Two Former Democrat Judges Switch To Republican Party And More – Two former democrat judges switch to republican party in Texas, a New York judge throws out State’s quarantine camp law and more!
Air Date: 08/12/2022
On-air Personalities: David Barton, Rick Green, and Tim Barton
- WallBuilders | American historical events, founding fathers, historical documents, books, videos, CDs, tapes, David Barton’s speaking schedule.
- Coupons: Use promo code WBL17 to receive 10% off your entire order on ALL WallBuilders Store Products!!
- Helpful links:
- Send In Your Questions!Â
- The Founders Bible
- The Founders Bible App
- Constitution Alive
- First Liberty
- The Courageous Leaders Collection
- Heroes of History
- Quotations of the Founders Books
- Alliance Defending Freedom
- Liberty Counsel
- Patriot Academy
- High Point Leadership Camp
- WallBuilders’ YouTube
- Wallbuilders Summer Leadership Training Program
- Today’s Links:
- Federal Judge Blocks Biden Admin’s Guidance Allowing Biological Males In Girls’ School Bathrooms
- Trump Informs CNN of Intent to Sue for Defamation, Warns Others
- Former Democratic judges declare invasion, now run for reelection as Republicans in Texas border communities
- New York Judge Throws Out State’s Quarantine Camp Law Declaring It Unenforceable
- Christian flag raised at Boston City Hall months after Supreme Court ruling
- Company to pay millions to employees over denying religious exemptions to COVID-19 shots
- Baltimore Progressive Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby Defeated in Reelection Bid
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.
Welcome to WallBuilders Live. This is the intersection of faith and the culture, and we’re glad you’re here with us. This is a place where we take on the hot topics of the day from a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective.
I’m Rick Green. I’m a former Texas legislator and America’s Constitution coach. So it truly is an honor for me to get to be here with David Barton, learn these things and with Tim Barton. He’s a national speaker and pastor and president of WallBuilders. You really ought to have him come speak at your church, wherever you can get him in powerful, powerful speaker, I believe, a great voice for America in restoring our constitutional republic today.
You can do that at wallbuilders.com is where you can book him to speak or David as well. Wallbuilderslive.com, that’s where you go if you want archives of this program. In other words, if you missed some shows earlier this week or last week or whenever the last couple of months actually is available there at our website wallbuilderslive.com.
So, we always on Friday bring a good news; and I’m telling you there’s a lot of good things happening. I realize there’s bad. I get it. There’s things that happen every day and I go, whoa, how do we survive that? And yet we do. And there’s a lot of good stuff happening as well. And we want to use our Fridays to dive into that good news so that you know these principles work. David, get it started, brother.
Okay, Rick, I’m going to start with a federal judge in Tennessee. And a federal judge in Tennessee has ruled that the Biden administration misquoted the Supreme Court in one of their new policies. Now, I’ve got to point out…
That’s shocking by the way.
I know that was going to just, nobody believed that really happened, right. So shocking is right. No, I don’t think so. That’s what’s going on regularly. And this goes back to something that goes back to Obama. He talked about he had a phone and a pen. And we talked even back then that I really thought he was going to use that phone and a pen a whole lot more than he did. He did not issue that many executive orders. Now he issued plenty. But the Biden administration men, they are turning out executive orders because they can’t get anything through Congress. They’ve got a 50-50 split in the Senate, they’re not getting what they want. And so Biden is doing orders like crazy.
Unless it’s a spending bill, they have gotten their spending bills through Congress.
And their gun control bills through Congress where they have 14 Republicans.
They have not been able to get the level of the agenda done they want to. It’s too woke even for many of the senators who caucus on the Democrat side. So by and large, they have not gotten as much done as they would like to. However, they’ve definitely gotten some done not to diminish the fact that they have been limited, which is crazy to think about where we are now. This is them being limited even though they have all three branches, because there’s a filibuster in the Senate, which that’s another side note. Nonetheless, let’s go back, what did the federal judge say before I derailed us?
