The WallBuilders Show - Who Gets To Define America’s “History And Tradition”?

Welcome And Where To Listen

SPEAKER_01 0:07

Welcome to the intersection of Faith and Culture. It's the Wall Builder Show taking on the hot topics of the day from a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective. Rick Green here with David Barton and Tim Barton. Our websites wallbuilders.com and wallbuilders.show, wallbuilders.show for the radio program, wallbuilders.com for everything else. And then, of course, make sure you're listening on your favorite podcast app out there. I could not believe, Tim, how many podcast apps are out there with the program. I was looking at that list of all the different I didn't know there were that many podcast apps, let alone that you could get our program on so many. So anyway, I didn't realize everybody had all these different uh you know favorite podcast apps, but I guess they do. So I thought there was like Spotify, Apple, and you know, uh Castbox or something like that. That was it. But anyway, for all of you out there, hope you're listening.

SPEAKER_02 0:54

Yeah, apparently there's an awful lot of them. Uh and so uh for just normally we'd say, hey, go go to wobble.show and you know you click on the links, and I I just open it up. It's Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, iHeartRadio, Podcast Index, Cast Box, Overcast, Pocket Cast, Podcast Addict. Sounds like you have a problem. Uh Deezer, listen notes, player FM, Castro, good pods, and true fans. Like I I I've never heard of most of these, but apparently, uh, if if you want to find us, you can definitely find us uh and make sure that you download. And and if there's somebody coming on an interview, a good news Friday, a Foundation of Freedom Thursday, whatever it is, you can track us down and listen to it because apparently we're everywhere.

SPEAKER_01 1:43

And I gotta throw, I gotta throw a plug in for because they're they're they're based locally. There's one called the Godcaster. And uh that's uh some guys from our our church actually, Adam Curry and some others that do that. And uh they've got wall builders on there as well. So anyway, yeah, folks, be sure you share that with your friends and family too. That's a great, easy way to be a force multiplier. Anytime you hear a program and you find something new in the program or something that you want others to know about, so easy to just click those share buttons and let others know about the wall builders show.

Why This Supreme Court Ruling Matters

SPEAKER_01 2:11

Um, guys, we we say we say hot topics. There's several things that I just I gotta say, it's not a good news Friday, I know, but man, I'm watching like, you know, prosecution of uh of Fauci's right-hand guy, uh, you know, plea deal. He's going to jail for five years. I'm watching all these other prosecutions and things, good things happening that a lot of people say it's never gonna happen, it's never gonna happen, Uniparty, blah, blah, blah, and they give up. Man, we're seeing a lot of good stuff. And even on the voting front, looks like the Supreme Court yesterday handed the Trump administration a victory. It's a temporary victory, but a victory on the mail-in ballots. It it's a really good, it's a really good sign, guys, that that this could have a major positive effect on on the November election, the midterm election, but also even future elections. Now, it's not a it's not a final decision. It's basically getting rid of an injunction to prevent the executive order while the thing goes through trial, but it will probably be the last ruling for this upcoming election. It'll have you know uh the facts of the case and a final decision going through the process will probably happen before the next general election. But here's what it really means. Number one, they can go ahead and create the citizenship list, which we've all been saying we only want citizens voting. And in these blue states, if they're not going to enforce that, this allows the federal government to create the citizenship list and give it to the state. And then it allows them to say to the post office, don't mail a ballot to anybody that's not an actual citizen. So if they're not on this list, you're not allowed to mail that ballot to them and even barcode the ballots. Now, the post office has to go through the rulemaking process. They may not get that done in time for this election, but I don't know. This administration pushes hard. And then the third thing it does, this is funny, you guys are gonna laugh at this. One of the things that the blue states really fought against, they said, you know what? This is a threat of prosecution for people that break the law. Hmm. I thought you were supposed to prosecute people that break the law, but that was essentially what these states were saying. This is a threat, they might prosecute us. Yeah, if you don't follow the law, if you're if you're doing voter, you know, fraud, of course they have the right to prosecute. So anyway, I think, you know, that's kind of the three big things that the executive order does, and the Supreme Court said, hey, we're lifting the stay. The executive order stands, they can move forward with the rulemaking process at the post office, with the citizenship list, and the DOJ can move forward. So, guys, I think it I think it's a big win.

