Presidential Cabinet Positions, 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 regarding First Amendment rights, presidential cabinet positions, the EPA, and so much more, right here on WallBuilders Live!

Air Date: 08/02/2018

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


Listen:

Download: Click Here

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

Faith And The Culture

Intro:

President Thomas Jefferson said, “€œI know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”€

Rick:

Welcome to the intersection of faith and the culture. This is WallBuilders Live! We”€™re talking about today”€™s hottest topics on policy, faith, and the culture. We always do that from a biblical, historical, and constitutional, perspective. So, we’ve got to dive into the Bible, we”€™ve got to look back into history, we’ve got to make sure we know our Constitution. That will help us to find the correct solution to all the challenges in our culture today. And certainly from a faith perspective.

We’re here with David Barton, America’s premier historian and the founder of WallBuilders. Tim Barton”€™s with us, national speaker and 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 and also at WallBuilders.com, two sites. The WallBuilders Live site is our radio website and you can actually get a list of all of our stations across the country, you can listen to past programs of the last few months. And then at WallBuilders.com a wealth of information there, a lot of great tools for you and your family. And that’s also the place where you can donate. If you love the program today, one of the ways you can say “€œthanks”€ is go to that donate page and help us spread the word by coming alongside us as a partner.

David and Tim are going to answer some questions today and you get to be the one to ask those questions. We call it Foundations of Freedom Thursday. So, send in your questions to [email protected], that”€™s [email protected] David, Tim, we’ve got a lot of foundational questions today. You all ready to hit it?

David:

You bet. Let’s go for it.

Rick:

Alright, First question comes out of Midland, Texas. So, of course all great things come from Texas. We’ll see if a great question comes from Texas. But this one is–

David:

Wait a minute, I think we can end the program right there. Do we need to go any further?

Dan Patrick and First Amendment Rights

Rick:

No, this isn’t a Good News Friday, David. If it was Good News Friday we could just talk Texas all day. That would be– all of our non Texas listeners roll their eyes on cue right now because we’re just being obnoxious Texans as we typically are. And this is an obnoxious Texas– no, it’s not an obnoxious Texas question. It”€™s a great question from Steve in Midland, Texas.

He said, “€œEvery Sunday, Dan Patrick, Lieutenant Governor of Texas, posts a verse of scripture on Facebook. Every Sunday hundreds of citizens attack his post on the grounds that he is violating the First Amendment. Could you find time to comment on this question in your program?”€
Steve we’d love to answer that question. David, Tim, is Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick violating the First Amendment when he posts scripture on his own Facebook page.

Tim:

You mean when somebody who is an individual, who has First Amendment rights, actually does something in their private life with their First Amendment rights, would that be unconstitutional? Is that kind of where we’re going for?

Rick:

You mean you don’t give up your First Amendment rights when you run for office?

Tim:

Well, as actually has been clearly demonstrated from President Trump, once you become an elected official you are no longer allowed to Tweet what you want.

Rick:

Yeah.

Separation of Church and State on Steroids

Tim:

We’ve seen that very clearly. Well, yeah, obviously no. It’s something where the notion that there should be a separation of church and state has been so blown out of proportion from anything that even used to be used in court.

David:

By the way, let me jump in, because blowing out of portion, let’s assume you know nothing about American history at all, nothing about the issue. Here’s the First Amendment clause that”€™s in question, “€œCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”€

So, my question would be, what part of the First Amendment did Dan Patrick violate? Is he Congress? Did he make a law? Did he prohibit somebody else’s expression? So, Tim, back to where you were saying the separation of church and state.

Tim:

Well, what I was saying is it’s blown out of proportion from the way it is even generally applied in courts today. Where courts say, “€œWait a second, you can’t have religion and government together.”€ This isn’t even religion and government because this is a private individual in his own time, on his non government official Twitter account, or social media profile, or whatever he’s doing. So, this isn’t a government capacity official even encouraging this. Although, I would argue they still have the First Amendment right.

