How To Vote With Your Dollars: Its 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 most pressing questions!

Air Date: 08/22/2019

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.

Questions of Power

Thomas Jefferson said, “€œIn questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”€

Faith And The Culture

RICK:

Welcome to the intersection of faith and the culture. This is WallBuilders Live! Where we”€™re talking about today”€™s hottest topics on policy, faith, and the culture, always doing that from a Biblical, historical, and Constitutional perspective.

We’re here with David Barton, America’s premier historian and the founder of WallBuilders. Also, Tim Barton, national speaker and President of WallBuilders, and my name is Rick Green, I’m a former Texas state legislator, national speaker, and author.

You can find out more about us at WallBuildersLive.com. That’s also where you get a list of our stations around the nation and some of the archives of past programs. So, you can go back and listen to some of the interviews, Foundations of Freedom Thursdays, Good News Fridays, or any of those programs that you missed.

They’re all available right now at the website WallBuildersLive .com.

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 a biblical, historical, constitutional perspective. If you have some, send those questions into [email protected].

Partner with Us

Now, before we dive into those questions–we’ll be asking those of David and Tim here in just a second–I also and encourage you to visit that website for the opportunity to come alongside us. We are a listener-supported program. That means this is possible because of donations from people just like you all across the nation.

And, some of those are folks that give five dollars a month; some give much more than that. But, it makes it possible for us to be on the air and bring these great programs to you. So, we hope you’ll consider being a part of that as well.

It’s an easy way to give of your life, fortune, and your sacred honor to preserve America’s constitutional republic. So, be a part of the team; go to WallBuildersLive.com today. Click on that donate button and make a one-time or a monthly commitment.

That helps us continue this great work. And, we appreciate you coming alongside us.

National Popular Vote

Okay, guys, we’re diving in. The first question has to do with the Electoral College and what is known as the “€œNational Popular Vote”€ movement. Here’s the question:

“€œThe National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would require signatory states,”€ meaning states that have adopted National Popular Vote, “€œto award their presidential electors to the winner of the National Popular Vote, regardless of which candidate won within their own borders.”€

So, folks, just to chart that out a little bit, think of it this way. If your home state adopts National Popular Vote, your electoral college votes for the president from your home state, are going to go to whoever wins National Popular Vote, not who wins your state necessarily. It could go either way.

But, the person that wins your state might lose the popular vote, and then, your electoral college votes go to that person that your state did not vote for. So, Steven said; this is the question from our listener, Steve.

Article 1, Section 10

And, he said, “€œIt would appear this is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 10, and especially 10-3A. This compact is an alliance compact,”€ meaning the National Popular Vote Compact, “€œis an alliance. And, by virtue of its name, a compact with another state.

“€œIt was during your discussion of the topic that you specifically addressed this portion of the article. Why isn’t anyone citing this clause in the U.S. Constitution? Is it actually irrelevant?”€

Good question. Man, detailed question. We”€™ve talked about National Popular Vote and the Electoral College a lot. But, I don’t think we’ve ever talked about, specifically, whether or not it violates the idea of a compact between states.

DAVID:

Yeah, it’s a good question. And, Article 1, Section 10 talks about what kind of compacts they cannot enter into.

RICK:

This is where David, in our in our Constitution Alive! we talk about the “€œdon’ts”€ for the states.  Article 1, Section 8 is the “€œdo”€™s”€ for Congress.  Article 1, Section 9 is the “€œdon’ts”€ for Congress, or the federal government. And then, Article 1, Section 10, we get some “€œdon’ts”€ for the states.

“€œDon”€™ts”€ for the States

DAVID:

That’s right. These are the thing that states cannot do. And so, the question is: If the original intent was to have an Electoral College so that it is not the popular vote by itself–you combine the popular vote with the vote of the states, so you’re getting a bicameral effect, as you would in the House and Senate–if that’s what the Constitution says.

