Rights, Tariffs, and More! 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 on property rights, tariffs, the founding fathers and slavery, and more, right here on WallBuilders Live!

Air Date: 08/30/2018

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, “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.”

Rick:

Welcome to the intersection of faith and the culture. This is WallBuilders Live! Where we talk about the day’s hottest topics on policy, faith, and the culture. Always from a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective.

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

You can find out more at WallBuildersLive.com for our radio program. You can get a list of the stations we’re on across the country, you can get archives to program over the last few months. And then also at WallBuilders.com you can get all kinds of great tools for yourself and your family. They will equip and inspire you. It will help you to be a better citizen, help you to do your duty under our Constitution.

We have a special kind of program on Thursdays, we call it Foundations of Freedom Thursday. And it’s actually a chance for you to drive the conversation and we can talk about constitutional principles, what the nation was founded upon, biblical principles, what makes a society do well, what works and what doesn’t work. We can dive into those principles, but let you pick the topic.

So, send your e-mails to [email protected]. That’s [email protected]. And today we’re going to try to get to as many of them as we can. David, Tim, you guys ready for the first question?

David:

You bet.

The Second Amendment and Property Rights

Rick:

Alright, first one comes from Brody. He says, “I’ve learned so much listening to you guys over the last year or so. Your show should be required listening and high school.–” I kind of like the sound of that. He said, “–Now onto my question. I understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment in regards to keeping a free state. I also understand property rights. What would the Founders say when the two conflict with each other?

“Example – I work in an industry that requires me to be in the wilderness sometimes ten miles from hell. I want to carry a firearm with me for protection against wild animals – cougars, wolves, etc. and other reasons. But the landowner of the business has a zero tolerance policy towards weapons, including even a pocket knife. Which is more important to the founders – the right to keep and bear arms or self-management of property?”

Question comes from Brody. David, Tim, great question. This is going to be an interesting conversation today.

Tim:

That’s a very interesting question because both of those are in inalienable rights. God, if you go back to the Garden of Eden, where you first see inalienable rights that were given to man, you see private property, and you see self-defence. And which one supersedes the other? Now, I would think maybe self-defence because if you’re not alive your property doesn’t matter very much. But it is nonetheless a very interesting thought because both of them certainly are biblical. They’re both the laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God. Yeah, very interesting question.

David:

That is a great question and I don’t know that you’re going to have a clear answer to it. But one thing is for sure – the government can’t be the one to abrogate any of those rights.

The Government Can’t Be the One to Abrogate Any of Those Rights

Rick:

That’s right.

David:

So, we’re talking to business here and private property. So, the government can’t take away your right to self-defence, and the government can’t take away your right to private property, so those two things are not in conflict with each other from the government’s standpoint.

But he asked a really good question. Brody was asking about from a private business standpoint and that really changes things. You can individually cede and give up your inalienable rights as an individual. For example, Quakers do that with the right of self-defence. They will not defend themselves. So, they give up that right. And a business can, but now we’re talking about a business giving up their right and imposing it on you as an individual which really complicates the thing.

Tim:

Well, I think it’s worth noting too that you made that distinction from federal government to private business. And this is where if it’s a private business then you’ve not been compelled into a employer/employee contract to be there. Right. So, if this was an optional engagement for you to engage your services for this business, at that point, if you are voluntarily entering into this contract, then you have to abide by what the contract unfolds is my initial thought. Because even though you do have the God given right of self-defence there are certain places where I yield that right.

So, even though, for example, Rick, dad, we all carry guns. We all have done defensive handgun training. We’ve all done handgun courses. We all shoot fairly regularly. We all are fairly proficient with our firearms. With that being said, there are some places – if we go to a federal court building, if we go to the U.S. Capitol building, there’s some places that we voluntarily give up the right to possess that firearm. And again, those might be a little different because that is a federal institution and they’ve said, “we’re going to protect it” as opposed to a private business.

