The U.S Supreme Court Makes Good Decision On Immigration: We call it Good News Friday because it’s a chance for David and Tim to share some good news from across the nation and around the world. We don’t often hear good news from the media, but here on WallBuilders Live we are about to share with you just some of the good things happening right now. In this episode, we talk about how the U.S. Supreme Court made the right decision on immigration! Major rollbacks on abortion! A large percentage of pro-abortion voters want to limit abortion! Trump has announced that the military will soon be able to carry guns on base! And so much more, right here on WallBuilders Live!

Air Date: 03/16/2018

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

Rick:

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

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

You can find out more about us at WallBuildersLive.com and also WallBuilders.com. Those are our two websites – the WallBuildersLive.com is our radio site, so you can get a list of the hundreds of stations around the country where you can listen to us when you’re traveling. You can also get archives of the last few weeks of programs. And then it WallBuilders.com, we encourage you to go there because there’s a lot of great tools to equip you and your family. It will help educate you, inspire you, it’s just great information and you can also share it with your friends or family. In fact, there’s a lot of great tools there for your Sunday school class even to get other people studying the Constitution, studying the founding fathers, studying what the Bible says about the issues of our day.

Well, today is Good News Friday, so it’s a chance to hear from David and Tim some of the good news that’s happened over the past few weeks that probably you have not seen in the major media. David, Tim, I always look forward to Friday. A lot of great news -you guys always have these big stacks you never get to all of it. But let’s rapid fire today and see how many we can get through. David?

Terrorist Detainees at Gitmo

David:

Allow me to take you back a few years. Go back to when we were holding terrorist detainees at Gitmo. Do you remember how that at that point in time they were given full civil rights, they get full constitutional rights, they get all the rights–

Rick:

Started treating them like citizens.

David:

That’s right. They got citizen rights there. They’re trying to destroy citizens, and they’re not from this country, and they get all the rights that our Constitution offers to the citizens of this country. So, guess how it is with illegal immigrants? How would think better or worse?

Tim:

With illegal immigrants? Yeah, we know they’re getting free healthcare, we know they’re getting education, and we know they’re getting lots of benefits. And so certainly they’re being given rights of some citizens.

David:

So, what happens if an illegal immigrant is detained? If they pick them up and put them in jail for detention – what happens?

Tim:

Under whose leadership?

Rick:

Yeah.

David:

Right now is today as of today.

Tim:

I don’t know how much things have changed under agencies. Under Trump, certainly he’s changed a lot in a lot of areas. But–

David:

You know that if he changes something, the ACLU is going to file suit on him, it’s going to court.

An Entire State Where Illegal Immigrants Can Be Safe?

Tim:

I was just thinking, I know in California they’re still battling this idea of these– instead of having these cities were illegal immigrants can come and be safe, an entire state where people can come and be safe as illegal immigrants.

David:

And by the way, they will call you ahead of time to warn you that the federal ICE guys are coming to arrest you for being illegally as an illegal criminal or whatever. So, they even warn you if they try to enforce federal law.

Tim:

Meaning California authorities–

David:

That’s right.

Tim:

–people calling ahead. So, even though President Trump is probably trying to do some things– or at least administratively people in his administration are, I don’t know that things are a whole ton of a lot better. Although, at least we– I know there are some people trying to enforce laws and so I know it’s affected the impact of people coming across the border. But I don’t know if it’s gotten a ton better.

David:

Rick?

Rick:

Man, I’m going to guess he’s probably hit just, no pun intended here, but he’s hit a wall on this one. I would think that’s been hard to enforce. So, I would think they’re treated, certainly, well they’re probably treated just like citizens are. Even though they’re not citizens. Not saying I agree with that, but that’s probably what we do.

David:

Well, as of just a matter of days ago, it is now all different. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 3. It was a decision that was coming out of the Ninth Circus. And you know that’s the California and the other states out there. So, in coming out of the Ninth Circus they had said, “No no. If you are an illegal immigrant, you have the right to all the due process, and the bail, and you have the right to hearings, and you can’t be held indefinitely, and–”

Tim:

So, all the rights of citizenship is what you’re saying.

