Indian Injustice? 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, is America’s founding a great injustice and what about the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans? Did the Founders steal land from the Indians? When should we turn the other cheek and when should we stand up against evil? And so much more, right here on WallBuilders Live!

Air Date: 02/15/2018

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:

Samuel Adams said, “The 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.”

Rick:

Welcome to WallBuilders Live! It’s Foundations of Freedom Thursday. And of course, on WallBuilders Live every day we’re talking about today’s hottest topics on policy, faith, and other areas of the culture. We’re always looking at it from a Biblical, historical, and Constitutional perspective. But Thursdays give us a chance to take your questions and let you drive the conversation as we look deeper into those Constitutional principles.

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

Find out more about us at WallBuildersLive.com where you can also get archives of the program over the last few weeks. And then WallBuilders.com, our main website, with a wealth of information and tools available for you and your family to get equipped and inspired to be better citizens and preserve freedom for future generations.

We’re going to take your questions now and you can send those in – [email protected]. We’ve got several we’re going to try to get to today. David, Tim, you guys ready?

David:

You bet.

Tim:

Absolutely!

David:

Go for it!

Injustice to Native Americans?

Rick:

Alright, first one’s coming from Randall, he says, “Can you help put to rest this favorite complaint from the liberal left about America’s founding being some great injustice and ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Native Americans?” And we do get this one quite a bit, guys, even when we’re out there on the road people come to the table and ask, or when we do a Q and A Question. This perception of that has been propagated through our education system for decades now that America is bad because of what happened to Native Americans.

David:

Let me let me just start with a little caveat here, Rick. We just need to acknowledge upfront that there was never any violence from any Indian tribe until whites arrived in America.

Rick:

Right.

David:

At that point, Indian tribes all turned on each other and started killing each other and enslaving each other which had never happened. This was the Garden of Eden until the white guys arrived here as colonists and then all the Indians caught the virus and they all went bad. So–

Rick:

Because the natural depravity of man didn’t happen here until–

David:

No, natural depravity of man, that’s from Jeremiah 17:9. The natural depravity man only goes where white people go. Where white people go, depravity comes – nowhere else.

Tim:

Those evil Europeans–

Rick:

Yep.

Tim:

They ruined everything.

Rick:

Yep.

Only One Side of the Story

Tim:

Yeah, guys, this is such a silly thing. You talk about only presenting one side of the story and even the side that’s presented is a very Howard Zinn-esque story. Howard Zinn being the guy that wrote the–what is it– the history of the American people. And he wrote how evil the Americans were and what they did–

David:

Well, it was not the history of the American people. It’s what he wished the history of the American people had been. Because it was pretty much science fiction.

Tim:

Right. The title of his book was, I think, The History the American People, but certainly, he did not present an accurate history. But it was kind of this notion where Howard Zinn really takes the same approach where the whites are so evil, and how they mistreat and abuse, and what we did in the Indians.

 

And really, you have to stop and back up. If you go back to where Cortez, as he has interaction with the Aztecs, Cortez only had 500 men when he gets here. And he didn’t even maintain those 500 as he does his march.

David:

Now, wait a minute, there were tens of thousands of Aztecs.

Tim:

Right.

David:

How many men did Cortez have now?

Tim:

He only has a single shot muskets, right. Or these blunderbuss or whatever they have at that time, swords.

Three to Four Times the Fire Power

David:

And by the way, you can fire a bow and arrow four or five times in the time it takes to reload a musket. So, they really have rapid fire guns on the Indian side. Five hundred muskets versus tens of thousands of bows and arrows that can fire three to four times in the same period it takes to reload a gun.

Tim:

So, how in the world did Cortez conquer the Aztecs? Well, it’s because Cortez wasn’t alone. Cortez was joined by all of these Indians that had been oppressed by the Aztecs. The Aztecs would have these celebrations every year where they would do human sacrifice. Levels of cannibalism was involved.

But they would kill tens of thousands of people on these yearly sacrifices. And so these Indian tribes–

David:

Tens of thousands in a day. And they weren’t killing white guys – they were killing other Indians, the other Indian tribes.