But this is how far we’ve come from the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut where he assured them the federal government would never interfere and compel a religious belief on them that would violate their own personal belief system. Which, is actually what Jefferson was writing about in the letter where he wrote the separation of church and state phrase.

But we’ve come so far now to where we say, “€œWait a second, you can’t even be an elected official and mention God in public or you are trying to establish a religion.”€ That is utter nonsense. It’s in no way the reading of the First Amendment. It’s in no way relevant to what Jefferson said. And it’s not even relevant to the way courts interpret that today. And yet, you have people who just know so little about the original intent, about the Constitution, about courts, that anytime someone does anything religious they’re going to flip out.

The Hypocrisy in This

Tim:

Now, I also would point out the hypocrisy in this. Because I would argue the same people that are saying he should not be saying anything religious from his Twitter account, or whatever it is he’s actually doing this social media kind of content with– be I don”€™t think it matters what platform he’s using. They would be frustrated no matter if he was using it from anything from Facebook, to Snapchat – whatever he was doing they would be frustrated with it. So, I think that’s– the medium he’s using is beyond the point.

But I don’t think they would argue if you had someone promoting Islam, or promoting Hindu, or Buddhist thoughts. If they were saying something religious and it wasn’t Christian, I don’t think they would protest like they are against Christianity. So, I really do think it’s another point in case where you have people that dislike Christianity and it’s not even what the Constitution says that they care about. They’re just trying to find a way to shut down Christians because they hate it that much.

David:

I would add two more points into that as well. One comes from the Constitution itself. Because not only does the Constitution not say “€œseparation of church and state”€ which Tim just covered. It also says that under government policy, Sundays are accepted. In other words, what we don’t do on Sunday is that we don’t count government process on Sundays because that’s the Sabbath. That is in the Constitution. The Sundays Excepted Clause is what it’s called.

So, on Sundays it’s kind of like Dan’s really not an official, per se. He’s more of a private citizen because that’s when the government shuts down. We don’t deliver mail, we don”€™t– the government shuts down on Sunday. So, he’s not running as a government official on that day, necessarily. If a crisis came up, obviously, he would. So, that’s really two clauses in the Constitution that protect them. One is the First Amendment which does not say “€œseparation of church and state”€. The second is Sundays Excepted.

Here’s the third thing – anybody that’s going on Dan Patrick’s social media and getting upset about a Bible verse being posted is not there because they follow Dan Patrick. They are there trolling looking for something to yell about. Anybody that knows Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick knows that he is an outspoken and a vocal Christian. He is just as outspoken on the floor of the Senate as he is anywhere else.

They know this is Dan Patrick. They know this is what Dan Patrick does. And if they’re objecting it’s because they’re going to his page to find something they can gripe about. They’re not one of his regular followers in the sense of wanting to keep up with what he’s saying. They’re wanting to keep up so they can have something to yell about and try to get media attention over.

Only If It”€™s Christian Expression?

Rick:

And based on the actions of the people responding, especially the way you put it earlier, Tim, I guess it’s a violation of the First Amendment if it”€™s Christian expression and it’s not a violation if it’s some other religion, or if it’s an atheist expression, then frankly, environmentalism and some of those things that are like religions. But only applies, as you said, to Christians. And if Patrick were sharing some other faith expression we wouldn’t see this kind of uproar. But you guys answer the question exactly right. This is not a violation of the Constitution at all and it’s a personal action by him.

But even, guys, I would go so far as to say even in his official capacity as Lieutenant Governor, shouldn’t he have the right to send out Christmas cards, or whatever it might be, with a faith message on it?

David:

Well, just go back to and look at the recent Easter message from Donald Trump, look at the recent Christmas message from Donald Trump, look at the Thanksgiving message from Donald Trump, and see if those aren’t explicitly Christian. And the answer is, “€œYes, they are.”€

Tim:

Now, people would protest that though because there’s– the same people that are attacking Dan Patrick would say, “€œYeah, but President Trump’s not supposed to do it either.”€ So, back up and look at previous presidents. Look at John F. Kennedy, look at FDR, look at people who they might uphold in a liberal light and go, “€œThose were great people.”€ And odds are, those great people, the liberals they really like, those liberal presidents progressive presidents, they even did religious things, promoted God, promoted religion, from their official government capacity.