Well, you go back to what the federal judge said, and it goes back to an order that Biden issued. And by the way, the other thing that’s interesting is once the Supreme Court came down with all these decisions that the last three or four weeks of their session, he has tried to find ways to create executive orders to get around that. So the Dobbs decision came down that said abortion is going back to the states. And he said, no, no, we’re going to allow abortion federally nationwide.
And so he’s been issuing all these executive orders to essentially undermine or overturn what the Supreme Court has declared, which is really weird. They didn’t like it when conservatives talked about trying to change precedent. And now that the Supreme Court is not giving them what they’ve had for 67 years with abortion, all of a sudden they’re not pro-Supreme Court anymore. So they kind of choose their own pattern of who they support based on what their views are.
But nonetheless, when the Biden administration, this is a policy they issued on gender and bathrooms, etcetera, and what they said was all of the states, this came from the Department of Education. So it means if your public school takes federal funds and that’s about 97% of public schools, if your public school gets federal funds, then I’m just reading from the article here, “You’re going to allow biological males to use girls restrooms. They forbade the states from borrowing males from participating in female sports. They forced employers to use employee’s preferred pronouns at the risk of losing federal funding.” And according to state attorney general to sue the administration, all this came from the EEOC and the Department of Education.
So they’re really trying to really impose this woke gender ID stuff on all the states and all the businesses and everything else. And they quoted the Bostock decision, which came out in 2020, and it was a transgender decision where then in 2020, there was a funeral home, and the funeral home had a guy that started dressing like a female. He called clearly was a biological male. And they said, look, when people come in and they’re grieved and they’re trying to see their families, they don’t need the additional stress of having a person in a woman’s dress that clearly has facial hair. So that’s not where we need to go.
So at that point in time, that decision, the Supreme Court went in favor of the transgender employee. And so the Biden administration used that decision to say, alright, here’s what you’re going to do. You’re not going to discriminate against gender in any way, transgenders. And so everybody gets to use sports, everybody gets to use the bathrooms, etcetera.
Except here’s what the actual Supreme Court case said back in 2020. And Gorsuch, who wrote it back then, he said, they say that sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today, but none of these other laws are before us. We have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today. So the court clearly said we’re not looking at those issues, and that’s not part of what we’re doing today. This is a really narrow ruling.
And so the Biden administration says, hey, based on Bostock, you’re all going to do this with gender stuff, which is clearly what the Supreme Court said it was not dealing with. And so the federal judge in Tennessee has said, no, you’re not going to do this to businesses, you’re not going to do this to schools. You misquoted the Supreme Court. Like, Tim, as you said, imagine that, they misquoted the Supreme Court to get there in. But that is actually a lower court justice who actually read what the Supreme Court said rather than Biden who did not read what the Supreme Court said.
Really good stuff. Okay, Tim, what’s your next piece of good news for us?
Alright, guys, this one is from a headline announcing that President Trump informed CNN of intent to sue for defamation and warns others. Now, the good news in all of this, first of all, CNN has been getting sued, it seems like fairly regularly from all their defamatory comments, which I think the overall good news in my mind is that people are finally being held accountable for some of the nonsense and fake news they’ve been saying.
Now, some of what President Trump is challenging them for, they’re actually in the notice or the letter of intent, CNN has 10 days to do an apology, a retraction, or a correction from those things. The letter outlines 34 exhibits of the alleged defamation and that goes from things published on CNN reports and editorials on CNN broadcast all the way to former White House aide Cassidy Hutchins June testimony on the House January 6th select committee. So there’s a wide variety of things involved in what he identifies his defamation.
And not that I’m just cheering on Trump because I want him to win these things, that’s not at all what I’m suggesting. What I think is great is that we are finally seeing people push back on some of this notion, not that we want to see that the freedom of the press restricted or the freedom of speech restricted on levels. But when you are able to slander and knowing and willingly lie about people and drag their name to the mud with the intention of politically and financially ruining and destroying somebody, you should be held accountable for that, because that’s not freedom of the press. That’s not them giving a report of the story. That is them promoting propaganda, which was not really what the freedom of press was really about.