Tim:

So, these Indians who their people, their sons, their daughters, their siblings, their parents, have been conquered, or really, kidnapped, and then really offered to be sacrificed to these Aztec gods. When Cortez shows up, they go, “Hey, let’s join these guys. We’ll be part of the army against the Aztecs.” The Aztecs weren’t just conquered by Cortez – they were conquered by all the Indians that joined with Cortez.

And this is what, when you start looking at the unfolding of this, almost without exception any time there were Anglos against Indians, it was Anglos and other Indians against the Indians. But that also has to– you have to ignore so much of history even to simply see the conflict and not see that there was peace, not see the interaction.

When the pilgrims come to America, they have the longest lasting peace treaty of any Anglos and any Indians. It was broken by King Philip with King Phillip’s War–

David:

Which, King Philip, that’s an Anglo name, so it was a white guy that broke the treaty?

Tim:

No, no, no, King Philip was an Indian.

An Indian Broke the Treaty

David:

Oh, so an Indian broke the treaty.

Tim:

Yeah.

David:

I thought the white guys broke all of the treaties.

Tim:

So, King Philip, the reason that he broke the treaty, and this is decades after the Pilgrims have landed. But King Philip has some missionaries that come to his village. And these missionaries are telling the Indians in his village that they need to change their heathen ways, they need to convert, they need to start living differently. And King Philip recognizes that what these these missionaries–

David:

By the way, let me point out that part of what they were telling them they needed to be different about was the Indians in that tribe would go out and capture other Indians, bring them back in, and absolutely torture them and then kill them. We have records of where they would make the Indians link arm in arm, stand side by side, then run down and slit their guts. And all the Indians would have to hold their own guts where they’ve been disemboweled as they’re dying. And the missionaries see this and say, “No, no, no, guys, you need to change your ways.” And King Philip says, “These guys are going to change our culture.”

Tim:

Right. So, King Philip is worried about them losing their Indian culture. So, he says, “Hey, let’s put these three missionaries to death.” Now, it’s probably significant at this point to point out those missionaries were Indians. It was other Indians that had converted to Christianity.

David:

I thought all missionaries were white guys.

Tim:

What? No–

David:

Oh, that’s Howard Zinn isn’t it? I got it.

Indian Missionaries

Tim:

So, they converted to Christianity under the pilgrims. Well, there were several tribes that had converted. And so these tribes were sending out missionaries to other Indians. Well, King Philip, when this happens, he says, “Okay, we’re not letting this happen anymore.”

So, King Philip goes on the warpath to try to stop the spreading of Christianity. Which in his mind, is making them stop their Indian traditions of human sacrifice, and of torture, and of other things. Well, King Phillip’s War is ended, not when the Anglos kill King Philip, but when the other Indians, who had converted to Christianity, they join with the Anglos. Because they recognize, if he’s killing the Christians, we’re Christians now, we’re going to die too. And apparently–

David:

And they were. King Philip was killing Christian Indians just as much as killing Christian Anglos.

Tim:

Right. So, apparently, these Indians had gone to the same Navy SEAL training. And so they all have the same woodsman ability, they all the same fighting — relative to all. But right, they knew how to fight in the woods, they knew how to have combat, they’d grown up in this warrior culture. And so the Indians are the ones that actually kill King Philip and end King Philip’s War.

But that was the longest lasting peace treaty between any Anglos and any Indians and it was violated by Indians. And this is what you generally see with the early colonies in America that were largely Christian colonies, is that they made peace negotiations, they made treaties, they bought the land from the Indians.

In fact, if you jump forward, there were Indian wars and the 1730s, 1740s, 1750s. And this is where George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both said, “The reason that we’re having Indian wars is because the Indian’s parents, and grandparents, and great grandparents, their ancestors, sold all this land to these Anglos. And now they’re concerned about losing all the land.”

Largely Nomadic People

Tim:

Now, it’s also worth noting that largely for Indians, they were nomadic people. They would go from place to place following, right, animals as animals are traveling in different seasons. So, they have different hunting routes they’re following. Well, they’re not used to someone coming.