Contracts and Agreements

Tim:

But, if working for a private business, if I do carry a gun and they say, “Hey, on these premises–” If I worked, for example, for Six Flags here in Texas and they said, “On our premises–”

David:

Wait a minute, Six Flags is now all over America – it’s no longer Six Flags Over Texas.

Tim:

Well, no, I’m saying but the Six Flags in Texas.

David:

Oh, you’re right, okay.

Tim:

So, if I worked at the one in Texas– but you’re right, they’re all over. And actually, they were a lot more fun when I was younger. I don’t know if as I’m getting older if that happens from a lot of people standing in long lines, the hot sun, roller coasters, I think I’m just growing up. And maybe it’s a phase, maybe I’ll get over it. Because, dad, you’ve kind of overcome the grownup notion and you’re a kid again. So, you enjoy taking the grandkids and going on roller coasters and playing. I don’t know.

Anyway, if I worked for Six Flags, they have a policy, very strict, of no firearms, of no pocket knives, and if I know that going in and I still choose to get a job there, I have voluntarily given up my right of carrying a firearm while I am on those premises. So, as long as you are not coerced or compelled to enter into that contract, I would think it’s something that you have voluntarily given up that position.

As you were mentioning Quakers, they would voluntarily give up rights that even though God had given them they chose not to use or enact that. That’s kind of how I would look at this. Because you’re working for a private organization, a private landowner, a private individual. So, the federal government is not telling you that you can’t have this and this property. It’s the landowner. And that might be not any different than if somebody came to one of our properties and we said, “Hey, I’d really prefer you not to have that gun with you on my property. Leave it up, don’t bring it, whatever.” We have the right as the property owner to tell people that visit our property what they can and cannot do on our property.

Another Side

David:

When you make a contract to work for someone you agree to work on their terms. So, you’re voluntarily giving up that right. As a Quaker would. But there’s another side that comes into this that’s a little complicated. It’s the doctrine that if you give up a right then the employer takes the responsibility of defending you for the loss of that right. In other words, in Six Flags, Six Flags you can’t carry a gun or knife on there. But Six Flags is now responsible for protecting you while you’re on their property.

Tim:

And they do have police officers that are there–

David:

That’s right.

Tim:

–they have armed guards who are there. So, they do try to do something to make sure you are safe while you are there. Because, as you mentioned, you gave up that right, but they’re going to oversee to make sure that they take care of what you are now–

David:

Giving up.

Tim:

–giving up.

David:

The question becomes, okay, you’re working for a company and you’re ten miles back in the woods and you get killed by a cougar. Alright, your family might have of course of action saying you didn’t provide any kind of defense, so you’re in trouble. But that doesn’t give you your life back. So, it’s a really kind of a– it’s a bad scenario where that to actually benefit from the loss of that right the company would have to provide you some kind of defense, like Six Flags does. And if they don’t then you can go after them for causing me to give up right and they didn’t take care of it.

So, it really is a complicated thing. I don’t think there’s a clear answer to it except that in a voluntary contract when you do cede certain rights away. That’s just the provision of going to work for them.

The Simple Answer – Who Has Authority Here?

Rick:

Well, I would I would disagree David. I think it is actually a simple answer – it’s, who has authority here? It comes back to the question of jurisdiction that we talk about in the program a lot.

David:

Yeah.

Rick:

And we would all agree that, as you guys have already said, the government does not have the right to tell you you can’t carry on that property, you’re out there ten miles into the woods and protect yourself. The government’s job is to protect your rights and protect your right to do that. But we all agree also that property rights, that inalienable right that Brody mentioned as well, and that that business owner, or property owner, in this case does have the right to say “no”.

So, from a jurisdictional question and who has the authority, you absolutely have the right to say no to people coming on your property and carrying that firearm. But then that person has a right– Brody, it may not– it may be difficult. This may be the best job and the best opportunity, but you have to say, “I have to give up this right to take this particular job.”