SPEAKER_00 4:28

Yeah, I I think it's a big win too. I gotta it's just humorous, Rick, to to hear this.

The Kansas-Nebraska Voting Parallel

SPEAKER_00 4:34

I'm gonna go back to something that really struck me about a week ago, and it's the Kansas-Nebraska Act. And the Kansas-Nebraska Act, after Congress had been moving to end slavery across the U.S. and they limited slavery, and they drew a line and said you can't have slavery above this line. The Kansas-Nebraska Act came in because Kansas came in above that anti-slavery line. They came in as an anti-slavery state. And the Democrats passed the law that said, well, we think we should be able to vote on it sovereignly, every state by state. And what they did was they removed any state requirements for voting. You could just show up in Kansas, and if you're in Kansas, you could vote whether you're a citizen or not. And so all these pro-slavery guys started running into Kansas from Missouri and from other states so they could vote and make Kansas a pro-slavery state and Nebraska. And it's kind of the same thing the Democrats have been doing here. We're not going to really hold you to the state you're supposed to be in. If you want to come over and vote in this state, just come on over. And so the fact that they're now requiring you to prove where you're from and what you're doing, I mean, it just struck me as ironic. The Democrats have had this same crazy spirit going with voting for, you know, 150 years essentially. And it's just crazy that we would get to this point. And Rick, as you point out, it's crazy that we don't like this because you actually might prosecute someone who broke the law, and that's not what the government is supposed to do. It's just ironic in a lot of ways.

SPEAKER_02 5:57

Well, it it seems contradictory, guys, because we've been told so many times there is no fraud. So if there's no fraud, why would we worry about prosecuting somebody when nobody cheats, right? It's free for you know, guys, remember Spencer Pratt and the Los Angeles mayor race. Uh when when the the polls closed, he was second place. They were gonna go to a runoff. Uh, and the third place individual has a concession speech, she's crying, she's weeping, and then tens of thousands of votes just happen to roll in for her. Uh, President Trump, uh, of course, uh posting about that on social media, and uh as he correctly assessed, seems like something fraudulent's going on out there at California.

Making Fraud Harder To Pull Off

SPEAKER_02 6:45

This is one of the ideas behind how do you stop dishonest people from doing incredibly dishonest things? Is you you have to take away some of their ease of access to dishonesty. And and and frankly, that's all this really is doing, is saying we're gonna make sure that the people that are registered to vote, they're the ones that get the ballots, as opposed to some of the stuff we've seen for anybody that watches, maybe like a a James O'Keefe or a Nick Shirley, the people that have gone in to some of these states uh that uh I think is it Minnesota, where uh you can go in and one of the, I think it was one of the guys with James O'Keefe who was wearing like a burqa and went in uh and just identified as somebody else and said, Hey, can I uh you know vouch for these other eight people? Uh and there wasn't an ID. That wasn't necessarily, he just had to have a name that was somebody on the voter's roll. It it showed how easy it would be to cheat and to be dishonest. And so what President Trump was wanting to do, and ultimately what the Supreme Court said, we're gonna let this case play out. We're not gonna stop you from doing things right now. Uh obviously, Rick, as you point out, this is a decision that is not finalized yet, but at least it seems like good news that there's uh a a stay kind of on what the lower court did, because it in my brain, and certainly this could be wrong, but if if they thought this was wrong to begin with, they might not lift uh what the lower court had done. So the fact they're lifting it, it seems like they're acknowledging in federal elections there might be some role that the the federal government can play, although certainly we would even argue that should be very limited, uh, because generally speaking, that's the power of the states. But that there's a definitely some nuance, and that's why this court case is gonna be interesting to see how it plays out. But for right now, guys, that is that is really good news.