Different From the Historical Lens

Tim:

So, it really is looking at something with a very different lens and we’ve looked at it historically. The precedent from government leaders is there. And of course at WallBuilders we have so much information showing that. So, it really is something that’s not a First Amendment violation even if he is in his official capacity. But in this situation it wasn’t even government capacity. So, it’s people throwing a conniption fit for no good reason.

Rick:

Alright, quick break, guys. We’ll be back with more questions. You’re listening to WallBuilders Live. It”€™s Foundations of Freedom Thursday.

Outro:

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

Front Sight Handgun Training.

Rick:

Imagine being able to study the Constitution while also getting world class training on how to defend yourself and your family with a handgun. I want to personally invite you to come spend the weekend with our family as we get expert handgun defense training from Front Sight Firearms Training Institute during the day and then provide a constitution crash course in the evening. The Barton”€™s and the Green”€™s had an amazing time doing this with many of you back in April, so we’re headed back in the fall.

Visit RickGreen.com today for the dates and the details. We”€™re giving away this $1,000 course for free to the first 100 supporters of WallBuilders Live that register for the course at RickGreen.com. Come learn the real purpose of the Second Amendment and why the Founding Fathers believed it was so important for we citizens to be armed.

If you’re a marksman, or you’ve never held a gun in your life, I can promise you that you will leave this training with improved skills and the confidence to protect your family. It’s going to be a great time of fun, fellowship, learning, and sending a lot of lead downrange.

And the $1,000 course registration is completely waived for the first 100 WallBuilders Live supporters to register. You pay for your travel and ammo, but we’re giving you the course for free as a gift to our supporters. I look forward to seeing you on the range this fall. For all the details visit RickGreen.com today.

Intro:

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

Does the Constitution authorize an Environmental Protection Agency?

Rick:

Welcome back and thanks for staying with us on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Next question comes from Sebastian, it’s about presidential cabinet positions. Here it is, “€œScott Pruitt recently resigned as administrator to the EPA. Is this cabinet position one of those we should eliminate? Can’t the environment be better managed at the state and local level? Constitutionally, how can we eliminate more cabinet positions that can be better managed at the state and local level and has there ever been a time in our nation’s history that Cabinet positions have been eliminated for the reasons already shared?”€

Guys, I guess, of course, the first question is, does the Constitution authorize an Environmental Protection Agency?

Tim:

I don’t recall having read that ever.

David:

Now, wait a minute, in the Federalist Papers James Madison clearly talked about–

Rick:

Right.

David:

–that–

Tim:

I feel like this is one of those things where people quote something thinking it’s from the Bible and they say, “€œWell, that”€™s in the Bible.”€ And I’m like, “€œReally?”€ Is that like in 2 Judges or in Hesitations, right, like, those are made up books – that’s not in the Bible. This is certainly not something the Constitution gives any authority to the federal government to do.

It”€™s Evolved to Something It Was Never Intended to Be

Tim:

So, certainly, the idea of many of our departments– for that matter, the Department of Education is not something the Constitution gives the federal government the authority or power to actually do. Education was supposed to belong to states, specifically to the local government. It was really supposed to be a local controlled, parents were supposed to be very involved in the process. It’s evolved to something it was never intended to be.

I’m most interested, though, in the last question. Are there times in history when agencies have been eliminated? Because that would be at least really encouraging good news for all of the ridiculous agency problems that we have seen and the growth of agencies.

Rick:

And, Tim, before you answer that one, or, David, before you answer that one, Tim, I have to respond to what you said though. Because some people would say, “€œYeah, they may have not had the EPA in the original Constitution, but you didn’t need that in 1787. Now, we’ve done so many terrible things to destroy the environment so now government does need– we do need a federal EPA to do this.”€

So, even if they could win that argument and say we do need the federal government to do this, is there a proper way to add that power to the federal government in the Constitution? Or should they just assume that power because times have changed?