The Canon of Constitutional Avoidance

David:

That’s right. That’s right. All the rights of citizenship. And by the way, they said that the Ninth Circuit ruled that you even have to have a hearing every six months for an illegal immigrant being held in jail. Every six months you have to redo the legitimacy of the detention. They created something they called the “canon of constitutional avoidance”. And that says that when a federal law has multiple interpretations, courts get to decide who makes the interpretation.

So, they said where it’s not clear in the statute then here’s what we’re going to do – every six months you have to have a new hearing on the status of the illegal who’s being held.

Tim:

It sounds like from what you just read from the constitutional avoidance that they’re referencing that they have constitutional rights. Even though the constitutional rights are supposed to be for citizens. So, if you’re not a citizen, you don’t live under the Constitution, therefore you don’t have constitutional rights. Even though they’re referencing the Constitution which is also seemingly ironic that the Ninth Circuit, in this situation, pretends to care about the constitutional rights of people. But it’s interesting they would reference constitution there.

Rick:

It sounds like they are actually going to get more than the normal citizen. They’re giving them additional hearings and opportunities for due process.

David:

Well, it now changes because the Supreme Court has ruled that illegal immigrants may be held indefinitely. They are not entitled to a bail hearing, they do not get a hearing every six months on the status of where they are. And as a matter of fact, justice awaits–

Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court?

Rick:

I’m sorry, David, back up because I misunderstood you and some of our listeners might have as well. I thought you were saying that the Supreme Court ruled all those things, those additional rights you were saying earlier, that must have been the Ninth Circuit ruling you were talking about.

David:

That’s right. The Ninth Circuit.

Rick:

That’s what the Supreme Court was reviewing.

David:

That’s right. The Ninth Circuit, the Ninth “Circus” as we like to call it, or as I like to call it especially, the Ninth Circus is the one that said we have this canon of constitutional avoidance. That when a federal statute is not clear on something we the courts will interpret what it means. And we here in the Ninth Circus means that every illegal immigrant gets, if they’re being detained, they get a hearing every six months to determine their status and where they are. So, that’s the Ninth Circus.

The U.S. Supreme Court has come out and said, “No, not quite.” As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court said, again, you don’t get bail. So, no hearing, no bail. You may be held indefinitely if that’s what’s going on.

And so Justice Alito wrote the decision for the court. And listen to what Justice Alito said. He said that the issue of constitutional avoidance, which is what the Ninth Circuit used, he said that that approach was mistaken since the words of the statute clearly do not provide bail hearings for detained immigrants. In other words, if it’s not in the law, you can’t make it up and say that it should be in the law.

Original Intent Language – Today?!

He continued – he said, “That is not how the canon of constitutional avoidance works. Spotting a constitutional issue does not give the court the authority to re-write a statute as it pleases.” That’s pretty founding era original intent language right there, bro.

Rick:

You sure you didn’t accidentally pick up one of the old decisions you’ve got copies of there in the library there and read from that? This was the current court?

David:

I think it was probably– they were probably kind of channeling Justice James Wilson, and Justice John Jay, and John Blair, and all those original founders who did it at the very beg– that is strict construction. The courts cannot go further than the law says and the law didn’t say anything about bail hearings. So, California, Ninth Circus, you cannot create a right to have a hearing on bails when one is not in the statute. So, that’s really really strong language and–

Rick:

And who did you say was the author of the opinion?

David:

The author of that was Alito. Now, grab this – Alito was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. But Justices Thomas and Gorsuch did not join Alito’s opinion. And the reason is – let me ask you. What do you think the reason is that the two most conservative justices on the court would not go with this statute that says you can’t create and make up statutory law?

Tin:

Now, I assume we’re talking about his explanation of the decision because they were on the side–

David:

They were on the side.

Tim:

–of the fight.

David:

That’s right.