This actually goes back to something that I think is really cool that has been happening in recent years, particularly with Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas has been speaking out more and more in the last two or three years over we’ve got to reexamine our laws on protecting public people from any kind of criticism, because right now you can lie about them and you can’t sue for liable, defamation, slander, or anything else.
And so I love the fact that Justice Thomas is saying, hey, we’ve got to hold these people accountable. You don’t have the right to attack with any tools possible someone who’s in office or someone who is in public office. And I love the fact that they’re trying to make people accountable. Founding Fathers, we’ve talked about this before Founding Fathers really believe the press should be accountable. You have a free press, but that doesn’t mean you can lie. You have the responsibility to tell the truth or to try to tell the truth. And so the fact that this is going on and the fact that Trump is trying to do something with it and we’ve already seen CNN have so many suits that they have had to settle in recent years with Sandman and so many others, I think this is liable to get back to the Supreme Court. And they’re liable to give us a decision that really pushes back on big tech and big media and all these other things.
What would be interesting about this too, is if President Trump does come out, decide to run again, if he has four more years starting in 2024, depending on how long it takes this lawsuit to go, he actually can be the sitting president while this lawsuit was being decided at the US Supreme Court. That would just be very interesting news coverage that this could be happening.
All that to say, I think it’s great news that there is some pushback coming against some of these ridiculous accusations the press have been able to get away with for a long time, slandering, libel, whatever other kind of adjectives that are appropriate for some of these individuals, whether they are speaking about or writing about it, whatever the case is, there should be accountability. And it’s just great to see someone identifying some very specific inaccuracies that were said about somebody and holding them accountable for those specific inaccuracies.
And even as was identified in the letter of intent is they have the option to retract it, to correct it. This is not just saying that you owe me all these millions of dollars to hurt my feelings. It’s actually saying you need to set the record straight or there will be a lawsuit coming. So all that is, again, I think it’s good news that there are people working and promoting accountability.
Alright, guys, we still got a little time before our break. David, what’s our next piece of good news?
The next piece of good news comes actually from the Texas border. And this goes back a few months ago. The Democrat congressman had resigned and it was, I think, CD 34 in Texas, a congressional seat and it left it open to a special election outside of the regular election cycles where you have the primaries and the general. This was a special election. And a young Christian Hispanic lady won that as a Republican.
Now that’s a seat that has not been held by Republican in however long. I mean, that goes way, way back. This is a very Democrat part of Texas. And so a lot of people rejoice in that point in time saying, hey, look, this shows that Hispanics and Texas are shifting. And I was not on that bandwagon at that point. I said, well, this is a special election. They didn’t put much money into it. The voters turn out is much, much lower. If it happened on a normal election cycle when you got all the people turn out, maybe. But I think she’d had trouble winning. Well, I’m revising that position now because we’re having a lot more happen at the Texas border since that election several months ago.
And here’s a good example, is that the Texas border, two longtime lifelong Democrat judges have just switched to the Republican Party. So when you have sitting Democrats in a very safe Democrat area that are now switching to become Republicans, which makes them less safe in the Democrat area, you know that something is going on down there. And both of these lifetime Democrat judges switched because they said, look, the Biden administration, they’ve allowed an invasion of Texas. And what these 2 million immigrants have done coming across it’s ruined our communities, it’s ruined our safety and security, it’s ruined everything and we’re just not part of that. So you literally have two long time lifelong Democrat judges who have now announced they’re becoming republic on the Texas border. And that’s really big.
And this is one of the things too, guys, we’ve seen very consistently is that a lot of Democrat policies, even though they have a good heart, they don’t recognize the downstream effects. Where I think it was maybe Thomas Sol is the guy who kind of popularized or originated maybe the idea of stage one, stage two thinking, where stage one thinking is the immediate benefit to me. And oftentimes Democrat policies is very much stage one thinking that they promote ideas that will benefit people. They think in the short term that we will increase minimum wage and increase all these things, thinking there’s a good short term fix without recognizing there are some major negative, unintended consequences that are coming downstream that are not going to bring about the end result that you wanted.