And so, when, for example, Anglos bought land, the Anglos come and build a permanent settlement, build a house there. And the Indians are really not aware of the concept of never leaving a location because that’s not their way of life. So, the Indians are realizing, “Wait a second, these guys bought land and they’ve never left. We’re losing our hunting ground. We’re losing this.”

So, the 1730s, 1740s, 1750s, Indians began going on the warpath trying to reclaim land–

David:

That they sold.

Tim:

–that was legally sold, that their ancestors had sold at, by the way, the price set by the ancestors. So, when the early settlers get here and they buy the land, the Indians are living there, “Hey, can we buy it from you?” “Well, sure.” “Well, what do you want for your land?” “Well, we’ll take some of these beads, we’ll take a blanket, we’ll take that ax, we’ll take–”

And so the Indians got to determine the price set for the land. But again, the Indians did not have the recognition that these Anglos are never going to leave. Well,- when their kids, their grandkids, or great grandkids, realize this, they go on the warpath. But again, this is not the Anglos stealing land, this is the Indians frustrated.

What About the French and Indian War?

Tim:

And, we could also point out, that when you have the French and Indian War, the Indians join with the French against the British and the Americans. Now, there were a few Indian tribes that joined with the British and the Americans. But largely, the Indians were on the side of the French.

Well, the French told them, “When we win this conflict, you can take all the land back from the British from the Americans. You can have all this land.” So it was a conquest mentality. The problem was, when they lost the war, well, then, part of the treaty that the French negotiated with the British was that they had to give up all the land they were currently claiming. So, the Indians are losing land.

Well, then you have the American Revolution, the War for Independence. As this is going on a lot of Indians sided with the British and the British tell them, “Hey, you can have this land of the people we conquer, and you can grow, and you can expand.” Well, the problem was, when they lose the Revolution because they sided with the British, they lose a lot of their land.

So, most of the land the Indians lost they lost because they sold it, or they lost because they joined with the wrong side of a conflict. And in the peace treaty negotiations they had to give up that land. It’s really not until the era of– kind of Jackson, Andrew Jackson, that a lot of the negative things from the White Man to the Indians starts really unfolding.

Now, certainly there’s a few examples, you can back up in history, a few examples of Anglos mistreating Indians – there’s no doubt. Because nobody is perfect and every nationality has a sinful human nature they work with. So, you certainly can find examples of Anglos mistreating Indians. But that was not the norm, it wasn’t the standard, up until about Andrew Jackson. And then in the Jackson era is when you really see the Anglos mistreating Indians.

Did the Founding Fathers Steal Land from the Indians?

Tim:

But the reason it’s important for this question is we’re told that the Founding Fathers stole land from the Indians. That’s just not historically accurate at all. In fact, even the founding of America back up to the pilgrims, you really don’t find hardly any examples of Americans stealing from Indians and especially in the Christian colonies. Now you had some non Christian colonies where certainly there was different behavior.

But, by and large, it was not this abuse of Indians that we are told today. But we just don’t recognize history or the fact that the Indians were conquest people, that Indian tribes were killing other Indian tribes, the way they were just absolutely brutalizing people. And certainly, the further west you go out on the western frontier you see a lot more of this brutality.

David:

Well, it’s interesting that even some of the stuff you describe in the 1600s, and the pilgrims, and what happened there. 250 years later it’s still going on in the West. It’s the same stuff in the west. Our ranch is out in a western part of Texas, it’s near one of the cavalry forts, and our ranche is sitting on the domain of the Kiowa and the Comanche, what used to be their big grounds. Amd the Kiowa and the Comanche were eventually defeated, not by the cavalry, but by the cavalry and 13 Indian tribes that joined with the cavalry to defeat the Comanches.

Tim:

Now, why would 13 Indian tribes join with the cavalry?

David:

It kind of sounds like what happened when all of the Indian tribes joined with Cortez against the Aztec. Maybe it was because the way the Comanches were treating other Indian tribes. By the way, without the influence of any white man at all.