And now, we’ve got these 13 states, or however many states it is, that have joined this compact to say, “€œWell, we’re going to put all of our votes behind the winner, regardless of how our state votes. We’re going to take all of our state votes and put them behind them the National Popular Vote winner.”€

The question is Does that violate Article 1, Section 10, which is what the states cannot do? So, when I look at Article 1, Section 10″€”and, it is longer than we’re going to take the time to read here. But, here are the things it says that states cannot do.

It says that states can’t enter into contracts, treaties, alliances, or confederations; to grant letters of mark and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin to tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder; an ex post facto law; title of nobility.

Nothing on Domestic Voting

It goes through all the stuff. And, the overwhelming majority of it is economic stuff you can’t do. It doesn’t address–if I were to look at Article 1, Section 10 and read that, I would say, “€œWell, I mean, here’s what it says you can’t do; a whole lot of this is with economic contracts, but there’s nothing on domestic voting.”€

There’s nothing that even comes close to that. And, even if there were something that we could apply to be part of that, I would, if I were on the other side, argue what the Constitution says about the states having the right to determine the time, place, and manner of choosing federal elected officials.

So, I would say that unless Article 1, Section 10 specifically says, “€œYou can’t enter into that,”€ the tone of Article 1, Section 10 is economic-type considerations with other nations or other states to create your own banks, money, tender, whatever.

RICK:

And military.

DAVID:

That’s right, and military as well.

RICK:

The Section 3 part would be military. And, that’s what he was saying: you can’t do a compact because there’s a phrase in there that says, “€œor enter into any agreement or compact with another state.”€ But, it’s talking about military agreements.

DAVID:

That”€™s right.

RICK:

Right.

Original Intent & The Electoral College

DAVID:

So, if I were arguing that”€”now, I agree with where he ends on his final premise. I don’t think the constitutional original intent allows for the states to come up with a different way to elect federal officials, a different mechanism than the Electoral College. The Electoral College is what the Constitution established.

Can a state by a statutory law overturn the purpose of the constitutional clause? I don’t think they can. But, by looking at Article 10 for specific language, to me, it would not help.

I would not go there if arguing that in court while facing the other side arguing “€œthe time, place, and manners”€ ability of states to choose elections. And, I would be going back to original intent. Look; the original intent is a bi-cameral system of elections, where the states and the people both have voices; and, the National Popular Vote eliminates the voice of the states.

It makes it only the people and is like only having a U.S. House of Representatives, not having a Senate. That’s the way I would argue it, because I don’t think you can win on Article 1, Section 10. But, that’s a great question.

It’s a great follow up to this popular vote. What is the constitutional position, constitutional defense, to be able to say what these guys are doing on the other side is not constitutionally appropriate? But, I think original intent and bicameralism is the best argument on it.

RICK:

Okay, we’ve got more questions coming at you when we come back from break. So, stay with us, folks. You’re listening to WallBuildersLive!; it’s Foundations of Freedom Thursday.

Constitution Alive!

Have you ever wanted to learn more about the United States Constitution but just felt like, man, the classes are boring or it’s just that old language from 200 years ago or I don’t know where to start? People want to know. But, it gets frustrating because you don’t know where to look for truth about the Constitution either.

Well, we’ve got a special program for you available now called Constitution Alive! with David Barton and Rick Green. It’s actually a teaching done on the Constitution at Independence Hall in the very room where the Constitution was framed. We take you both to Philadelphia, the Cradle of Liberty and Independence Hall and to the WallBuilders”€™ library where David Barton brings the history to life to teach the original intent of our Founding Fathers.

We call it the QuickStart guide to the Constitution because in just a few hours through these videos you will learn the Citizen’s Guide to America’s Constitution.  You’ll learn what you need to do to help save our Constitutional Republic. It’s fun! It’s entertaining! And, it’s going to inspire you to do your part to preserve freedom for future generations. It’s called Constitution Alive with David Barton and Rick Green. You can find out more information on our website now at WallBuilders.com.

Greatest Political Privilege

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

RICK:

We’re back WallBuilders Live! Its Foundations of Freedom Thursday. We appreciate your stay with us.