But along these lines, recognizing some of Biden’s failed policies even at the border, it’s interesting as Biden has now made a move to complete some of the border wall that Trump proposed, which initially they said was so racist and hateful, the Biden administration is now saying, well, it’s actually to provide safety because it’s so dangerous to cross right there. There was a liberal talk show host to late night show host who pointed out the irony and hypocrisy of that statement. Because if your argument is it’s dangerous to cross right there, instead of putting up a wall, you could have built a bridge because then it would have been safe, right? And if your goal is you want them to be safe while they come across, you build a bridge, you don’t build a wall if you’re building a wall to stop them from crossing. But this again goes back to this notion of the failed policies from the by administration.
And I think I saw the Biden administration is now building 32 segments of the wall, not just a segment. They’re like building a wall in a lot of places, but they’re just not saying that their own failed policies are starting to bite them as well.
And certainly they’re not closing all of the southern border. There’s a lot of places open and there’s a lot of reason for concern. And this is where you see some of these Democrats who live in some of these border towns and areas, they are seeing the devastation, it is the havoc-wreaking upon all these towns and communities and individuals. And it’s why they’re leaving the Democrat Party, because of the wokenness of these policies that don’t produce the results that were promised when these politicians do it. So, certainly interesting to see.
Alright, guys, we got to take a quick break, we’ll come back, we’ll dive into more good news when we return on WallBuilders Live.
WORLD WAR II VETERANS
Hey, friends, if you’ve been listening to WallBuilders Live for very long at all, you know how much we respect our veterans and how appreciative we are of the sacrifice they make to make our freedoms possible. One of the ways that we love to honor those veterans is to tell their stories here on WallBuilders Live. Once in a while we get an opportunity to interview veterans that have served on those front lines that have made incredible sacrifices, have amazing stories that we want to share with the American people.
One of the very special things we get to do is interview World War II veterans. You’ve heard those interviews here on WallBuilders Live from folks that were in the Band of Brothers to folks like Edgar Harrell that survived being Indianapolis, there’s so many other great stories you’ve heard on WallBuilders Live. You have friends and family that also serve.
If you have World War II veterans in your family that you would like to have their story shared here on WallBuilders Live, please email us at [email protected], [email protected] Give us a brief summary of the story and we’ll set up an interview. Thanks so much for sharing here on WallBuilders Live.
Welcome back to Wallbutters Live, Good News Friday today. Thanks for staying with us. Let’s jump into some more good news. Tim Barton with the next piece of good news. Tim.
Alright, guys, I’m going to go to New York. And this one says there’s a New York judge who throws out state’s quarantine camp law declaring it unenforceable. Now just hang on a second. I could not believe what I was reading as I initially read this article, because the New York Health Department, they decided that they should allow the state government to have quarantine camps where they could place even healthy people, healthy citizens for an unspecified period of time with no official review. So they literally can round people up off the streets.
No due process.
No due process. Nobody you can appeal to because there’s no review on this. Now, wow, maybe they were not doing this enough that the word did not get out, because I just can’t imagine people would think this is a great idea to remove due process and we’re talking about healthy people, right. So I would be even opposed to this if someone had a fever that you are incarcerating them; now, certainly suggestions, and I get it, it’s a weird time. But we’re talking about healthy people, so it’s even more bizarre.
There was a judge who identified that Governor Kathy Hochul and the Department of Health, they had ordered the rules protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a Rule 2.13. It had to be re-op-ed every 90 days. And the Commissioner wanted to make the rule permanent is what the respondent told the court. And the judge threw this out, identifying that legislators never voted to allow the New York Commissioner of Health to put any individuals in the quarantine for any length of time. So the judge threw this out because it didn’t go through the right channels; this is not the power of the executive branch, this is supposed to be the power of the legislative branch. Legislatures make the laws.
