.S. representative, U.S. Congressman. Says, “€œNo person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five and been seven years a citizen of the United States. And who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of the state in which he is chosen.”€

So, there are three thoughts there. Let’s read it, “€œNo person shall be a representative who shall not pertain to the age of 25 years.”€ Part 1 – you can’t be a congressman if you’re not 25 years old. Part II – let”€™s read the first part again, “€œNo person shall be a representative unless they”€™ve been seven years a citizen of the United States.”€ Okay, that’s the second part.

So, you can be a foreign-born person. If you’re a naturalized citizen, you have to have been in America as a naturalized citizen seven years. And part 3, “€œNo person shall be a representative who shall not when elected, be an inhabitant of the state in which you shall be chosen.”€ In other words, what he says is, you cannot be a congressman if at the time you were elected, you don’t live in the state that you were chosen from. So, if I’m going to be a congressman from Texas and I live in Virginia, Constitutionally, I can’t do that.

You Have to Live in the State You”€™re Chosen From

David:

I have to live in the state where I’m chosen from. So it’s not a matter of giving up your state’s citizenship. It’s a matter of you’ve got to look at the clause, “€œNo person should be a representative–“€ and then three things – twenty-five, and seven years a citizen, and inhabitant of the state in which he’s chosen. So–

Rick:

It was the double negative.

David:

That’s right. That’s exactly it.

Rick:

Two negatives make a positive. And by the way, little-known thing, a lot of people learning this year because there’s a lot of candidates doing this – you don’t have to live in the district that you represent as a House member. You just have to live in the state. So, you could live just outside that district and be able to run for that particular district. There are several running, in fact, in my particular congressional district in that situation, they live right next to the line.

That”€™s okay Constitutionally–

David:

I think you”€™ve got 21– it’s 21 guys running for that congressional seat in your district.

Rick:

I know, man.

David:

Is that right, 21?

Rick:

It”€™s a lot.

David:

Yeah.

Rick:

I know it was well over a dozen. I think it got up to about 20.

Constitutionally, All Representatives Could Be Elected from One Town

David:

Yeah, the last count I had was 21 running for that district. We have 34 congressmen in Texas. And by the Constitution, you have to live in the state. So, conceivably, your town of Dripping Springs, it’s conceivable that all 34 U.S. congressman representing Texas could all be elected from Dripping Springs.

Rick:

That’s true. I never thought about that.

David:

That would be Constitutionally acceptable. So, Texas is a state that’s 930 miles from side to side. And all 34 congressmen could be out of the one little bitty town of Dripping Springs and that would be Constitutional.

Tim:

I think that’s why Rick has so many kids. That”€™s his goal in the future. They are going to be the delegation from Texas. He’s got his basketball team, he’s working on a baseball team, then we”€™re going for a football team–

Rick:

Right.

David:

–then we”€™re having the entire Texas delegation.

Rick:

Alright, guys, not enough time for another question. Can I ask you– could this be like Rick gets to ask David and Tim any question about foundations that he wants?

Tim:

I think you just asked a question.

Rick:

Oh, so I–

Tim:

You said, “€œCould Rick”€, so I’m going to say–

Rick:

Am I limited? Is it like a genie in the bottle thing? I want 21 questions.

Tim:

That”€™s going to count as your first wish.

David:

That”€™s it. So, what’s your other question?

Studying Foundational Principles

Rick:

How old should you be before you start studying foundational principles?

Tim:

Yes.

David:

Yes, that’s right.

Rick:

From the beginning, then.  

Tim:

Yeah, absolutely. One of the things I thought was very cool about that last question is that he got the Elementary Catechism on the Constitution.

David:

That”€™s right.

Looking at Bill O’Reilly, the Constitution, Jefferson, Socialism, and more! On Foundations Of Freedom Thursday

Tim:

It used to be that we were starting in elementary school. So, whether you’re four, or five, six, seven, eight, certainly at that age, you might need somebody to help explain things to you. But it is just like the Bible, it’s great to start learning it when you are young because it sinks in and stays with you. And then you can use it as you get older.

David:

Do you know they have studies now showing that when you read to a child in the womb, they retain that knowledge once they”€™re outside the womb? So, how early do you start? As soon as you can.

Rick:

And the Catechism, the Elementary Catechism, does that literally mean “€œelementary”€ like it was taught in elementary school?

David:

Yes.

Rick:

Because that catechism, it’s got some concepts most people never read before. Even in law school, people don’t study some of the stuff covered in that Elementary Catechism.

David:

No, that is a beginning book on the Constitution for beginning students on the Constitution.

Rick:

Alright, check it out at our website today, folks, at WallBuilders.com. Send in your questions to radio@WallBuilders.com. We’ll try to cover them on a next Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Thanks so much for listening today. You’ve been listening to WallBuilders Live.

Outro:

Samuel Adams said, “€œThe liberties of our Country, and the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending against hazards. And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.”€