Be sure and send your questions into [email protected]. Our next question of the day says: “€œI’m a Christian and a business owner. I have interactions with and make purchases from different companies on a weekly basis; however, many of these companies are very outspoken on their choice to support many causes that are against God’s Word.

“€œAs a Christian consumer, it seems next to impossible to purchase items we use daily without supporting a company that has drastically opposing views. Do you have any advice?”€

Man, guys, this is a question I get on the road at the book table quite a bit. People say, “€œI’m tired of spending my money supporting companies that are then turning around supporting things that are very much against what we know God’s Word says.”€

SecondVote.com

DAVID:

Well, here we are in the heat of the late summer, and I get to bring Christmas back into this. So, I get to bring Christmas in by saying that at Christmas, it is the time of the year we go to American Family Association, Liberty Counsel, and others who come out with a “€œNaughty and Nice”€ list, to tell us where we need to spend our money: “€œThese are the folks that are actually good on acknowledging that there is a Christmas and know it”€™s not a secular holiday.”€

And so, it’s like Is there something out there that would do the same thing for us throughout the year and not just at Christmas? Because we do have great sources at Christmas. And, the answer is “€˜yes.”€™

There is a website called SecondVote. And, if you go there, it will list the good companies and the bad companies: the ones you do not want to spend your money with. I mean, we recently did a big, what’s called a “€œpop-up museum”€ over in Dallas.

It was a big deal. We worked with the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library to bring in things like the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th Amendment etc. And, a lot of it was Hey we shouldn’t be spending our money in places that promote slavery.

And, we have 40 million folks in the world right now that are in slavery. Guess what? Your iPhone is probably made by slaves in China.

In fact, your Nike tennis shoes were probably made by slaves in other nations. And, why don’t we support companies who don’t support slavery? So, from that standpoint, this is the idea of this website from a Christian-value perspective.

This will tell you that the companies out there that are good on Christian values and principles and those that aren”€™t. And, this will help you know where to spend money.

We Live in a Fallen World

TIM:

In some situations, it’s very difficult to do anything but work with certain vendors, producers, and manufacturers. But, there might be some you look at and go, “€œYou know what? I can’t avoid all of these people, but I can definitely support this one.”€

And so, sometimes, it’s not always just about who we don’t shop or do business with, but it is about who we target and try to be intentional about who we”€™re going to give some of our business to. I can’t give all my business to them, because they just don’t have all the resources and products I need.

But, I think sometimes we can micro–and lose focus on how the reality is that we live in a fallen, broken world. The fact that you do business with anybody, means you’re doing business with sinners on some level. However, the people that are openly saying, “€œWe’re going to take some of your money and give it to abortion mills and facilities,”€ I’d rather not spend my money there.

Major On the Majors

But, if there’s people that are doing a good job, I definitely want to do business with the right kind of people. Yet, in the midst of this, it is definitely one of those convictions that you can have that can be challenging. It’s a “€œwe don’t want to be super legalistic about this in the way we present it”€ because this definitely is something that your convictions, you need to follow, whether that is to specifically do business with this company, and then whoever else just happens to be there, just what it is; or, “€œMaybe I will never do business with this company again if I can help it.”€

But, this is certainly something that, if your convictions are there, Second Vote is a great place to go.

RICK:

Man, Tim, I love the way you put that because it’s not an all-or-none thing; yet, sometimes we can we can be like that. Or, we can be disappointed in our friends or whatever, for spending money somewhere because we know that company”€™s supporting something. And, we don’t have to go to the extremes on this.

You have to major in the majors and minor in the minors. Do the best you can. And, there are some companies that I try to avoid as much as possible because of how they spend their money; yet, sometimes I have to spend money with them.

Or, I make that decision, like you said, on a conviction basis. These resources really do help though, because a lot of times, we do have a choice, an option. Sometimes you don’t; but, a lot of times you do.