In fact, all three of us, we get speaking requests in states where we’re not allowed to carry. And every time we get those speaking requests – you guys probably do the same thing I do. You really weigh – is this speaking request good enough for me to give up my right of protecting my family to go in and do that speaking engagement? And sometimes I say “no”, and other times I say, “Okay, in this case I’m going to have to do it. I don’t want to, I think it’s wrong.” There are times when I’m not willing to do that.

It’s A Choice

Rick:

For instance, I was walking up to a restaurant the other day with my wife and we wanted to eat at this place, but they had a sign that we couldn’t conceal carry. I said, “Babe, I’m not going to give up my right to protect you to have a good meal there. We’re going to go somewhere else.” Sometimes it’s a little easier. Other times it’s your livelihood, it’s difficult. We think companies that decide not to let you carry are making a mistake for the very reason, David, that you mentioned. Now they have a responsibility to protect and they’re not going to be able to do that as well as allowing those citizens that are trained to be able to carry.

So, in some ways it’s difficult, but in other ways it’s a simple answer. Who has authority? What does the Constitution say about it. Again, that biblical, constitutional, historical perspective helps us find the right position on these issues. Brody, great question good, good, conversation today. We’ve got more questions coming up, so stay with us. We’ll be right back here on 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.”

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.

Tariffs on China

Intro:

This is a quote from George Washington. “The Constitution would demonstrate as visibly the finger of providence as any possible event in the course of human affairs can ever designate it.”

Rick:

Welcome back to WallBuilders Live Foundations of Freedom Thursday today. It’s appropriate that we had a quote from George Washington coming into this segment because our question is from Virginia. It’s Adam from Virginia.

He says, “Greetings to my friends at WallBuilders. President Trump continues to announce higher tariffs on China. The Constitution states that all bills of revenue are to originate in the House of Representatives. Since a tariff is a tax, how is President Trump able to do this?” Thank you very much Adam from Virginia. David, Tim, good question.

David:

So, I’m curious – what do you guys say? What’s your answer?

Tim:

Well, does President Trump have a pen and a phone? Because–

David:

That’s the wrong precedent.

Precedent Set For Many Years

Tim:

I’m pretty sure precedent was set for many years that you can do what– and in fact, I think even the U.S. Supreme Court determined that when it comes to taxes, right, with Obamacare it’s just a tax, so universal health care. Which I think originated in the Senate, right, not the House. Which the Constitution says it has to originate in the House, not the Senate. So, I think now taxes can come from anybody, anytime, anywhere. So, I think it’s fine.

David:

Great. So, the Constitution really is a living document for you.

Tim:

This is what I learned in modern education. So–

Rick:

Yeah, who is this man that suddenly appeared on our radio program, David? This is not the same Tim Barton I’ve known.

David:

Yeah, I’m not sure who our third voice here is today.

Tim:

I’m parodying some of the college voices that I hear–

Rick:

Yeah.

Tim:

–throughout the year in the summer. As ludicrous as it might seem, yes, this is the logic that I often hear–

Rick:

Right. Right.

Tim:

–or lack of logic as the case might be.

Rick:

Well, what do you guys think? Is a tariff the same kind of tax that is covered by revenue bills being started in the House? Or does tariff fall under the president’s authority to negotiate treaties?

Let’s Go Back to George Washington

David:

Let’s go back to George Washington. Because we were at the beginning the segment that the question is out of Virginia, we had a Washington quote. So, Washington, when he had tariffs, was Congress involved in George Washington and tariffs?

Rick:

I have no idea the answer to that question.

David:

Congress had to approve any tariffs he came up with.

Rick:

They did?

David:

Congress had to approve them. That was– in their eyes, that was a bill of revenue because it was income coming in.

Rick:

Now, my next question for you on that then would be, has Congress since that time ceded authority or granted authority to the president to do that on his own? What’s our history been on that? I really have no idea.