Not Constitutional Enough

Tim:

So, they’re on the right decision. So, I would assume if it’s a Gorsuch kind of guy, from the little we know about him, right, hasn’t been there a long time, but certainly seems to be pretty constitutional. That he’s looking and going that, “Even the way you’re explaining it is not quite constitutional enough.” would be my guess.

David:

That’s it.

Rick:

I would agree with Tim. He probably wanted to go further.

David:

And that’s exactly it. They both said the Supreme Court doesn’t have the constitutional authority to hear an immigration case. That’s something that belongs in the hands of Congress and this case should not even have been picked up by any federal courts.

Rick:

No kidding.

David:

Yeah.

Rick:

So, he took the– what is it– the positive exception route saying, “Hey, this is not even– Congress has never given us the authority to do this. The Constitution doesn’t give us this particular area or subject matter.”

David:

This power is enumerated to Congress – not to the courts–

Rick:

Wow.

Completely Reshaping Immigration Policy

David:

–and the courts have original jurisdiction over 6-7 issues and one of which is not immigration. So, here’s a massive 5-3 decision that completely reshapes the way we’re doing immigration policy and what the courts can do in that and what the courts can look at. And I know this is old news for everybody because you’ve already heard this–

Rick:

Yeah, right.

David:

–on ABC, and MSNBC, and CNN, and they’ve had all these–

Rick:

No, no.

David:

Not quite. Here’s a massive–

Rick:

Hey, David, don’t gloss over that last part either. Go back and explain that again because that means that there are– you’ve got Supreme Court justices that are actually delineating and pointing out jurisdictions again. How long we’ve been saying at WallBuilders how important it is to come back to jurisdictional lines and not have one branch encroaching into another branch? You’ve actually got a Supreme Court Justice here saying, “The Supreme Court is outside of its boundaries, get back in your box.”

David:

Well, I would have been thrilled if the five of them had said, “Hey, you can’t make up a statute. If it’s not in there you can’t– the courts can’t make.” I would have been thrilled with that.

Tim:

We already were. We already just celebrated a few minutes ago.

Rick:

Right.

Double Thrilled

David:

But I get to be double thrilled that two of the justices said we shouldn’t have even heard this case at the beginning because the Constitution doesn’t give us the authority. This is really good stuff.

Tim:

Very encouraging.

David:

And this is a case that now will affect every single federal court in the United States. And so all of this forum picking that the ACLU does on this immigration stuff – it’s over on this issue. They just can’t do it. And that puts Congress and the president back in charge of immigration.

Tim:

Well, saying it’s over, I’m sure they’re going to look for the loophole. But–

David:

You bet.

Tim:

But at least there’s this really good precedent–

David:

On this issue in this U.S. Supreme Court that you now have lower courts and judges I can point to and say, “Well, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this therefore–” And so it is a great precedent setting decision to really help resolve a lot of these immigration issues. Although, again, I’m sure the ACLU these groups are going to try to find loopholes and do things. But this is a huge decision coming from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Rick:

Going to take a quick break, guys. While we’re on break we’ll be high fiving and celebrating that the Constitution is actually being upheld by the Supreme Court. This is good stuff. Stay with us folks. More good news on WallBuilders Live.

Front Sight Handgun Training and Constitution Crash Course

Hey friends, this is Rick Greene from WallBuilders Live. Just imagine being able to attend a live class where you learn about the original intent of the Second Amendment, and the rest of 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 defensive training from Front Sight.

We’ll do that during the day and then at night we’re going to provide you with a Constitution Crash Course. Visit RickGreen.com today to learn more about this unique opportunity. It’s happening April 13th and 14th and you can attend for free. No kidding. No exaggeration. We’re giving away this one thousand dollar course for free to the first 100 listeners on WallBuilders Live that register for the course at RickGreen.com.

You’ll learn the real purpose of the Second Amendment and why the founders believed it was so important for we citizens to be armed. I don’t care if you’re 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 weekend a fun, fellowship, learning, and sending a lot of lead downrange. And that one thousand dollar course registration, again, completely waived for the first 100 WallBuilders Live listeners to register. You’ve got to pay for your own travel and ammo, but we’re giving you the course for free as a gift to our listeners. I look forward to seeing you on the range April 13th. For all the details visit RickGreen.com today.