Problems on Both Sides

Tim:

Well, and this is where, again, when you look at Indian tribes and their interaction between other tribes, there is so much brutality. There’s a great book that was written called The Empire of the Summer Moon which really looks at a lot of this Indian interaction with Anglos, with whites, but specifically in Texas where we’re from. It deals with the Comanche and the Kiowas. But it’s a very, very, well done book showing that, actually, there were problems on both sides. The Indians were very brutal, the whites had some mistreatment, the whites did some very terrible things as well.

But it shows that it’s not just one side that was at fault, it wasn’t the white man against the Indian. No, both sides had issues, neither side handled it really well, but it shows a very accurate perspective and a very fair perspective. Looking at, this was a human nature problem, it was a conquest mentality, and the Indians ultimately lost, the Kiowas and the Comanches lost at the conquest game they were trying to play. And they lost because other Indians joined with the cavalry because they said, “We want to get some of ours back because we’re tired of them kidnapping and murdering our own people.”

The ISIS of That Day

David:

Literally, the Kiowas and Comanches were the ISIS of that day. And they were the ISIS to everybody that wasn’t them. All those other 13 Indian tribes, they were ISIS to them, they were ISIS to the white guys, they were ISIS to Mexicans, they were ISIS to whatever nationality. If you weren’t Kiowa or Comanche, “We’re ISIS and we’re going to wipe you out.”

Rick:

Alright, guys, so as we go to break, let me just ask you this because you follow a lot of the  standards, education standards and textbook standards across the country. Has this gotten any better? Have we improved any of the teaching on this subject? Or do you have to go to outside sources almost always?

Tim:

Really, outside sources are what we find more when it comes to history as far as the history books are concerned.

Rick:

Yeah.

Tim:

Most of what is written in history books today still does seem to go the direction of, “The white man is bad”–

Rick:

Yeah.

Tim:

— of, “The Indian was abused and oppressed. And not to say, again, not to say there weren’t times when Indians were abused and oppressed. Absolutely.

David:

You bet.

Anglos Did Terrible Things Too, But That’s Not the Only Thing

Tim:

There’s times in history we can point to where Anglos did terrible things. There’s no doubt about it.

Rick:

Sure.

Tim:

But that was not the only thing that happened in history.

Rick:

Right.

Tim:

And there were an awful lot of Indian tribes who were not these poor innocent farmers. They were warriors, they were brutal. So, this is where finding some of these outside sources where people have really dug into this. And again, this is where the book, The Empire of the Summer Moon does a brilliant job of kind of unfolding the Comanches and the Kiowas and their history. Showing that brutality, showing the interaction with other Indians, the interaction with the whites.

And even what the cavalry did, it gives you a really good picture of history to see it wasn’t just the Anglos. No, there were problems across the board. The Anglos ended up winning, but it wasn’t because the Anglos were perfect. But it certainly wasn’t because the Indians were the pure victims here either.

David:

And let me qualify that it’s really not outside sources we’re talking about, it’s original sources we’re talking about.

Rick:

Yeah, good point.

Go to Original Sources

David:

You don’t have to go to outside sources, you go to original sources. One of the documents we have posted on the WallBuilders website of our collection is an Indian treaty signed by the Indians where they sold 400,000 acres of land in the 1750s to settlers in New York. We have a number of treaties signed by the Indians, voluntarily signed, where they’re giving away massive amounts of land to the Anglos at the price set by the Indians. Those original documents. That’s not– I don’t have to go to an outside source, I go to the actual source.

And same with this The Empire of the Summer Moon, it’s going to the actual eyewitnesses who were there, it’s going to be the documents of the time, it’s not an outside source, it’s original sources. And that’s where you get a very different view is when you go to original sources.

Rick:

Quick break. We’ll be right back, folks. You’re listening to WallBuilders Live on Foundations of Freedom Thursday.

Outro:

President Thomas Jefferson said, “I 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.”

Patriot Academy

Have you noticed the vacuum of leadership in America? We’re looking around for leaders of principle to step up and too often no one is there. God is raising up a generation of young leaders with a passion for impacting the world around them. They’re crying out for the mentorship and leadership training they need. Patriot Academy was created to meet that need. Patriot Academy graduates now serve in state capitals around America, in the halls of Congress, in business, in the film industry, in the pulpit, in every area of the culture. They’re leading effectively and impacting the world around them.