And their argument from the governor’s standpoint or from the Department of Health or the New York commissioner of health, they said, but it’s a pandemic. And so we need these powers in a pandemic. One of the things we’ve heard many people talk about, and I think it’s absolutely true, it’s not past Democrats or really not just Democrats. When people have a taste for power and they have power at their fingertips, if they have the ability and capacity to tell people that at this point we’re going to take control, it’s for your own good that we take control, this is very much the Orwellian kind of sense. Whether it be in 1984, whether it be an Animal Farm, when you have somebody for the good of everyone else, I need to take all your rights away; for the good of everyone else, I will be your dictator, your commander in chief, because we’re all equal, but some of us are more equal than others, as the pigs from Animal Farm would reveal to you.
This is just crazy that this is happening in America. But when we have forgotten that the very principles upon which the nation was founded, that there is a God who gave us rights, the government’s job is to protect our God-given rights, we have a constitution which lays out the role of the federal government, we have a Bill of rights which identifies things. The federal government can never touch infringe upon or violate. When we have forgotten these basic principles and precepts, then it’s understandable how you arrive at this conclusion. It’s just shocking to me in my mind that the people of New York were allowing this nonsense to happen. The good news is there was a judge who identified this was not at all correct. And so a New York judge, did overturn this law, which is the good news, bottom kind of end of the story. Crazy that was happening, although maybe New York, I shouldn’t be as surprised.
Again, the good news is a judge did overturn this identifying it’s not the power of the executive government or the Department of Health or the New York Commissioner of Health to put up these quarantine camps where they can arbitrarily round people up, even healthy people for an indefinite time without review, as the article identifies.
You know, when you first read that article, there was something that struck my attention right when you read it. And I’m assuming that article probably came from a conservative news outlet. It didn’t come from New York Times or CNN or anybody else.
Correct, it came from a New York outlet, but it was the Epic Times.
Yeah, the Epic Times. But read that title again and what it said. The title says…
“New York Judge throws out state quarantine camp law declaring it law.
A law has to go through the House, through the Senate, be signed by the governor. And so even conservatives are saying a regulation is a law. It’s not a law. It’s a regulation. And that’s why the judge threw it out. It wasn’t a law. It didn’t go through the process. And I’ve heard a lot of our folks say, hey, that’s law. This is what the mayor said in this law. No. No. That’s not how you pass laws. Laws you have the House and Senate, introduce a bill they voted, it goes through, the governor signs it, or the legislature overrides the governor’s veto, or it goes through without the governor’s signature. But there’s a process to making a law.
And this is where people would say, but it has the power of the effect of the law. Because it’s one of the things that we talked about some too when we were flying when there was still a mandatory mask mandate on airplanes, and they said federal law requires, and our question real quick, which federal law was passed that required that, right? If it’s federal law, what federal law was passed? And what people say is with these regulatory agencies, they can pass regulations that have the power of law.
And unfortunately, that is the way things have happened for many decades, although very, very questionable as to the level of constitutionality of any of these regulations that passed that didn’t go through the actual lawmaking process. So, dad, to your point, it’s a great thought if it’s showing even the title of the article should not say law because this was not a law. That was why I got overturned by the judge. But that is something that we often fall into thinking that people who don’t have the power to make law are making law because we take these whatever statements that come from whoever they come from, and we give it the power of law, and it’s enforced as if it is a law. However, we are seeing challenges to many of these things and then being overturned because they were not, in fact, law and they didn’t go through the process to become a law.
Alright, back over to David. What’s the next piece of good news, sir?
Okay, I’m going to go to Mat Staver for a bit, he’s a good friend; we have him on very regularly. And we covered something that happened earlier this year when he had a 9-0 win at the US Supreme Court over Boston City Hall refusing to fly the Christian flag. And the decision was written by Justice Breyer, very liberal justice, who said, of course you’re going to fly the Christian flag. You can’t discriminate against that: choose everything else and leave that one out.