Rick:

Welcome back. Thanks for staying with us here on WallBuilders Live on this Good News Friday. We’ve got more good news coming at you. Tim Barton is up next – Tim?

Tim:

Guys, this one is from all 50 states and just as in the last segment, we are talking about constitutionality. And one of the things the founding fathers were very clear about is the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, they put limits on government – what they can and can’t do. Specifically, with the Bill of Rights it was to protect what the founding fathers identified as being inalienable God given rights.

Our First Right

Tim:

You back up to the Declaration, there’s a lot of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The founding fathers were clear on this idea that the first of our God given, or where they called inalienable rights, was the right to life. And we on this program have talked for years about the positive things happening with the issues of right to life. Whether it’s all the laws that have been passed putting restrictions on abortion, the abortion clinics that have closed, the states that have ceased funding for Planned Parenthood, all these positive things.

Well, there’s a little piece of information that I had not seen before that, actually, we’ve talked about some things in regard to this. There’s an article out by Life News and one of the things they point out is that there’s a shift happening in America, especially over the last couple of decades, with the issue of life. Which we, again, have identified and we understand that. But their numbers say between three and four Americans which include six in 10 self identifying pro-choice Americans. So, even 60 percent of people that would argue in favor of abortion say there should be major rollbacks on legal abortion. They agreed that there should be restrictions placed at least at the end of the first trimester. We’re talking the morning after, some early pills things going on, but once that baby begins to grow even 60 percent of the pro-choice people are saying, “Well, we really shouldn’t do things at that point.”

It’s also interesting that 83 percent of Americans believe that America should not support abortion in other countries. Which was, of course, a battle under President Obama as he was telling countries that, “We won’t even give you funding unless you do provide abortions to people.” And some of these nations didn’t want to do abortions and he said, “Well, we’re not going to fund you if you don’t.” And that was something that we have seen change in some of these countries under President Trump. But 83 percent of Americans said, “We don’t want to see that.”

And it’s interesting that even Guttmacher Institute, which is noted as being pro abortion, they identified that over 30 percent of all the laws that have been passed related to restrictions on abortion – 30 percent of all those laws have been passed in the last six years. Now, Roe vs. Wade has been around 45 years, but 30 percent of all laws to restrict abortion as happened last six years. And that includes, they said, since 2011 there have been more than 50 each year. So, for the last, now we’re looking at what, seven coming up on, I guess, depending on how we count the calendar year of 11 maybe eight years?

Even the Other Side of the Debate Recognizes

Tim:

But you’re talking about hundreds of new laws celebrating life, protecting life, protecting the unborn, restricting abortion -f ifty each year. And this is from Guttmacher Institute who is not a pro-life celebrator. So, even somebody who’s on the other side of this debate is recognizing there’s been a lot of stuff done to protect life. So, this is really exciting looking all 50 states and what’s happening with the decline in abortion, decline of people supporting abortion, all these laws being passed. And we talk about this in the show a lot, but it’s just yet another article that identifies some of the stats.

But I thought it was interesting that even 60 percent of pro abortion Americans agree that we should place some serious restrictions on abortion. Which, of course, is not what many Democrats would argue, but it is what their constituents even believe. Sixty percent of pro abortion people are saying we need to limit abortion and legal abortion how we do. So, this is really exciting.

Rick:

So, Tim you’re seeing most of that– the vast majority of those positive changes in the law since 2011. And I remember after the 2010 election, we had several programs where we talked about what a watershed election that was because of– I forget, David, do you remember the number of state legislators that changed? We had so many new pro-life state reps and senators, so this was ground game all across the country.

David:

It was massive. And you went to all these trifecta states where all the legislature was then in the hands of Republicans and they were pro-life, and you saw all of these laws.