David:

Well, if you go through the 1800’s, the Congress would approve tariffs. It was up to Congress to do that. If you come into the 1900s, welcome progressives, and in the 1900s there were six or seven different bills passed where the Congress gave up that authority voluntarily to the president.

A Pen and A Phone

Rick:

So, Tim was right. Congress gave the president a pen and a phone.

David:

That’s right. Congress did. So, in the 20th century– And actually, in President Trump’s executive order on this, he actually cites a 1962 bill passed by Congress which gave him the authority to do this. So, what you have is in the 20th century the Congress of the United States said, “We don’t care what the Constitution said. Here’s what we’re going to do.”

Where we are right now is not where it was designed to be and not what original intent would be, but it is now part of the president’s powers of foreign affairs, negotiating treaties, etc. So, very different now from the way it was designed, at least if you go back to George Washington–

Rick:

Yeah.

David:

–and what he did.

Tim:

Yeah, but what did he know about the Constitution?

David:

Yeah, good point. He’s just the president of the convention that wrote it. He wouldn’t know what they were talking about.

Rick:

So, I’m curious though because this is not something I’ve studied. So, I am curious – I’ve never read a policy paper on this, I was only a state legislator, so we didn’t deal with these things. I am very curious about–

David:

Wait a minute, you’re state legislator in Texas. That means we’re an international nation. Even Oklahoma is a foreign nation to us. So what do you mean you didn’t have tariff bills like that?

Did Congress Make the Decision?

Rick:

Well, is it more– I’m just thinking about how many nations there are, how many different tariffs, and all the– there’s so many different levels of this now. It’s so much more  involved. Did Congress just basically make the decision because there are so many countries, so many treaties, there’s so many different tariff situations, this would be more efficient at the Executive Branch level?

David:

No, Congress got so busy because they’ve really got important stuff to do. They’ve got to name post offices and name bridges on federal highways.

Rick:

Right.  

David:

So, you can’t get everything in there. So, let’s give up the tariff power and keep the post office– well, maybe–

Rick:

So, you put this in the category of almost like creating the Fed to handle monetary policy. Congress handed stuff off here–

David:

Yeah.

Rick:

–that should have kept for itself and have committees that are looking at each of these things and dealing with. You think they should have kept it on the Legislative Branch side.

David:

Congress has now handed away so much authority that we now hear that the three branches are coequal.

Rick:

Yeah.

They’ve Moved Away From the Original Design

David:

You would never have heard that in the era. The federalists said the Congress is far and away the most powerful branch. Not today. They’ve lost control over the courts, they’ve lost control over the president, the way it was designed, Congress was by far the most powerful of the three branches. So, they’ve given away so much power today that they do look more co-equal than they ever have at any point in history and that was not the design.

The design was that these people that we choose every two years, we want them having the say. Not just part of the say, but we want them having the say. There really is a difference, Rick, now in the way we even look at things. Because we’re so accustomed to this over the last century or so. And there’s no question that Congress does have a lot of important things to do. And I was being facetious when I said post offices and bridges.  

Just look at this year– the House of Representatives has passed over 500 bills this year that the Senate has not taken up. They’ve refused to take up because the Senate at this point, they really have given away so much of their power through Rule Number 22, the cloture, and the filibuster, etc.. So, we can get a lot of work done in the House, but it’s not going to go anywhere. Part of that is, “Well, let’s get something done, so let’s let the president do this, let’s let him negotiate, he was elected by the people.”

So, there is some degree of accountability there. But there’s no question that where we are today is nowhere close to where it was designed to be under the Constitution.

Rick:

And just as– if I could theorize a little bit more about the efficiency of government and which branch should be doing this, do you guys think that when Congress hands that over to the president it becomes not even so much that you end up with almost like a dictator with too many powers, but instead you end up with a bunch of bureaucrats that are unaccountable doing this.