States’ Role Versus Federal Backstop

SPEAKER_00 8:38

And I I think Tim, you're right on it. I I think that the what they're gonna do when they come back is they're gonna make sure that this is not the feds taking over state elections. Because we all three have talked about that the Constitution says states get to choose the time, place, and manner. But if you're going to be so ridiculous that you have no time, place, or manner, or you do and you won't follow the law. If you won't follow the law, you have, then we've got to step in and make you do what the right thing is. Uh I mean, this goes back to even 15th Amendment kind of stuff, uh getting to vote in the state. So we've all said feds are not supposed to take over elections, but oh my gosh, if you're not gonna do anything, and if you're gonna let fraudulent stuff happen, they've got to do something. And I think you're exactly right, Tim. I think what we'll see in the final decision is not a reversal of this, but they'll try to narrow it down so that it doesn't give the feds an open door to come in and do everything, because then if you have a Democrat administration, they might come in and took over Texas laws or Florida's laws or anybody else's laws who are already following the law and try to set their laws aside. So I think you're spot on.

SPEAKER_01 9:40

I was thinking the same thing too, Tim, when you when you mentioned that. Uh and I think it was a key for somebody, and they actually, the name they gave was one of the candidate's spouses. So, and they still let them do it. It was so funny when I saw the saw the video. So, yeah, absolutely. That's the kind of insanity they're trying to stop. And that that clause you're talking about, David, Article 1, Section 4, it does say right after that, it says, but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. So they do get the final say if, like you said, the states are doing such a poor job, like in this case, where they say, okay, look, we're gonna make sure that you at least know who's going in to vote, or that you aren't just sending out these empty ballots all over the place where we've seen we've heard the whore, you know, all the stories of people getting 15 of these at their house or getting them from people that lived there 10 years ago, or you know, it's just a it's just a mess and it makes it so easy to cheat. So, you know, we all know election integrity needs to happen. This is a big step forward.

SPEAKER_02 10:35

Well, and and just to point out real quick, too, as you mentioned, Rick, that this is something that the Constitution gives some say

SAVE Act And Congress’ Missing Vote

SPEAKER_02 10:42

to Congress, not to the president per se, which is why President Trump has been pushing so hard to get the Save Act passed. It's passed out of the House several times. The Senate hasn't even taken it up. They've been incredibly cowardly, and of course, uh Thune would say that he doesn't have the votes. And I and I think that's probably true. I he probably doesn't, because you have a lot of very squishy uh lobbying roles. If you have many squishy Republicans, and and some that are are bitter and frustrated, like a John Cornyn getting beat by Ken Paxton, who doesn't at this point probably want to help the system, and you know, you can kind of go down that list a little bit. But if you're not even bringing it up for a vote, then you're not at least exposing who the people are that ultimately will need to be replaced. So I think it's it's been a mistake for months now that Thune has not brought this vote up that's already passed in the House. Again, President Trump's been promoting and pushing this, and if it was passed, then constitutionally that they do have the power and authority to actually give some basic regulations of consistency. Like, hey, you got to make sure they're a U.S. citizen before they vote, right? That you got to make sure they show a voter ID. These are not things that could be considered onerous or burdensome, uh, because these are the very things people have to do uh to to buy uh a spray paint can, right? You have an ID to show you're old enough, right? If you're gonna buy a pocket knife from Walmart, you're gonna have an ID to show you're old enough. Nobody considers that onerous or burdensome. If you're gonna fly, I mean, go down the list, right? It's these are not things that are considered egregious. And so I think that it would it ultimately has to come back to Congress. And so, Dad, to your point, I think when it goes to the Supreme Court, some of this will stand, but I think some of it will get struck down just because of the reality of the jurisdictions of the three branches, that this is more the jurisdiction of Congress than the president. And so I think President Trump is limited in what he can do. But as so often, I am grateful that he is working really hard to find something he can try to do to help do things that are better for the nation and actually ultimately protecting constitutional perspective.