Smile.Amazon.Com

And, even sometimes when you spend money with some of these behemoth companies, that it’s hard to try to avoid, that we know a lot of their employees, at least, are donating to bad causes, you can also get a percentage of your money going good places. So, take Amazon for instance. Always buy; if you buy at Amazon, do smile.Amazon.com to dedicate that percentage–I think it’s 1 percent that they give–to your favorite charity or organization.

Now, yes, they have limitations. And, sometimes they’ve turned down good, Christian charities. But, there’s a lot of good ones out there too. We’ve got Patriot Academy.

If you want Patriot Academy to be where your 1 percent goes, you can sign up and make WallBuilders your Smile.com account. So, think about it. How many listeners out there right now are spending money on Amazon every month?

If you’re not going to Smile, you’re missing out on a chance for that 1 percent or half a percent, whatever it is, contributing to this radio program right here. You could be donating to WallBuilders through your purchases from companies like Amazon. So, I just like Tim’s approach and think there’s a balance in this.

And, it almost comes down to one of those things where your brother might think that eating meat is bad, and you don’t; but, you wouldn’t want to eat that meat in front of them. Respect the fact that they might have that conviction, but at the same time, let’s not let this become a cause for dissension among our own ranks. But, let’s do use some of these really cool tools: SecondVote.com is an easy way to make some good decisions on this, and just vote with your dollars; redirect those dollars when you can.

Don”€™t Offend Your Brother

TIM:

And, Rick, as you’re saying that, I just want to point out that you’re not talking about eating meat and offending your brother, in the Texas sense of eating meat, because all Texans need to embrace meat or find a different state to live in. Right?

RICK:

Well, you know, it’s something to do with the temple, idols, and”€”

TIM:

Quoting the apostle Paul is what you are referencing. I think it’s in First Corinthians; but, just so people don”€™t misunderstand. No, I do not have any brothers that meat offends them, or you’re not my brother.

Okay, that’s just a joke; but, in Texas we eat meat. We love it; it is delicious.

But, referencing the Apostle Paul, there are things that can offend people that maybe you’re not convicted that way, and it’s something that is not a clearly-outlined, biblical issue. Or, that there is still {inaudible} a conviction that I can’t do and you shouldn’t. But, God hasn’t put that same conviction on your life.

Anyway, it really is something from the Apostle Paul. But, if people do want to know Where can I spend my money more wisely? SecondVote.com is a good place to look.

RICK:

And, hey, some of us have hot buttons. And, there have been companies or owners of companies that have said things and supported causes that just finally, for me, it pushed me over the edge; so, I said, “€œI’ll never buy from them again.”€ And, most of the time, haven’t.

Ben and Jerry’s

Ben and Jerry’s is one of those. I do everything I can to find other versions of ice cream because those guys give so much money to liberal causes. But, I must admit, Ben Jerry’s ice cream is really good when I have had it.

So, it’s tough, you know? But, you got to decide for yourself, I think, on these issues. There’s not a one-size-fits-all on this one.

All right, guys. Again, SecondVote.com, you can spell that either way: 2ndVote.com orSecondVote.com. Go to the website or get the app downloaded on your phone so you have it right there when you’re out shopping and making those decisions.

Quick break. We’ll be right back with some more great questions. Stay with us; you’re listening to WallBuilders Live!

Moment From American History

This is Tim Barton with another moment from American history. The Second Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees to every individual the right to keep and bear arms, has been targeted for years now by those who are determined to dismantle the individual right to self-protection.

Opponents argue that, “€œOnly the militia, the military, and law enforcement are to have and use firearms.”€ But, those who wrote the Second Amendment strenuously disagreed, including Founding Father Richard Henry Lee, a signer of the declaration, a president of the Continental Congress, and one of those who actually framed the Second Amendment.

He declared, “€œTo preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”€

For more information about Richard Henry Lee and the history of the Second Amendment go to WallBuilders.com.

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

Learn More About Our Nation”€™s Founding Principles

RICK:

Welcome back to WallBuilders Live! Thanks for staying with us today on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday to get our last question of the day here.

And, by the way, if you’ve got a question, send it into [email protected].