Patriot Academy is now expanding across the nation and now is your chance to experience this life changing week that trains champions to change the world. Visit PatriotAcademy.com for dates and locations. Our core program is still for young leaders 16 to 25 years old, but we also now have a citizen track for adults. So visit the website today to learn more. Help us fill the void of leadership in America. Join us in training champions to change the world at PatriotAcademy.com.

Intro:

Calvin Coolidge said, “The 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 WallBuilder Live. Thanks for staying with us on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday.

Turn the Other Cheek Clarification

Rick:

The next listener question comes from Wolfgang, he says, “I’d like you to clarify–” And he has been listening to our program where we talked about churches being able to defend themselves, and that certain scriptures are not for the corporate body, they’re for the individual.

For instance, he said, “Good evening, I’ve been listening to your broadcast on my drive home and I agree with your assessment today of defending the congregation. I’d like you to clarify nationally that the turn the other cheek is not an everyday thing. It’s a very specific command when others revile you, strike you, spit upon you–” and this is in big bold caps and he’s right, “‘FOR MY NAME’S SAKE’, then turn then you turn the other cheek. The ‘For My Name’s sake’ is so often left off the sermons, but truly we cannot leave that off. It is the Christian thing to do.

“If someone came up to me and asked to defy Christ or to die, then die it is. If someone comes to hurt my family, or my property, or myself, not for the sake of Christ, then woe is them for I will do my utmost to defend them even to the end. Okay, enough said. You guys keep up the great work. Regards, Wolfgang.”

Alright, so David, Tim. Not really a question in there, but worth worth a comment from you guys regarding the fact, once again, these commands like “turn the other cheek”. That doesn’t apply to the nation or the government. It doesn’t apply to the church body if someone walks in with a gun.

Jurisdictional Lines in the Bible

David:

That’s a very astute observation on jurisdictional lines drawn in the Bible. You have the individual, you have the family, you have the church, and you have government. And just because a command is given in the Bible doesn’t mean it applies to all four. For example, “turn the other cheek” is what Jesus said to His disciples, His followers. He did not say that to government.

Matter of fact, Ecclesiastes 8:11 says that if government turns the other cheek, and does not enforce the law, it will encourage more people to break the law. And so when the Bible says, “take care of the poor”, that’s not a command given to government, that is a command that is given to the church, and to the individual, and to the follower of Christ. 200 places in the Bible talk about the poor – none of them say the government’s to meet material age. Only the government provides justice when the poor come to court.

So, there are so many examples like that “turn the other cheek” or forgive, it’s not the government’s role to forgive, it’s their role to bear the sword and justice. They’re to do justice. So, it’s really an observation by Wolfgang recognizing the jurisdictional nature of the Bible and that when a command is given in the Bible, you have to say to see to which jurisdiction that command is being given.

Can Past Presidents Be Prosecuted For Crimes?

Rick:

Okay, next question. Let’s try and get another one in for today’s program. Comes from Scott in San Diego, he said, “In light of the move President Trump has made to stop funding the unconstitutional subsidies to insurance companies. We have been reminded of Obama’s violating the Constitution the ACA in a judge’s order for said funding. Can Obama or any past president be prosecuted for crimes such as these after leaving office? He should have been impeached, but the gutless Congress didn’t do that.

“Is leaving the presidency his get out of jail free card? Can anyone at the Treasury be charged for processing his illegal order? Thanks for your great show.”

So, I think, guys, the heart of Scott’s question is, look, these were unconstitutional acts. Can you be prosecuted, as a president or any other member of government, for doing something that’s unconstitutional?

Tim:

Well, the easy answer is “yes”. The more difficult answer is, “but would it?” and that’s, “no”. No president, especially in our modern era, at the end of his presidency, nobody’s going to look back and go, “Hey, that was unconstitutional therefore you’re going to have to spend jail time, prison time. You’re going to have to go through this court case.” It’s just not going to happen.