Tim:

Some went republican that hadn’t been Republican–

David:

Ever.

Rick:

Yeah.

Tim:

–in like hundreds of years – if ever. There was a–

David:

Yeah. Oklahoma had never been Republican.

A Major Shift

Tim:

It was a major shift in some of these states. As you mentioned the trifecta, the House, the Senate and the governorship went Republican, had never happened. So, there definitely was a major swing.

And one of the things as, Rick, I assume you’re indicating, one of the things that was certainly a major point – not only this– the kind of the midst of the Tea Party, so limited taxes, right, we’re taxed enough already. We want a limited government. But pro-life was one of the major issues that many of the people elected in 2010 ran on that position saying, “We want to protect life.”, right, “This is the first of the inalienable rights. We want to protect life and we’re seeing that now in legislation, we’re seeing it in public policy, because those kind of guys got elected.”

Rick:

Yeah. You could almost say– just stepping back, I’m not looking at all the data, but just stepping back and looking, that may be the one issue we’ve been most successful on as a result of those elections. Much more so than the taxes because the government has continued to grow and at every level. So, that’s a big, big, victory.

But, guys, I don’t want to have the wrong take home message here, but it sounds like elections actually matter.

David:

Well, here’s something else I’ll throw out. I’ve been saying this privately for a while just from where I sit looking at the elections, looking at the candidates that are being fielded and recruited. We’re looking at the national elections 2018 and there is all this stuff about a blue wave coming, that Republicans are in trouble. This is the backlash you traditionally get after the elections of a Republican president. In the off terms it goes to the other party.

A Huge Blue Wave

David:

And so they’re looking at possibly the House changing, needing 24 states, the Senate changing and I don’t think that’s going to happen. I think the House stays, I think the Senate actually increases for Republicans. I think it’s going to be very different from what they predict. They’re predicting this huge blue wave in Texas in the last–

Tim:

And I will say that some of those predictions have changed.

David:

That’s true some have – they’re starting to.

Tim:

But just a few months ago they certainly were saying, “The Democrats are going to just clear the field.”, and “Everybody hates Trump.”, and, “It’s going to go the other direction.” But now, I’ve heard even some CNN people saying that actually it might not be as bad for the Republicans as we once thought, so there’s some kind of shift–

David:

No, as they once hoped.

Rick:

Right.

Tim:

Well, that’s kind of what they thought, right? So–

David:

They were telling you what they wished – not what was actually happening.

Tim:

But, they’re identifying that there is– this shift is not what they thought it was.

David:

That’s right.

Tim:

And so even though there are many that are still saying Republicans are in trouble, and it’s going to shift, and people hate Trump, they’re still echoing and kind of beating that same drum. They’re echoing the same message. But even some are identifying from the other side that it’s not quite what we thought or hoped it would be.

Looking

Democrats Better Listen

David:

And see, they were basing it on a lot of off year off term special elections in which the Democrats are having an extremely high turnout above normal and winning all of these seats. So, they say, based on that there’s this massive wave coming.

No, not necessarily, but when you take what Tim said a minute ago about the pro-life stuff and you take those numbers of 60 percent and 83 percent of pro-choice people. And by the way, pro-choice is heavily Democrat – there’s just no question that probably 85 percent of pro-choice people are going to be democratic. So, you take a number like that – Democrats better listen to the numbers if they have any chance of doing anything in the 2018 elections. Because when they keep getting against 83 percent and 60 percent of the American people on things like the Infant Born Alive Protection Act that we just voted on a few weeks ago in Congress and you only got two Democrat congressman to vote for, what Tim said, that 60 percent of people want–

Tim:

No, no, no, 60 percent of their constituents.

David:

Yes, that’s right.

Tim:

So, it’s even higher for people that aren’t pro abortion. But generally, the Democrats they are the pro abortion party and even 60 percent of their own supporters are saying, “No, no, no, no, no, we don’t hold the position that you are promoting.”

