Lawsuits Against Biden, Sheriffs Uphold The Constitution, And More – On Foundations of Freedom: It seems like every new executive order from Biden provokes new lawsuits against it. What happens to all the current lawsuits against the President if he is removed from office? What are the grounds for county sheriffs standing against federal authorities? Should certain Mosaic Laws be employed to diminish frivolous lawsuits? Should elected officials fear God? Why do candidates have fundraising goals? Tune in to hear the answers to these questions and more on today’s Foundations of Freedom program!
Air Date: 07/08/2021
On-air Personalities: David Barton, Rick Green, and Tim Barton
- WallBuilders | American historical events, founding fathers, historical documents, books, videos, CDs, tapes, David Barton’s speaking schedule.
- Coupons: Use promo code WBL17 to receive 10% off your entire order on ALL WallBuilders Store Products!!
- Helpful links:
- Send In Your Questions!Â
- The Founders Bible
- The Founders Bible App
- Constitution Alive
- First Liberty
- The Courageous Leaders Collection
- Heroes of History
- Quotations of the Founders Books
- Alliance Defending Freedom
- Liberty Counsel
- Patriot Academy
- High Point Leadership Camp
- WallBuilders’ YouTube
- Wallbuilders Summer Leadership Training Program
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
President Thomas Jefferson said, “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. And if we think they’re 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.”
Welcome to the intersection of faith and the culture. Thanks for joining us today on WallBuilders Live where we talk about the hot topics of the day, but we look at them from a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective. We’re here with David Barton, America’s premier historian and our founder at WallBuilders, Tim Barton is a national speaker and pastor and president of WallBuilders, and I’m Rick Green, former Texas legislator and America’s Constitution coach.
You can learn more about us at wallbuilderslive.com. That’s also where you can get archives of the program, meaning past programs over the last few weeks and months, and that’s where you can make that one time or monthly contribution. For all of you out there that have been doing that, thank you so much for coming alongside us and helping us to expand this message of truth. You can make those contributions at wallbuilderslive.com.
It’s Thursday. That’s Foundations of Freedom Thursday around here at WallBuilders Live. It’s a chance for you to ask the question. Send those questions in to [email protected], [email protected] We always try to get to as many questions as we can on Thursdays. David and Tim, you guys ready for some rapid fire?
Let’s do it.
Lawsuits Against Biden Administration
Alright. First one is about the current administration and lawsuits against him. The question is simple. “Lawsuits for the current administration are mounting. What happens to the suits if Biden is actually removed from office?
So you’ll see these lawsuits? And they’ll actually say, you know, maybe it’s a lawsuit against the federal government or against the President Biden, what happens if there is no President Biden anymore?” I mean, meaning like, you know, they finally figure out these not all there they invoke the 25th and Kamala Harris is present. I’m assuming that’s what he’s asking.
Well, actually, what happens is that I would take the question in different direction, because the lawsuit is not against Biden, they’re against his policies, and against those who execute the policies. So you’re having an attorney general say, hey, we don’t like what’s going on with the immigration, we don’t like what’s going on with the Keystone pipeline, etc. The lawsuits are not against Biden as an individual. They’re against his policies.
So if Biden goes away and the policies remained, the lawsuit is going to stay there. Just because Biden is the face that announced the policy, they’re not going after Biden, they’re going after his policies. So it seems like every new executive orders get some new lawsuits to go with it. People saying, hey, that’s wrong, that’s way overreach, that’s way into state’s authority 10th Amendment stuff that should not be happening.
And so if Biden is disqualified, or whatever, let’s say he is disqualified, let’s say Kamala Harris becomes president, if she has the same policies, those lawsuits do not change. So those lawsuits are against policies that are being executed by executive agencies, executive authority.
And it’s against that policy that the lawsuits are being filed. So Biden is nothing changes, if he goes away unless the policies change. If we had a new president said, hey, I’m rolling back those policies, I’m taking back the executive orders, all those lawsuits would become moot, they would go away. That would end it. But as long as the policy continues, that lawsuit will continue.
A Sheriff’s Constitutional Authority
Yeah, I mean, that makes sense because it’s usually an agency anyway, right that’s implementing that policy. And so you’re not really dealing directly with the president in the first place.