SPEAKER_00 12:47

I think this is good news.

What Changes For Midterm Races

SPEAKER_00 12:49

I know it's got not good news Friday, but I think this is really good news when it comes to the Republicans possibly keeping the House. Because in a lot of blue states, you have several battleground house districts. You have some in California that are very key, you have some in Michigan, you have some in all these other blue states. And if you now start limiting your voting to have to prove that you are an actual voter of the state, man, that that changes the complexion and the changes that now polling doesn't mean anything in the way they do polling in other blue states on who's up and who's down in the elections. Although I'll point point out we and we hit it in the last couple of days, polling this cycle is not very good. You know, Al Saeed was up ten points and won by one point, and Hong was up by ten points and lost by one point. So pollsters are scratching their head and saying, Well, we don't quite get this. Is it people that just don't want to say what they're really doing? Because y they're not off ten points, but they are in this election so far. And now when you start taking out the potentiality of all these potential Democrat voters that aren't real voters and not legal voters, and you know, kind of like the Kansas Nebraska Act, just come vote if you want to. That changes the complexion of who could win some house races, and that puts several seats back in play that maybe weren't in play. And that could have a huge impact for the next cycle as well.

Threading The Needle Legally

SPEAKER_01 14:10

Yeah, and I and I I don't know who wrote this opinion because it's procurium. So we do know the three liberal justices, all three of those um were against it. They had dissenting, but we don't know which of the six on the other side wrote it. But it's interesting, it sounds like Thomas to me, guys, because he he addresses a lot of the things that you were just saying, Tim, about what's the state versus the feds and and and what's the president allowed to do versus Congress, and and basically says, you know, these are just actions of directing, I forget the exact language, but we've even used it ourselves, of directing the state agencies, of actually executing the law and telling them, here's how you're gonna run the post office. These are the things you're gonna do to prevent fraud using the post office. So it's kind of ingenious the way that they threaded the needle here to do exactly what you just said, Tim, to do something really good without going too far and violating, but we'll see once it all gets hammered out in the in

Break And A 250 Years Resource

SPEAKER_01 15:02

the full trial. Okay, guys, we got a quick break coming up when we come back from the break. The Wall Street Journal does a massive article on wall builders. We'll be right back. You're listening to the Wall Builder Show.

SPEAKER_02 15:17

Hey guys, this is Tim Barton from Wall Builders. I'm gonna let you know about a special landing page we have on the Wall Builders website. If you go to wallbuilders.com, there is a little box that says Wall Builders is celebrating 250 years of American freedom and independence. Click on that little box and it will take you to the landing page for 250 years of America. And on the landing page, there are several different little boxes you can click on. One of them is for events, it will let you know of some major events that are that are coming up that are going on that you can actually come and participate in. You can come here. My dad or I give speeches, telling the stories about the birth of the nation, about the founding fathers, the faith connection in America. There's also a tab for resources that you can click on, and it will take you to lots of different speeches and sermons and documents and proclamations from the founding era. And then there's also a little tab that will take you to the wall builder store with lots of resources, all the things that maybe a hat you want to wear, a shirt to wear, or other wall builders products to read. This is the place to go to celebrate 250 years.

Wall Street Journal Profiles WallBuilders

SPEAKER_01 16:20

Welcome back to the Wall Builder Show. Thanks for staying with us. Uh David Temp, man, huge article in the Wall Street Journal. And and I remember, I remember, David, when you went in for this interview, it was supposed to be a really short interview, went really, really long. Um sounds like you got to show them a lot of the artifacts. I know they had some cool pictures and things like that. But um that usually a major national outlet like this doesn't give you know folks like us this much ink. And so thought we would talk about it a little bit, you know. Um, of course, David, you sat through the interview. Tim, what did you think when you when you read the uh article about the interview? Well, I was part of three hours of the interview.