David:

Well, let me answer part of the other question first. Because the EPA is really not cabinet level per se. It’s not one of the secretaries that doesn”€™t have a cabinet. Scott Pruitt sits in on the Cabinet level meetings. So, there are a number of officials, the National Security Adviser, sits an on Cabinet level meetings. This is not a Cabinet level department, although it sits and on meetings.

Cabinet Level Positions

David:

So, in this case, we’re simply talking about an agency like the Social Security Administration or something else. This is an agency and it certainly can be eliminated, as many agencies have been over the years. When you start looking at cabinet level positions that have been eliminated there are a number of them. Now, we would tend to add more than we subtract. We started with five cabinet level positions under George Washington and it has grown now to where we’re well over a dozen. So, that’s a growth that probably should not have happened.

But one of the cabinet level positions back in the early days was that of the post office, the Post Office Department was a cabinet level position. It is no longer a cabinet level position. Another cabinet level position was the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Army, and the Department of the Air Force. They were all individual Cabinet level positions. We now have the Department of Defense. We brought them all together, but they were all separate before.

Tim:

When was the Department of the Air Force?

David:

1947-1949.

Tim:

So, not under George Washington?

David:

Not under George Washington.

Tim:

That’s one that has become something more than just a cabinet level position.

Cabinet Level Positions That Have Gone Away

David:

That”€™s right. And same thing – the post office department, that went out in 1971 under Richard Nixon. So, we had the post office was sitting as a cabinet level position until Richard Nixon and then it went away under Richard Nixon. So, you have the Department of the Navy, it went away under President Harry Truman. That was a cabinet level position from the time of John Adams until the time of Harry Truman. So, there are a number of capital positions that have gone away.

Tim:

But I would argue some of these have not gone away, they’ve just changed their title.

David:

That’s right.

Tim:

So, the question still remains – is there something the government has done, has brought to life, has put a new position in there, and let’s say it hasn’t been renamed, have they realized, “€œWe don’t need this position, let’s just eliminate it.”€?

David:

Hard to point to anything that the government has gotten rid of. What you can say is they have taken it off the cabinet level position like the post office. And the post office is still there and will be there because the Constitution authorizes post roads and post offices. So, it’s going to be there, but it may not be cabinet level position. But I don’t know of any area that has been under a Cabinet level that does not still exist in the government in some form.

Tim:

So, not really good news as far as precedent goes for removing some of this stuff. If we look, for example, to the EPA and say, look, this really isn’t a government facility, or a government facilitated position that should be there. There’s not really ways to look back and be hopeful and optimistic, man, we’ve done this, let’s do it again, let’s get rid of these things. It’s just been renamed, but I guess there could be a first time for something like that to happen.

But certainly at least when we look constitutionally, the Constitution does not authorize for really any of a lot of the modern cabinet positions that we have.

Grabbing Power Without Consent

Rick:

And if we wanted those things to be done we can amend the Constitution. If you want a new department, you want the government to do something we haven’t authorized them to do before, there’s an amendment process that allows for that. That’s what the 18th Amendment did with banning alcohol and then the 21st reversed that. But this idea of just adding a department because we’ve got a new need that needs to be met is grabbing power from the people without the people ever given their consent. And there’s a whole long list of those things being done by the federal government.

But great question. We”€™ve got to take another break. We’ll be right back with more questions. You’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

Outro:

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

Avalon Project

Tim:

Hey, guys, this is Tim Barton with WallBuilders. I know you hear my dad and Rick talk a lot about our Founding Fathers about the original intent of our nation, a constitutional heritage that we have. And really we’ve seen how far we slipped away from that. And I know a lot of us as we hear my dad and Rick talk think, “€œI wish there was a place that I could go where I could see these documents and I could read and learn about the Founding Fathers firsthand.  See the things they did.”€

I want to give you some websites today that can help you accomplish that very thing. If you get online you can go to places like Library of Congress and you can look under their century of lawmaking or historical documents. You can go to the Avalon Project, to the Founders Constitution, Google Books, or even the internet archives.  