So let’s dive into our next question. This one comes from Colin in Carson City, Nevada. I just want to pause for a minute, make sure that all of our friends that listen in Nevada notice that we said Nevada, not Nevada, so we’ve been practicing. Okay.
This one says “Hello, Rick, David, and Tim, I’m currently hosting a Constitution Alive course at our house and we’re wondering how county sheriffs can stand against federal authorities. So my question for you guys, what is the constitutional authority for a local county sheriff to stand against federal agencies? Two counties in Nevada are going constitutional and will not comply with federal and even state authorities.”
In fact, guys, I remember seeing this article about these two counties. Back to his question or his email, he said, “What steps can we take to inform and encourage our local county sheriff to stand? also want to thank you for my family, recently attended your Constitutional Defense training in Front Sight over Memorial Day weekend, my boy has been so inspired by your family and all the work you do to spread the truth.
Thank you for what you’re doing and the perseverance you have. May the Lord Jesus Christ be a light to all of our paths.”
Colin, thank you for the encouragement. Thanks for coming out and being a part of the Constitutional Defense course. David, Tim, you know, there’s a lot of these sanctuary counties for life, sanctuary counties for Second Amendment, counties that are really stepping up and saying, hey, we’re not going to let unconstitutional things be done in our area. And of course, the sheriff is the most important elected official locally with regard to doing that sort of thing. So really good question from Colin here.
Standing Against Federal Authorities
Yeah, and I would change it a little bit because it’s not that Nevada these two sheriffs are standing against state and federal authorities. What they did is they said we’re standing for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So they say if there’s any state or federal policy that comes down that tells us we have to violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights, we’re going to stand with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
So it’s not like we reject the state, we reject the feds. They made the caveat that said, we stand for the Constitution, we stand for the Bill of Rights. If you tell us to do something that violates that we’re not going to do it. We have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. This is really significant.
This has been an emphasis with sheriffs over recent years, as remember, guys, your oath is not to uphold the word of the mayor or the word of the governor or the word of the President, your oath is to uphold the Constitution. And you need to know the Constitution and study it. We talked in previous programs, how that really we think that police departments in cities really need to get back to constitutional studies.
The sheriffs put a big emphasis on this. And we saw during the pandemic, particularly that police departments, whatever the mayor told them to do, go close down the church, alright, we’re going to close down the church. Wait a minute, you can’t close down that church. And so sheriffs who were refusing to do things they were being told, but the police often were not. And that’s a big distinction. They knew the Constitution.
Well, and sometimes too there were police officers saying we can’t do this. And the chain of command is a little different, accountability line is a little different from police and sheriffs. And so we do want to make sure we clarify that we recognize that is a very different scenario, because there are some police officers who definitely know, understand, and want to follow the Constitution again. Chain of command, accountability lines are different with that. But it does raise even this interesting question.
You know, one of the thoughts people have today is that the US Supreme Court is the one who really explains to the American people what is constitutional, what is not. They’re the ones who can determine if it’s constitutional. And so we have to wait and see what the US Supreme Court says, forgetting the fact Constitution wasn’t written to be interpreted by the US Supreme Court.
Upholding the Constitution
The Constitution, actually, if you go back and read the Federalist Papers, and the Federalist Papers were the attempt of three Founding Fathers trying to help the farmers of New York who were considered the least educated people of New York to understand the Constitution. The Constitution was a document written of the people, by the people, for the people, to borrow Abraham Lincoln’s phrase; it was something that everybody could understand. And we have now come to the place where we think wait a second, not everybody can understand it.
It’s complicated, or this notion that so often we have people in law enforcement, people in the military that they take an oath to uphold and to defend the Constitution. And too often some of those individuals say, well, we have to wait and see what the US Supreme Court says. No, you don’t, read what the Constitution says and then stand up for what it says if you have taken an oath to uphold that.