SPEAKER_02 16:56

Oh, you were there too? I didn't know that. Okay. Well, actually, I was interviewed independently. Um, and so the the the reporter, man, I mean, at least 20 hours had to go into all of the interviews this guy did trying to get information. And generally speaking, like just for the public to know, if the press comes and says, Hey, can we talk to you? And then they keep asking you things over and over and over and over, usually they're trying to get you to say something a certain way that they can take that one thing you said and be like, Oh, here's what he said. And and often, and this is not a surprise, probably to anybody listening, uh, it's the reason that even uh founding fathers back in the day recognized, hey, you know that that that kind of I plead the fifth idea from the Bill of Rights, um, that you know, maybe don't do things that incriminate yourself. Uh, it's because one of the things the Bible says is where words are many, sin is not absent. So, generally speaking, the longer you talk, the less beneficial it is. But the reason we spent so much time with this guy, it actually is because we were showing so many original documents, we were unfolding and telling those stories because uh initially the thought was they wanted to show that my dad was uh in charge of uh essentially like the majority of conservative legislation because we have this incredible legislative network, we work with so many amazing legislators, and

Ten Commandments And Classroom History

SPEAKER_02 18:20

the the thing they really keyed in on with the Ten Commandments. Now, just in case somebody hasn't uh seen or heard the article, which I expect is the majority of us, the article headline says Texas activist putting the Ten Commandments back into American classrooms. And I did a social media video on this already, but I think it's hilarious the framing of this. The Ten Commandments were part of every colonial's laws, uh, all the early colonies, the Ten Commandments were literally in part of the legal code, and in those early laws, they actually, when they, for example, like all the colonies had a law that says thou shalt not murder. Well, that language sounds real much like the King James Bible, right? They also, at the end of that law, would do something like Exodus 20 or from Deuteronomy, they literally would cite the Bible verse that was identifying the Ten Commandments as their reference for why they were passing that law. So not only were the Ten Commandments the basis of so much of our legal structure in America, if you go to the very first textbooks in America, 1690 is the first uh reader that was done, the New England primer, and in the back is the Westminster Shorter Catechism, it has more than 40 questions dealing with the Ten Commandments. We can show, and this is what we showed the reporter, literally in education, from the very first textbook all the way up until 1980 to K Stone v. Graham, the Ten Commandments were part of education. We walked through the Supreme Court decisions where because of our friends over at First Liberty and their incredible work, uh helping defend religious freedom and religious expression, you have things like the Lemon law that was or the Lemon test that was overturned, the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman decision, and and because of Coach Kennedy's decision, so many good things have happened. Well, it's created an opportunity where the current Supreme Court standard is if there's a long-standing history and tradition, there is a presumption of constitutionality, meaning if there's something we've historically always done, if there's something historically the founding fathers did, they promoted it, they encouraged it, they participated in it, we should presume that's constitutional. So we showed this guy all of this information, and and again, the framing of the article is so funny to me. It's usually what media does when they say that it's this activist who uh Texas activists putting the Ten Commandments back in into American classrooms. If the Ten Commandments were in American classrooms from literally the 1600s up until 1980, the activists are not the people trying to restore what was taken away. The activists are the people that said we can't have the Ten Commandments anymore after they have been there for hundreds of years. But this is largely what the article does. The article just frames things in a certain way to make it seem like we're this crazy, you know, kind of Christian right wing, Christian nationalist is kind of the vibe they give. Instead of saying, guys, no, and again, this is why we spent so long with this reporter showing him the document, pointing out this is not us just promoting our agenda and ideology. This is us trying to restore history and tradition to America, where it was removed, and even kind of the idea where uh, you know, they're saying you're the ones behind all this conservative legislation. We say, no, it's these incredibly courageous legislators that when when they get an idea, we want to help equip them. And part of our equipping is we provide a lot of the historic backing. So if they want to show their history and tradition, we go and testify and show the history and tradition behind it, but they're the ones that have to introduce it in committee. They're the ones that have to get it on the floor, they're the ones that have to get it right in both chambers. It's not us. Now, that's not what you discover from this article. And frankly, um, for for those people that support us and our fans, um, if you read the article, you'd be like, wow, you guys are amazing. You're doing so much good work in the Ten Commandments. And I would say thank you because we're working very hard, but ultimately we are just trying to help restore the history and tradition that has been largely because of progressives and Marxists removed and has been under attack for decades. The reason we exist is to help restore those things, and and that's kind of a different direction than what the article went. But yes, I was part of a long period of interviews walking through this. Uh, and ultimately there were two editors on this article. Uh, it was the the young man that we spent a lot of time with, and then there was a a chief editor from the Wall Street Journal. So it's it's totally possible that uh the young man, Christopher, who wrote the article, he might have written a really nice article. It could have been, you know, a chief editor who was like, We're not saying any good stuff about the Bartons or wall builders. That's totally possible. But it is it's another one of those articles that even even when they're pretending like they're being fair, it's left of center, and they're framing people that have traditional moral values as being a little crazy and a little extremist.