David:

Exactly.

Deep State

Rick:

Because instead of a congressional committee where elected members representing the people are the ones diving into the details of this relationship with a particular country, now you have these bureaucrats over at the State Department, or whichever department is going to end up being. And not even the president himself, but these people that are not accountable making these decisions.

David:

Yeah, as we’ve seen already, especially with this president, there is a deep state and that deep state does not like going where the president goes in so many areas. So, really, the the control right now is through non elected bureaucrats, hands down. So, there was a time when the president did have more control over foreign affairs, but that’s not now.  Having given away the power back in the early 1900s all the way through 1962. It’s a different situation now because the deep state does exert more power than the president now.

This president is fighting that. He’s exposing them at a pretty high rate and he’s willing to be a bull in a china shop and go on to fight them. But that’s the first president we’ve had that’s been willing to take on the bureaucracy since Ronald Reagan. But the bureaucracy was not as strong even under Ronald Reagan as it is now.

Rick:

Okay, so we’re going to go to break. It sounds like if we had our ideal situation it’d be to go back to how Washington did it – have the president be the one to negotiate the treaties and maybe come up with what the tariff should be. But make sure, then, that that is approved by Congress. So, the Congress hasn’t handed off that authority and there’s some oversight there of the Executive Branch. Does that sound right?

David:

That would be right.

Rick:

Okay.

Go Back to Original Intent

David:

And the other thing is go back to original intent and get rid of that 60 vote rule in the Senate. Go back to a majority vote which is what it was under the Constitution and under George Washington.

Rick:

Yeah.

David:

If you had that then Congress could get some things done. But if you’re going to have the 60 vote rule then Congress– the Senate pretty much is ineffective which makes Congress ineffective. So, yeah, Rick, your thesis going back to original intent what happens is the tariff bills should be something that is voted on by the House and the Senate and a majority in both bodies to get it done or not get it done.

Alright, quick break, guys! We’ll come back with another question on our Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Stay with us. You’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

Outro:

Thomas Jefferson said, “The 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.”

Join WallBuilders In Israel!

Rick:

Hey Friends! Rick Green here from WallBuilders Live. The WallBuilders team is going to Israel and we’d love to have you go with us. It’s going to be January 28 through February 7th, a Holy Land tour that is the experience of a lifetime.

Just imagine sailing on the Sea of Galilee. Imagine going to the Elah Valley where David slew Goliath and even picking up pebbles from the very brook where he picked up those stones to slay Goliath. We’re going to go to Jericho, the Mount of Olives, the Garden of Gethsemane, the pool of Bethesda, and so much more. And you can go with us.

David and Tim Barton, and myself, Rick Green, you’ll just have a great time. The Fellowship’s going to be phenomenal and the Bible is going to come to life right before your eyes. Join us January 28th through February 7th, 2019. But you need to get in and make your reservations now. Check it out at WallBuildersLive.com for this very special trip to the Holy Land.

Intro:

A quote by John Quincy Adams: “The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are parts of one consistent whole founded upon one on the same theory of government.”

Did All the Founding Fathers Support Slavery?

Rick:

Welcome back to WallBuilders Live. Foundations of Freedom Thursday today. And our producer, Justin, picks these quotes. I don’t know if he’s clairvoyant now or what, but that was John Quincy Adams on that quote and in this segment this question is about slavery. And John Quincy Adams was The hellhound of abolition, the guy that wanted to get rid of slavery and worked so hard to do so. So, great job, Justin, in picking our quotes.

Here’s the question. Comes from– let’s see, this is from Patricia. She says, “A friend made a statement that I’m positive is not true, but I’d like some information, some resources to share with her. The statement was that all of the Founding Fathers either owned slaves or supported slavery. Can you help me with that? Thanks.” Patricia, great question.

David, Tim, good question on this one. And there is definitely this pox on all houses and we tend to have today this perception that all the founding fathers were either slaveholders or at least supported slavery. What do you guys say?