And this is where we could talk about on Good News Friday for a long time moments where sheriffs have said we are going to uphold what is constitutional. And this is not an act of defiance against necessarily a branch of government. This is them recognizing what they sworn oath to protect, to defend, to uphold was the United States Constitution, and that is knowable and understandable for even the average citizen. This is not something we have to wait for the federal government or the US Supreme Court to give us clarity on. You literally can read the Constitution and then stand for the principles of what it says. And that’s what in this situation we are seeing sheriff doing.
And to pull some of that Good News Friday into a Thursday program, we saw the 29 sheriffs in Utah say we’re going to follow the Constitution and essentially, they had taken the same standards as those two sheriffs or the two counties in Nevada. We’ve seen where the sheriffs across Colorado has said no, we’re not doing red flag laws and red flag laws are laws that allow your Second Amendment rights to be taken away without any kind of due process, any kind of hearing.
You know, if you’re a convicted felon, convicted of violent crime, etc, you can lose your Second Amendment rights as you can lose other rights. And sheriff’s saying just because a city official says this guy loses right, we’re not doing that.
We’ve also seen 13 states step up with laws to say if the federal government orders us to violate Second Amendment rights, we’re not going to do it in this state. And we’ve seen Attorney Generals doing the same thing. So it’s not just the two counties or the two sheriffs in Nevada out of those two counties, Nevada and Nevada, what are we doing, Rick, which is it?
Caring About the Constitution
Nevada, they keep telling me that. Every time I’m out there, when I say Nevada, I get chastised as the Texan not pronouncing the name correctly.
Well, I will be happy to be from Texas and mispronounce that, if that proves I’m from Texas. So whether it’s Nevada or Nevada, whatever it is, those two counties out there they’ve taken a stand that’s now consistent with what we see going across the nation. And one of the things I really like in this and maybe this is part of the Good News Friday on Thursday is the fact that people are now starting to care what the Constitution does say and they’re starting to say no, we’re standing for the Constitution. The Constitution does matter.
At a time when that document is under attack and people, you know, America is not really special, we shouldn’t celebrate America, etc. There’s a whole group saying, yes, we should and the Constitution has made us exceptional, and we want to defend that document. So this is not a thing of sheriffs just disregarding what was state and federal authority say. This is a thing of sheriffs saying our oath is to the Constitution and we’re going to uphold it even if others around us won’t do so.
It’s really exciting to see it happen and to see so many Americans get this education and start to understand exactly what Tim was saying that the federal government or the Supreme Court is not the final say, or the only say, on the Constitution. Every single one of us have a voice in this and need to be educated on it. And so, following the advice of the Founding Fathers and learning these things, extremely important.
Check it out at wallbuilders.com today. You can take one of those Constitution classes and host just as Colin is doing, host it in your living room or at your church. We’re going to take a quick break. We’ve got more questions coming up when we come back on WallBuilders Live.
The AMERICAN STORY
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.”
Hey, guys, we want to let you know about a new resource we have at WallBuilders called The American Story. For so many years, people have asked us to do a history book to help tell more of the story that’s just not known or not told today.
And we would say very providentially in the midst of all of the new attacks coming out against America, whether it be from things like the 1619 project that say America is evil, and everything in America was built off slavery, which is certainly not true or things, like even the Black Lives Matter movement, the organization itself, not out the statement Black Lives Matter, but the organization that says we’re against everything that America was built on, and this is part of the Marxist ideology. There’s so many things attacking America.
Well, is America worth defending? What is the true story of America? We actually have written and told that story starting with Christopher Columbus, going roughly through Abraham Lincoln, we tell the story of America not as the story of a perfect nation of a perfect people.
But the story of how God used these imperfect people and did great things through this nation. It’s a story you want to check out wallbuilders.com, The American Story.
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.”
Implementing Mosaic Law
We’re back here on WallBuilders Live. Thanks for staying with us on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Next question, by the way, if you’ve got a question, send it in to [email protected], [email protected] This one says “I recall in Mosaic law that someone accusing another of something face the same consequences as the one accused. What would it take to make that a thing in today’s courts with frivolous lawsuits and extend those consequences to lawyers and judges who prove complicit?”
And I think what they mean by the question, guys, obviously is someone accusing another of something faces the same consequences, meaning if you’re lying about it, and you’re claiming somebody did something, whatever the punishment is that they would get if they were convicted, if you’re proven to have lied about them doing it, you get those punishments.