David:

And what they’re doing now with Schumer laying out this thing of rolling back tax cuts and etc. – this is just amazing to me. I didn’t think the Democrats had a shot at taking in the off year like people thought a few months ago and I sure don’t think they do now. But this abortion issue is one that they’re ignoring at the top level that I think really has substance when you’re down at the grassroots where actual people vote.

Rick:

Yeah, no doubt. Guys, we’re going to take another quick break. We’ll have more good news when we come back. Stay with us folks. You’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

Patriot Academy

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

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

Rick:

Welcome back to WallBuilders Live on this Good News Friday. We’ve got time for a little bit more good news before we’re done today. And David and Tim both, ley’s try to get one in.

Gun Free Zones

David:

This one kind of relates to some mass shooting areas. I think I saw recently in a report that I think they said 27 out of the last 28 locations of mass shootings were gun free zones. And–

Tim:

Let me interrupt. So, which one was not– because it seems like even as I communicate to people we say, “Hey, all mass shootings happen in gun free zones.” Right? Because if there’s people there with guns, it’s not going to be a mass shooting – at least depending on how we define mass shooting, what level that is. If there’s good guys there with guns they’re able to stop the bad guy with a gun.

David:

I think the place is probably Sutherland Springs, Texas, that church, because Texas is a carry state.

Tim:

But if– you guys correct me if I’m remembering this wrong, but it seems like it was even reported when this was coming out that the pastor– and who knows if this is accurate or not, so I’m certainly not trying to slander anybody. The church, obviously a horrific event that happened, but it seems like I remember it being reported that somebody said the pastor had said he didn’t want his people do have a gun inside the church.

David:

Yeah.

Tim:

Because I think we even talked about on the program. Which just so bizarre being in the country in Texas, right, you would assume that almost every man, and many of the women included, in this number would have a gun. And so if the pastor had in fact said, “I don’t want you have a gun here.”, then that would make it a gun free zone. Therefore–

Rick:

Even if he didn’t, it was a gun free zone because no one was carrying that morning.

It Makes No Sense

David:

That’s right. And I remember that report and we even talked about it. Because when that shooting happened I happened to be with Tim and turned to him and said, “That is– this makes no sense.”–

Rick:

I did the same thing, man–

David:

–This is a country church in Texas.

Rick:

I was in Minnesota and I told my kids the same thing. I said, “There’s no way – somebody in a Texas church would’ve had a gun and stopped this guy.”

David:

Yeah.

Rick:

I was shocked.

David:

Yeah. So, we maybe could say 28 out of 28 were gun free zones. And one of those areas that is a gun free zone has military bases. On military bases, your MPs can carry, but you had the shooting– actually a couple of mass shootings now at Fort Hood. Which, you just hardly– it’s kind of like you think of military bases like gun shops – everybody’s got a gun. Not so. As a matter of fact, Tim’s sister, my daughter, as they were on a military base up in Alaska with all the critters there that are capable of killing their kids on that remote Alaska base – including moose, everything else, if they had pulled out a gun to shoot an animal killing their kids it would be a felony. They can’t even defend their kids from stuff–

Carrying On Military Bases Now?!

Tim:

Well, because you can’t discharge a weapon on a military base unless you are at the gun range. And you can’t even have it loaded going to the gun range. And so–

David:

It’s crazy.

Tim:

–all the law surrounding the transport everything else. And so even though you have some of the most highly trained people in the world with guns– at least in theory, right, with your military– they are told you cannot have or carry a gun on base.

The U.S Supreme Court Makes Good Decision On Immigration

David:

But Trump has now announced that he is going to try to reverse that. He’s going to try to get military bases where they can carry on base. Which will be a big deal. It removes another gun free zone which is really helpful. And it helps not only those soldiers, but the families of those soldiers as well. So, that’s really good news that the Second Amendment, just like the original intent on the Constitution in the first segment, the Second Amendment is now coming back to some original understandings.

Rick:

We’ve got more good news for you at our website, WallBuildersLive.com. You can go into the archives and listen to any of those previous Friday programs. Thanks for listening today to WallBuilders Live.