If you enjoy this version of our program, where we are diving into these foundational principles and letting the audience ask the questions, we have more of these programs on our website. So, if you go to WallBuildersLive.com, you can actually scroll back into our archives and grab other Thursday programs to listen to more of these Foundations of Freedom programs.

Mark gets our next question; it’s about congressional qualifications. So, David, Tim, here we go. He said, “€œI sent this message to Representative Louie Gohmert, and I would like your thoughts on its viability.”€ By the way, Congressman Gohmert is one of the best in Washington D.C., if not the best; love that man, awesome congressman.

Rudimentary Knowledge Required for Congress?

He said, “€œI’m a veteran educator from your district in Texas. I would like to propose a recommendation for a bill that would ensure that all those elected to the Senate and Congress be at least minimally proficient in their understanding of the document they pledge to support and defend. As an educator, I have been required to pass proficiency exams in my field of study, as are many other professionals.

College graduates in most every professional field are required to prove their understanding of the systems, curriculum, processes, procedures, and

principals of those chosen pursuits.”€ So, I get where he’s going with his, guys. Great question; Mark”€™s basically saying that Congress is supposed to be experts on the Constitution because that’s their profession.

That”€™s what they’re working with and swearing to uphold. So, the question is: Shouldn’t we require them to have some sort of rudimentary knowledge of the document? And, guys, we’ve gotten this before out there when we’re speaking and here on the program as well.

And, everybody wishes Congress had more constitutional knowledge. I’m not sure of how you would actually implement this.

An Amendment Required

DAVID:

Well, as you look at the end of the question, he gives several provisions that he thinks should be included in the test. Number one: “€œIt should be a four-part exam including comprehensive information regarding the three branches with a fourth section dealing with historical sequence and significance of the Constitution. This should be a prerequisite for all who run for an office; if you can’t pass it, you can’t get elected etcetera.”€

So, the first thing I would say is that the Constitution itself lays out the requirements for office, and that’s it. I mean, that’s what it is. So, you would have to amend the Constitution to get this in there.

Now, to amend”€”but, let’s say that it were possible and it would not take an amendment to the Constitution, because the Constitution says, “€œIf you are a senator, you have to be this old, having lived so many years in the state, you have to be from a particular state.”€ It goes through all of that; so, those are the requirements in the Constitution, nothing else.

James Iredell

So, let’s say, however, that we could do this under the Constitution. We are in the position that James Iredell talked about at the Constitutional Ratification Convention in North Carolina. James Iredell is a guy that was placed on the U.S. Supreme Court by George Washington.

And, in North Carolina, the question came up: Hey, should we have a requirement in there that says you can’t be a Muslim or an atheist to hold office  because Sharia is incompatible with constitutional values, the values America was built on. Should we have”€”and, this is back in 1788.

North Carolina is debating this when ratifying the Constitution and James Iredell said, “€œLook; you don’t want to require that because the only time that will ever happen is if the people themselves have lost all their values and start electing people who have their values.”€ So, when you look at the Representatives like Keith Ellison out of Minnesota and Representative Omar out of Michigan, those open Muslims are elected because the people in those districts are openly Muslim.

A Requirement for Citizens

You can’t dictate your representatives be something different than what the people are. And so, I would say we ought to have a literature requirement for citizens. I mean, that would be the starting place.

We know right now that only 26 percent of citizens can name the three branches of government. So, if they don’t know it, how do you hold the representatives to a higher level?

TIM:

And, there are states that have moved in that direction, that are working. Other states are working to move in that direction. But, I think Arizona was one of the first states that said, “€œFor kids to graduate high school, they have to pass, essentially, the immigration test right,”€ which has a level of civic literacy that’s involved in the immigration test.

Even if we just started with the immigration test, it would be a really good thing to do. We probably can make the same argument that most elected officials might not be able to pass the immigration test. And, maybe not just looking at those in Congress; but, when you have your school board, city council, mayor; just at basic levels, we know so little about the nation we live in and how it was intended to operate. And so, there are some states that are moving in that direction, saying, “€œWe’re gonna require all of our kids to do this.”€

States”€™ Requirements for Education

By the way, as you’re listening, it might be worth checking Does my they do that? Does my state encourage kids to be able to know, understand, and pass the immigration test as a basic minimum? Anybody legally coming to America, what they have to know, do our students know by the time they graduate?