Yeah, that does go to Mosaic law. And let’s take something that somebody, I don’t know, wants your property or whatever, they don’t like you, and so they say I saw this guy murder someone else. And that is false testimony.
And if on your testimony that guy is put to death because of the death sentence, and it turns out that you lied about it, then you get put to death. Whatever you’re trying to impose on the other, if you perjure yourself in some way to have his property taken away, then your same property is going to be taken away. So it was considered a deterrent. Whatever you’re trying to put on someone else to have a gain, that’s the punishment you’re going to suffer. And so that’s the way the Mosaic Law was set up.
And there’s a lot of frivolous suits that do go on, and a lot of that is can be influenced by money. You know, there’s a lot of fishing suits that go out there to say, hey, I’ll get one half or 1/3 or whatever the fee is. And so let’s try to get something against this company, and therefore, I’ll get paid a lot as an attorney. And Abraham Lincoln has such a good, good lecture that he gave about how that attorneys should not be seeking high fees, they should work in an hourly rate. And that should be it, shouldn’t have contingency fees, etc.
But that’s where a lot of frivolous lawsuits come from. And that’s where you see a lot of lawsuit fishing on TV. If you’ve had this, if you’ve seen this, if you’ve taken this, call us, contact us, we got a class action suit going. And so there’s frivolous suits like that, but there’s also things that happen even in divorce courts.
And Rick, having been involved in politics and having helped run political parties, we always looked into Canada’s backgrounds, because when we recruited a candidate, we did a background search on them to see what was in their background. And very often if they’ve been through a messy divorce, there’s often a lot of claims that are made in divorces to try to help the spouse get an advantage.
So you know, I saw my wife take an axe handle and beat the kids every night with an axe handler, or my former husband raped the daughters, it’s crazy stuff the claims that come out and is to help them get an advantage over the time that they get the kids or the amount of money they get for alimony or whatever. So, all of that to say that when you look at what happens here, it all comes back to morality. And you wouldn’t have these kind of frivolous suits, and you wouldn’t have these kind of false claims if number one, we had a love for telling the truth.
If we were trying that we love truth more than anything else, we’re not after the outcome, we’re after truth. And you know what, if the truth is against me, I’m just going to keep my mouth shut, because I don’t want to lie to get something just because I want something.
So if we had a love for the truth, second, if we had a fear of line, the scripture says that the fear of the Lord is a fountain of life to depart the snares of death, if I am scared to lie because I know that I will stand before God, and one day, he’s going to say, hey, you lied about this, why did you do that? There is no answer I can give him that he’s going to say, oh, well, I didn’t understand that. Yeah, that’s fine. It’s okay for you to lie in that circumstance. No, it’s not.
And so if I have a fear of facing God, and having to account for line, and this is what the Founding Fathers emphasize, even as Ben Franklin helped write the original Constitution of Pennsylvania in 1776, he said, we don’t want you in office unless you have, what he called a terror of future rewards and punishments, unless you’re scared to death of standing before God for doing wrong and being rewarded for right, if you don’t have that, we don’t want you in office. Because there’s so much that political people do in office that is out of the eyes of the public. And if you don’t fear God more than you fear the people, you’re going to do all sorts of things to sell out the state, and we just don’t want you there.
And then the third thing is that we have to have a willingness to punish wrongdoing. And we’ve let so much wrongdoing get by and well, that’s just their view, that’s their point, that’s what they believe. I don’t believe that we no longer have standards.
We want to uphold in law. And so we do selective enforcement, selective prosecution. And well, this guy’s a liberal guy, and I really don’t want to out him for what’s going on.
And, you know, Hunter Biden is the president, we really like the president, so we’re going to shut up about that. Now, we’ll talk about Trump’s kids, but we’re not going to talk about Biden’s kids. As long as you’ve got that culture that doesn’t want to punish all wrongdoing, none of this is going to matter.
So I would point out the answer to this question about the accusing someone of something false, frivolous lawsuits. It goes back to a lack of really what we used to believe nationally was biblical morality. You have to have a love for telling the truth, you have to have a fear of line, you have to believe that you will be punished for wrongdoing. If you don’t believe that, then there’s no law we can pass this kind of fix the system.