Or you can just go to WallBuilders.com. We have a section for our WallBuilders Library. And under that section we have different subgroups for historical documents, historical writings, even a place where you can get helpful links to find out more information about other websites.  Where you can do research for yourself and find the truth for yourself. Friends, this is the time that we need to know who we are and where we came from. WallBuilders.com is a great place to go.

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. Thanks for staying with us on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday here at WallBuilders Live. We’re going to get back into some more questions. But, guys, we were talking about the whole cabinet level thing and what’s authorized by the Constitution and what’s not. What’s out there now I think David or Tim, one of you said maybe 19 cabinet level positions. What are these positions?

What Are These Positions?

David

Well, there’s 23 folks who show up at the cabinet meeting that have official capacity to be there. Of course, there’s going to be secretaries and others that are there that are keeping notes and whatever, press secretary. But here’s the 23 people that show up. Let me just go through them and tell you what they do and you tell me if under the Constitution they should or shouldn’t be there. Since the Constitution says the Federal Government can do 15 things, you see if this should be under it constitutionally.

Number one is the president is there. Okay. Check. Got that. He should be there. Number two is the vice president is there. Okay. He should be there. You have the White House chief of staff who is there. Okay, that makes sense because he’s managing all the things in the Executive Branch. And then here’s where we get into more – the administrator of the small business administration is part of the cabinet meetings. Yea or nay?

Rick:

The administrator of the small business, so SBA? Probably.

Tim:

In a cabinet level position?

David:

What constitutional basis gives the government the right to operate small business?

Rick:

Oh, I thought you asked if they went to the meetings. No, definitely not constitutional, but–

David:

Yeah, I”€™m telling you who”€™s going to the meetings you tell me under the Constitution– if George Washington was here would he say, “€œWhat are you doing in the meeting?”€ or “€œWelcome to the meeting.”€?

What Are You Doing In Existence?

Rick:

He’d say, “€œWhat are you doing in existence?”€

David:

Yeah, why do you even exist? Alright, Attorney General–

Rick:

Yeah.

David:

That one should be there. That”€™s constitutional. Director of national intelligence–

Tim:

Would make sense.

Rick:

Yeah. That makes sense. Several clauses in Article 1, Section 8 would authorize that. Yeah.

David:

Director of the CIA.

Rick:

I’d say yeah.

Tim:

Would make sense.

David:

Office of Management and Budget–

Rick:

Yeah, probably.

Tim:

Finance would make sense.

Rick:

Yeah. Because if you have the constitutional authority to tax and spend then you”€™ve get to manage that. Sure.

Running Down the List

David:

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations– Yeah, because–

Tim:

We do have ambassadors, sure.

David:

That”€™s right.

Tim:

We do have diplomats, sure.

David:

That”€™s authorized. Secretary of Agriculture–

Rick:

*buzzer* *buzzer*

Tim:

No.

David:

No.

Rick:

Definitely not.

David:

That”€™s not federal. Secretary of Commerce–

Rick:

Probably not. No.

David:

I don’t know. You’ve got interstate commerce and–

Rick:

Oh, that’s true. You”€™ve got to have somebody that’s making the states not have–

David:

That’s right.

Constitutionally Authorized, Just Not Like it is Now

Rick:

Barriers to entry. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you’re right. But not do a bunch of the things that it’s doing now.

David:

Yeah, everything is doing now. But you should– to have a secretary of commerce, that is a constitutional authorization.

Rick:

Yeah, that”€™s a good point.

David:

Secretary of Defense–

Rick:

Oh, yeah.

David:

Secretary of Education–

Rick:

*buzzer*

Tim:

No.

David:

Secretary of Energy–

Tim:

No.

Rick:

No.

David:

Secretary of Health and Human Services–

Tim:

No.

Rick:

Definitely not.