If your state is one of the ones that’s done that, awesome; way to go! If your state hasn’t done that, maybe you can help promote those ideas because as Dad was pointing out, unless we get the understanding of the population up, we never can have a greater expectation for our elected officials, since they really are just a representation of who we are. Which then, makes it really scary for places like New York who elected Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, right?

Now, it might speak better for them if she doesn’t get elected a second term. If she gets elected again, it’s a reflection of the ideas, ideology, and the values of the people that are electing her. And, it shows their lack of understanding, their ignorance, as well; which is why starting at a state level and helping education do differently”€”

When we get a more educated populace, it will help us get a more educated electorate or elected officials, so to speak. And, that’s only gonna help us go further the right direction.

Bottom-Up Rather than Top-Down

DAVID:

Yeah, and to try to do it from the top-down rather than bottom-up, never provides a lasting solution. Let’s say that you get all your congressmen knowing about the Constitution. Well, if the people don’t know about it, they”€™re not going to follow their congressmen and will elect somebody different.

Or, you can say, “€œI believe the Constitution,”€ and then you do something totally different, which is what so many federal judges have done. They swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. But then, you get Justice Breyer who writes a book on how we need to get rid of the Constitution.

Well, wait a minute, I thought you swore an oath to it. So, you really are back to the thing that the Congressmen, as Tim said, are a reflection of who We the people are. And, if we want better congressman, we”€™ve got to get citizens more aware of what the Constitution says, what the requirements are.

We’re the ones who choose those who represent us. And, if we want higher standards than them, we need to have higher knowledge ourselves. And, Tim, as you pointed out, just starting with that immigration test as a high school exit exam, is a great place to start.

I think seven states now do that. It would be nice if it were all 50 states. And, that’s something that we as citizens can work on in each state.

Today”€™s Pole Question

RICK:

All right, guys, we are out of time for today. That’s all the questions we’ll be able to get to. But, if you’ve got some you’d like us to answer on Foundations of Freedom Thursday, send them into ra[email protected]. We look forward to getting those from you.

And, we look forward to our next Foundations of Freedom Thursday.

One of the things we’ve added to our Foundations of Freedom Thursday programs is, at the end of each show, we’re asking you to ask questions of the people in your circle. Maybe it’s on Facebook, over lunch, or whoever you want to talk to. But, ask them some of the questions we raised on the programs.

I think today a good one to ask would be: Should citizens have to pass an immigration test? Just think about that. Should we have to, as citizens, also–before we could vote or whatever it might be–have to know a little bit about the country, just the same as immigrants when they come into the country if they want to become citizens.

What about the people that are born here? You know, it would be a good test to find out where we are on our education system and whether or not we’re passing the torch of freedom intact to the generation. Which, I think we can tell from some of the polling data out there.

How To Vote With Your Dollars and More! 

We’re not doing a good job of that. That’s why we do this program here at WallBuilders live! to educate people on those basic citizenship responsibilities and what it means to be an American. But, if you would, ask that question and then post some of your responses there at WallBuildersLive.com.

Just let us know what people are saying during your discussion with the people in your circle. We are curious and would love to get those responses. Thank you so much for listening today.

By the way, if you do visit the website today at WallBuildersLive .com, we appreciate you, while you’re there, making a small or big contribution to make our program possible. Right there at WallBuildersLive.com, click on “€œdonate.”€ Maybe just give up one big latte this month and give five bucks right there at WallBuildersLive.com.

Or, maybe you can do that once a month. Whatever it is that you can do to help us, we”€™d greatly appreciate it. It spreads the word, gets this information into more hands, and puts the tools in the hands of the American citizens to be able to save our Constitutional Republic.

Thanks so much for listening today. You’ve been listening to WallBuilders Live!

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