And this is one of the dangers in the current political climate where people are more interested in their side winning or their side looking good in an argument discussion. Because you’re going to think about the Brett Kavanaugh Senate hearings were so much stuff was spoken against him with all the sexual allegations. And then after the fact, several these women came out and said, yeah, none of that happened; yeah, we were lying about that.
This is where and I think the question that was sent in is interesting, and maybe significant to try to find some kind of solution or resolution for it. But the notion of, should that biblical mandate be reinstated and what would that look like? You know, it probably in the midst of the political polarization we were in, if you had to deal with the consequences of bad behavior, the consequences of lying, it certainly might stop some of it on some level.
But dad, as you mentioned, unless you get to the heart of the issue, unless you can restore biblical morality, you’re not going to get the ultimate desired outcome you want. You can’t just pass enough laws to make bad people stop doing bad things. It’s why when you look at some of the cities that have the greatest levels of gun laws, they have some of the highest rates of gun violence, because passing more laws does not necessarily solve the problem you think it will solve, many times i the heart issue, as you mentioned.
But certainly in this politically polarized climate, it would be very interesting to see if there was any change in some of the behavior from some different sides of the aisle that oftentimes are happy to throw whatever slanders accusation there is out there, whether it is founded or substantiated or not, they’re just happy to kind of throw mud on the other side. Certainly, something we want to get away from, and definitely not the standard the Bible gives us which we should be following.
Alright, fellows, next question comes from Beth. And the question is about fundraising for candidates. She said, “As I listen to watch Heidi St. John running for Congress, the question came to me why do candidates have fundraising goals? Doesn’t this restrict common people from running?
What happens to the money if the candidate doesn’t make it past the primary? Thanks for all you do. Since I’ve been introduced to your program, I just can’t seem to get enough truthful information.” So I think she means she’s getting a lot of good stuff in the program and wants more. So thanks for listening, Beth, and great question.
Well, guys, you know, we’ve been around campaigns for years, of course, I’ve been in campaigns; David, you’ve been in campaigns, when you raise money for your campaign, if you end up not winning, or let’s say you lose in the primary, and there’s money left in your account, there are laws that restrict what you can do with those dollars. You can either give it back to donors. You can donate it to other candidates or donate it to nonprofits and that sort of thing. So that’s what typically happens.
But the reason that candidates set fundraising goals is because what they’re typically doing is saying, okay, this race is going cost let’s say $100,000 or in a congressional race, usually, it’s a million dollars or more. And so that’s how much we need to raise to pay for the signs, to pay for the push cars, to pay for the advertisements, all of those things.
So when you donate to a candidate, you know, you may not be able to go stand on the street and hold a sign for them or stand at the polls. But when you donate to them, you’re helping to pay for those signs and pay for the things it takes to win a campaign.
How Races Have To Be Run
So really, really important thing to do, and a good thing to do, whether it’s somebody like Heidi St. John running for Congress, or it’s a local, you know, it could be a school board candidate, and they may only need $500, to win that race or $1,500 to win that race. And so if you can donate $25, or $500, it makes a big difference. So that would be my gut reaction to the question. Guys, what do you all think?
Well, I think there’s even more to it than that. Because when you look at how races run, a lot of why you have to have funding depends on the size of the district. If I’m running for a precinct Chairman in my local neighborhood of four blocks, I don’t need to spend any money at all. I’ll go talk to everybody who lives in those four blocks, and I’m in good shape.
If I’m running for a US congressional seat which has 790,000 people in the district, and let’s say that district encompasses eight counties, and it’s about 220 miles across from one side to the other, and I come from the eastern side of the district, and people on the western side of the district have never met me, don’t know who I am, I’ve got to tell them who I am, what I believe, what I stand for, and why I should be the one that you sent to Congress because I can make a difference. So that’s where you start needing more money.
And by the way, Rick, you’re saying even a million, well, 10 years ago, the average winning congressional candidate spent 2.2 million. So it is way over that. Now it’s up in the 3-4 range for a congressional candidate. And then let’s say, well, I want to run for state, or I want to run for the governor of Texas, okay, I need about $80 million.