Thank you, Teddy Roosevelt

David:

Secretary of Homeland Security–

Rick:

Yep, yep, I”€™d say yeah.

Tim:

Security, yeah.

David:

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Tim:

No.

Rick:

No.

David:

Secretary of the Interior.

Tim:

I don’t know what they do, so I don’t know how to speak to that.

David:

That”€™s the national park kind of stuff.

Tim:

Oh, no. No.

David:

That’s taking land.

Tim:

Thank you, Teddy Roosevelt.

David:

Yeah, that’s right.

Rick:

Yeah.

Up To the States

David:

That actually goes back to Ulysses S. Grant. Secretary of Labor–

Rick:

No.

Tim:

No.

David:

That’s up to the states. Secretary of state–

Rick:

Yes.

David:

Secretary of Transportation–

Rick:

No.

David:

Could be.

Tim:

Yeah, maybe.

Rick:

Yeah

David:

You have to maintain post roads, so that goes through all the states.

Rick:

Yeah. Hamilton would probably argue that the highway system was for the general welfare, not for a local purpose, right. So, yeah, probably.

David:

Yeah. Secretary of the Treasury–

About 40 Percent

Rick:

Yep got to–

Tim:

Sure.

Rick:

–count that money.

David:

And U.S. trade representative.

Rick:

Yeah, probably, because you don’t want treaties and whatnot being done by all 50 states. So, yeah, you”€™ve got to have–

David:

That”€™s right.

Rick:

That’s that’s a proper constitutional authority. Sure.

David:

Now, if you do that you’re pretty close to where George Washington had the cabinet when he was there. So, it’s not all that different. But those are the ones who attend cabinet meetings right now. Those are 23 individuals, key individuals, and probably about 40 percent of them should not be there.

Rick:

I wonder if anyone has added up the expenditures based on constitutional authority and said here’s how much we would save if we actually followed the Constitution and the feds only did what we’ve given them, the people have said, “€œYes, you can do this.”€

David:

Oh my gosh. Do you realize how many thousands of agencies would not exist?

Rick:

Man.

One Size Fits All Government

David:

And how you would have the government much closer to the people, back at the state level, back at the local level. It would be so different. We would not be the monolithic one size fits all federal government that we’ve tried to become in the last 50 years. It would be such a difference. Now, that doesn’t mean they would spend less. Guys that love spending are going to find ways to do that. But at least there would be less things to spend money on.

Rick:

Yeah, and a whole lot easier for us to hold them accountable to those things, right. And for congressmen to be held accountable if there’s fewer things they’re authorized to do. Because right now we just kind of get lost in the chaos.

David:

That’s right.

Rick:

So many different things and so many pieces of legislation. So, yeah, it would be a huge difference. But that’s the whole point in us learning the Constitution so that when they do have these new expenditures, or agencies, or they talk about spending money in these different areas, we the people have to be, we have to know that’s not a constitutional expenditure. So that we can stand up and say, “€œNo, Mr. Congressman or Miss Congressman. We don’t support you for getting that additional money into that department.”€

And that that requires constitutional education which is why we have Foundations of Freedom Thursday, so it was a great question. Thank you for sending that in, Sebastian, and giving us a great topic for today.

Everybody listening, learn the Constitution, spend some time in those materials. We’ve got them all available for you right now at WallBuilders.com. You can do Constitution Alive, you can listen to these Foundations of Freedom Thursday programs, you can get the Foundations of Freedom television program as well with special guests on there where we dive into a lot of these questions. Go to WallBuilders.com to find out more.

Presidential Cabinet Positions, Foundations of Freedom Thursday

Rick:

And also, while you’re there, come alongside us and help us spread this program across the nation and continue the leadership training that we’re doing with young people, and pastors, and legislators, and all the different areas where WallBuilders is literally rebuilding the walls. Meaning, rebuilding the foundations of America. You can be a partner in that by going to WallBuilders.com today. Make a one time donation or become one of our monthly donors and come alongside us throughout the year.

Thanks 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.”€