Tim:

Yeah, that is a very common narrative that’s gone out a lot today. We hear it a lot from young people, it’s taught in college campuses, it’s taught in high schools. And the first question I want to ask is when they say, “Well, all of them did.” I say, “Well, who can you name that owned slaves?” And, “Well, they all did.” I say, “Really. Well, did Sam Adams own slaves?” “Well, they all did.” “Oh, really? Because Sam Adams actually didn’t own slaves. He was actually anti-slavery his whole life.” “Oh, okay, well not Sam Adams, but everybody else did.” “Really? Did John Adams own slaves? Because he actually was anti-slavery and never owned slaves his whole life.”

And I can go through a list of founding fathers Alexander Hamilton, right. That’s a famous name. Today there’s a musical Hamilton. Everybody knows the name Alexander Hamilton – anti-slavery guy.

What Isn’t Often Mentioned

Tim:

Now, it is true if you look for example at the signers of the Declaration, 41 of the 56 signers actually did own slaves at some point in their life. So, there’s no doubt the vast majority the Founding Fathers did own slaves at some point. But here’s an interesting question, how many of the slave owning Founding Fathers actually freed their slaves and became very antislavery? That’s where we often fail at even telling some of this narrative. Because Benjamin Franklin was one of the leaders of the anti-slavery movement, but early in his life he actually owned slaves, wrote some things in his paper where he was pro slavery. But as he grew and matured he realized this is a really faulty position.

It actually was in the middle of the American Revolution when the Americans were fighting for freedom he said, “Wait a second, we’ve got to change this.” Actually, after the American Revolution, all eight northern states had already been passing laws, working on legislation, to actually be anti-slavery. Whether it was to abolish the slave trade or to abolish slavery in general. When you come up to the Constitution, all eight northern states have already been doing anti-slavery things in their states. It was really the southern states that maintained that slavery stronghold.

But this is where we just don’t know very much about American history. So, we often teach in generalizations and miss the details. There’s no doubt there were some founding fathers who were pro slavery, but the majority of the Founding Fathers ended up being anti-slavery and many of them were anti-slavery their entire life. We just don’t hear those names and details.

New Project!

Tim:

There’s actually a pretty good article on Britannica.com, it’s called The Founding Fathers and Slavery and it actually goes through some of these details. We are in the middle of a pretty extensive research project right now getting to find who are every single Founding Father who maintained slaves, who freed their slaves, who spoke against slavery, spoke in favor of slavery. So, we’re going to try to have a very extensive, very well researched article, coming out with this information as well.

But for now you can go to Brittanica.com, The Founding Fathers and Slavery is that article, and get a little bit more information there.

Rick:

Make sure you’re on our e-mail list if you’d like to get more of this information. Make sure you go to WallBuilders.com and sign up for the e-mail list. And then as as new books and new research comes out we can make sure we get that in your hands as well. I’ve always been blown away even by the research that you guys have pulled out of the library and the original writings of the founders on even just that segment of the Founding Fathers that actually had owned slaves at some point, but were anti-slavery. That’s hard for us to get our heads wrapped around living in our culture today. But when you start studying those things it’s mind blowing.

So, be sure to get on our e-mail list, go to WallBuilders.com to do that. The other thing I’d encourage you to do is become a supporter of WallBuilders. Become a supporter of this radio program and partner with us. You can do that by donating on a monthly basis or a one time donation. You can even make it like a five dollar donation a month and by doing that, when you commit to that, it helps us to plan for the year, it helps us to add stations, and be able to spread the good news, and continue the good work that we’re doing here at WallBuilders.

Rights, Tariffs, and More! Foundations of Freedom Thursday

Rick:

So, check all that out at WallBuilders.com. We thank you so much for joining us on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. You’ve been listening to WallBuilders Live.

Outro:

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.”