Two hundred fifty-four counties in Texas, I come out of a rural county that has 9,000 people in the county, I’m now looking at 24 million people in the state who don’t know much about me. I have to educate them. And the problem is my opponents going to educate what he says about me, and I’ve got to be able to overcome that.
And so this is where money comes in. And it’s not that we wish we could get without money. That’s the nature of bigger races. And the bigger they are, you know, you get to a US president race, oh, my gosh, that’s why they spent a billion dollars in this last election. Because 50 states and you got to get your message out and you got to overcome the bad message; and so money is just part of it.
And there’s also the complicated factor of what the media is doing. Because you do have media outlets, and unfortunately, right now, the majority of media outlets are very left leaning.
No, I don’t think they’re media, I think their campaign outlets is what you’re talking about.
Yes. You mean, the Democrat campaign news sources? Yes.
Yes. And so one of the things that happens too is then you have to work to overcome that. One of the things that seem to be an anomaly and then seem to be the direction of the future was when President Trump ran for office, and Twitter was his primary platform because he couldn’t get the news media to cover some of what he was doing.
But I think they just banned that for the next two years.
Well, not only for him, now you have big tech censorship, and we’ve had to deal with it for WallBuilders, and I know, Rick, from Patriot Academy. And we’ve seen levels of censorship of some of our posts. We’ve seen algorithm change. This is something now that candidates are having to navigate in different areas.
And so money is definitely required, involved, as you even set up phone banks, as you set up different door knocking campaigns, all these things, certainly you want to get volunteers for it, but you need staff on some level help organize and help do things. So it does involve money.
And where it seemed like that using social media, or some kind of media platform would be the wave of the future, and therefore might take less money, with some of these algorithm changes, and now even we have seen some really bizarre things with people being filtered just based on the topics of what they talk about, or based on maybe the title they gave to a video, what they said could have been totally factually accurate.
But if the big tech doesn’t like it, whatever that social media platform is, they can censor that, that is now a limitation that people running for office are going to have to deal with and navigate. And again, that’s why they will need money to be able to do things, to publicize themselves in different areas, different avenues, and different venues. So there is a lot more complications to the scenario which can require a lot more money.
And this is why you don’t want the government getting involved in funding candidates equally. Let’s say that Rick, and I run it against each other, and let’s say that I’m the favorite of the media. Well, the government’s going to give us each 10 bucks for our race, but then the media is going to talk about how great I am and how many good things I do, which they’re not going to, but let’s say they did. And then how does Rick overcome that? So even if the government funds that, what we have is all these outside entities, big tech and other things weighing in.
So you really aren’t a free market situation where that that funding is one of the things you have to have to be able to overcome negative messages, negative advantages, systemic advantages, the swamp or whatever you want to call it. And this is why people have fun racing goals, because if you’re going to win a race for Congress, you better have 3-4 million in your coffers, because the other side is going to spend that, the National Democrat Committee is going to put in their money, the Democrat committee in Congress is going to put in their money that there’s going to be all these people that are doing it, and you got to be able to overcome all of that.
Alright, we’re out of time for questions today. Thanks for joining us on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday, you can get more of those questions and answers at our radio site wallbuilderslive.com it’s got archives of the past few weeks and months, programs, including Foundations of Freedom Thursdays, and Good News Fridays, and those interviews on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Check it out at wallbuilderslive.com.
Lawsuits Against Biden, Sheriff Uphold The Constitution, And More!
And while you’re there, consider making that one-time or monthly contribution. We greatly appreciate all of you that have been contributing, helping us to expand this message of truth, and to train more pastors and churches and legislators and young people, all the different things we’re doing to help restore America’s constitutional republic. You get to be a part of it.
And you can actually do that in your living room or at your church hosting one of our classes. Go to wallbuilders.com, check out the Constitution classes, the Foundations of Freedom programs, all of those things you can be a force multiplier, by educating those and your friends and family and in your neighborhood all around you. Become a part of the solution. Check it out today at wallbuilders.com Thanks so much for listening. You’ve been listening to WallBuilders Live.
President 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.”