And so it’s a really cool picture we saw just recently where a mast standing in front of the Boston City Hall with a Christian flag flying in the background. And so it’s a really cool one, but it’s good to see now Boston has followed through on what the Supreme Court said, and so they have that there. And we’ve talked to Mat also about the mandates and the many lawsuits he’s engaged in. I think he told us that he had a lawsuit going in every single state over COVID mandates and vaccines and requirements, etc.
And he just got a really big victory, $10.3 million settlement. I think this one came out of Illinois, if I recall right. But the doctors had been told that, hey, if you haven’t taken the vaccine, then you’re going to get fired, you’re going to lose your job, etcetera. And so they reach a settlement, and it’s a big settlement. I think there were 400 people who got fired or lost their jobs. And not only is there going to be a payment to them for the lost time, lost wages, losing their jobs, they also will have, I think, 60 days to reapply to get their job back in their previous position back.
So the courts now are starting to rule more frequently in favor of you can’t do the government overreach that happened in COVID. And this goes back to, Tim, what you were saying on the airplanes that we keep hearing that federal law requires. No, it doesn’t require that’s a regulation. And what we thankfully have seen in the last 2-3 years at the Supreme Court is they are dumping more and more regulations. We saw that with EPA requirement earlier this year at the end of the session with West Virginia, and they’re not letting the EPA take over the process of legislating for the states.
And so there’s just so many good things happening. But good news, Mat Staver, these are cases we’ve talked about with him, and now we’re seeing some good victories come through in those cases.
Very, very good stuff. Okay, Tim, final piece of good news for the day?
Alright, guys, last one. It’s coming from Baltimore, and this is just identifying that a progressive prosecutor in Marilyn Mosby, was defeated in a reelection bid. And Marilyn Mosby is one of those very woke district attorneys who decided not to prosecute on a lot of crimes. In fact, a lot of shocking data coming from this article.
Under Mosby’s two terms, homicides in Baltimore rose steadily, averaging 333 every year between 2015 and 2021. And this year’s numbers are on track to surpass even those of 2021. Before Mosby’s, her predecessor Greg Bernstein’s final term, the city had a yearly average of 215 murders. So, it went from 215% to 333% increase under her leadership. And in her reelection bid, she actually ended up getting third in her primary. So I would assume Baltimore is going to choose another Democrat DA, however, hopefully one who has some different policies that will do better for the city.
What’s crazy to me, though, is she ran her reelection bid on three things is what the article identifies: number one, reducing the population behind bars, so we’re not going to prosecute as many criminals; number two, holding police officers accountable for their actions, so we’re not going to target criminals, we’re going to target police officers; and number three, reviewing convictions for potential exoneration, so finding people in prison that we can get out of prison. So we’re not going to prosecute criminals. We’re going to challenge police officers, and we’re going to try to get people out of prison. I am very glad that this individual lost her reelection bid, and hopefully we will continue to see more and more people and more and more cities wake up and push back against some of these George Soros type district attorneys who are not doing good for the city and for the nation.
Thank you for the good news today, guys, lots of good stuff out there. And we’ll have more at our website, wallbuilderslive.com, so go to the archives and check out some of those other Friday programs. Thanks for listening to WallBuilders Live.
I rarely can listen live, so putting in a comment or question in time for you to address it hasn’t been possible. I have a question, though, and hope you can answer it for me. What is the difference between laws, executive orders, and regulations as concerns how those it would affect are able to make their own decisions about following them or not.
Greetings! Thank you for asking about this! We appreciate it and I will pass your question along as a possible future topic on our program! Having said this, to give you a very brief overview, laws must be passed by Congress and signed by the President. They can affect the entire nation. The original intent of Executive Orders was not to make national policy but to be used to help administer the enforcement of law within your administration, much like the CEO organizes a company. Regulations are (similar to Executive Orders) meant to affect those agencies who published the regulations. You might also consider searching our archives page (https://wallbuilderslive.com/archive/) for additional information.
Thank you so much for good news Friday’s!!!
Appreciate you folks so much! Thank you for all you do in informing us, giving out the truth, and encouraging us with some good news. May the LORD give you His wisdom and strength and grace.