The best you can do even holding people accountable who were in those agencies, who carried out those illegal orders, would be to require accountability of them now, but not take them to court. Because I don’t think retrospectively you can necessarily do that. Unless, maybe as we’re looking at some stuff with the FBI right now, with Hillary right now. They’re looking retrospectively on some things. It’s possible that if it’s egregious enough that you might could bring some level of accountability in the sense of some kind of sentence, or some kind of court case, against them.

More realistically probably, if it’s someone in an agency, you dismiss them from the agency because of their bad behavior. But to me, it would be really hard, in our current culture and climate, to retrospectively go back and hold someone accountable. Again, mostly because of our current culture and climate.

Into the Gray Area

David:

The other difficulty is we’re saying ACA is an unconstitutional act. Well, Chief Justice Roberts, who is a conservative, ruled that it was a constitutional act. So, on what basis are you going to hold this unconstitutional? Sure, as a strict constructionist, as an original intent person, we say it’s unconstitutional. But there’s no basis, legally, for saying that, except our opinion of the Constitution, because the Supreme Court actually said it’s fine, Congress voted on it, they took an oath to uphold the Constitution, they said it’s fine.

So, we’re now into that gray area of my opinion versus your opinion on a political interpretation and you’re not going to go to jail over that. You going to go to jail over statutory violation. And you’re not even going to be impeached over that, because even if you could get 51 percent of the House to vote for that, which why would they do that since they voted for the ACA Act? But you have to get 51 percent of the House to agree that what he did was unconstitutional. Then you have to get two thirds of the Senate to convict on that.

So, it’s going to take 15 Democrats voting to impeach him and that’s not going to happen. So–

Tim:

And that didn’t happen, right.

David:

It didn’t happen.

Tim:

Yeah, there was no way they’re going to come out and do that. And there’s, right now, there’s impeachment talk with Trump, but I don’t even think they can get the votes.

David:

Oh no, they’ve got only 51 percent in the House. That’s not going to happen. They’re not going to get that right.

Tim:

Right. So, that is a moot point at this time because President Obama’s already gone. But what about the constitutional nature?

David:

But see–

Rick:

But a good question, right? Should Congress, or should members of Congress, when a president does something as egregious as passing these laws that are completely unconstitutional, or executive orders that are completely unconstitutional, should they at least try? Or should they just let go?

Six Clauses Very Clear About Impeachment

David:

Well, yes and no. They shouldn’t try if they don’t have– Congress doesn’t lead the nation, the nation leads Congress. And I guarantee you that if you poll the nation on whether Obama should have been impeached over that, it’s going to be overwhelming Republicans and Democrats saying “no” because they have no clue what impeachment’s about.

Rick:

Yeah. That’s true.

David:

Six clauses in the Constitution make it very clear about impeachment. The commentaries on the Constitution, for example, the Federalist Papers all the way through Joseph Story’s, make it real clear what impeachment’s about. Today, people think you can’t impeach them unless they commit a constitutional treasonous act, unless they commit a statutory violation. You can’t impeach a judge unless he rapes his daughter and murders his wife. We have made impeachment such a high standard now, so much higher than it ever was, that you would never get public support for it.

So, Congress does not lead the nation – the nation leads Congress. Congress will only go as far as the nation allows them to go.

So, maybe he should have been impeached, but that’s not going to happen because the guys that would impeach him would be the same guys that passed the ACA Act. They clearly thought it was Constitutional. Once you’re out of office, unless you violated a clear, statutory law, you can’t do anything then because the only option you’ve got left is criminal time in jail. Unless you violated a statutory act, that’s not going to happen. And there’s no statutory act that says if you pass the ACA you’re going to jail.

So, while this is egregious to conservatives, and constitutional conservatives, and original intent people, we’ve missed all the opportunities and windows to do anything about it.

Indian Injustice? And More! Foundations Of Freedom Thursday

Rick:

Folks, you could send in more of your questions to [email protected] We try to get to as many of those as we can on Thursdays, our Foundations of Freedom Thursday programs. You can get on our website at WallBuildersLive.com and go back over the past few weeks if you’d like to hear more of those. We sure appreciate you being with us today. Thanks for listening to WallBuilders Live!

Outro:

Abraham Lincoln said, “We 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.”