Media Framing And Legislative Reality

SPEAKER_00 23:13

And I would add to that, Tim, that and just following with what you said, that was one of the points that I made of the thing was you know what? Um I none of us are members of the Louisiana legislature. And it was the Louisiana legislature who passed the Ten Commandments. And not a single one of us is a member of the Texas legislature, and and and they passed it. Not a single one of us at Wall Builders is a member uh of the legislature of Tennessee or Alabama. So what what is it that we're putting the the Ten Commandments back in schools? We didn't have a single vote in any of those states, and it's the same kind of thing that happened. They were also asking me about, well, you know, you're in the this uh appointed group of of individuals to do the history standards in Texas and getting all this religion stuff back in. I said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, time out. There's nine of us on that group. Nothing gets put in unless at least five people want it in. I can't get anything in unless the majority agrees with what's there. And as I pointed out to them, if you'll go through the standards, you'll find that probably less than three percent deals with anything religious in it. And just because the critics are squealy because th there there's some religious parts of history back in which actually happened, that's only three percent, maybe, maybe five percent. I mean, just go online and read the standards, they're public. And so it really is, man, you're you're picking the the molehill out of the mountain or the mountain out of the molehill or something, and and you're not even keeping things in perspective. So to your point, Tim, that's also what I emphasize to them, but that's not what comes through in the article.

SPEAKER_02 24:45

And and to be fair, it's not that, dad, that you haven't advocated for the restoration of some of those things, but literally it's the restoration of the history and tradition. What was the the most influential book in America's foundation and founding? It was the Bible. What what was a primary textbook and reader that was part of public school education for most of our nation's history? It was the Bible. So, what we are promoting and advocating is the restoration of history and tradition, which by the way teaches a moral foundation and ultimately we want to be a free people. Uh, John Adams says that our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. You can't have freedom if you don't have a moral and religious foundation. But they pretend like you're trying to force your religion on people instead of recognizing the reality that every founding father understood is we are trying to teach the things that allow freedom to thrive in America, that help America to be a more free, stable, prosperous, blessed, and benevolent nation. Again, not what the article showed, but uh for those that are already on our side, you can go read it and go, Man, these guys are amazing. And uh, we would say thank you. Thank you for uh giving us some publicity. But overall, yeah, it was written by someone who seems left a center, who tried to be honest, uh maybe, uh, but the bias still kind of comes through.

Closing Quote And Next Steps

SPEAKER_01 26:06

Well, I have to read the last paragraph because it's actually very good. So this is the at least it leaves uh, I think a positive impression and a positive thing for the American people. It says this, quoting David, speaking in front of the legislators. We've been told for years that Christians should stay out of politics, but aren't we glad the founding fathers didn't believe that? Bardin told the crowd. If we end up believing that, we won't have an America two generations from now. I say amen to that. And as Tim said earlier, uh, for all of you that that do listen and pay attention to wall builders and like what we're doing, go read the article, pay most attention to that last paragraph, because that's really good. Thanks for listening today. You've been listening to the Wall Builder Show,