Sam Rohrer:     Well, the California Supreme Court has thrown off of the ballot, a full referendum that would have split or at least given the people the opportunity in California to have voted to split that state into three separate states. Did you know that?

Well, it’s not going to happen now according to the court, but I’ll tell you what, in San Francisco, the leftist in California, in that location, are in total disregard for what it takes to keep and maintain a free republic, and they are busy beginning just two days ago, registering illegal aliens to vote in local school district elections.

And we’re going to talk about the ramifications of that in segment three of today’s program, and we’re also going to conclude today’s program with a primmer and rights versus, responsibilities and why it’s critical that we reacquaint ourselves with these basic principles of freedom, and we’re going to jump off of that issue of registering illegal aliens as a way of getting into that theme.

We’re also going to discuss these things with our special guest, constitutional attorney, author and speaker and historian David New, and then we’re going to revisit with him some American history and a founding father many people I’ve never heard of. I’ll tell you his name right now, Rufus King, ever hear of Rufus King? Probably not, but you need to and we’re going to talk about that shortly.

Well all of this and more on the program today, that I’m entitling American Basics Revisited from the founding fathers to basic rights and duties. And with that introduction, I’d like to welcome you to stand in the gap today. I’m Sam Rohrer, I’m going to be joined again by cohost Dr. Gary Dull, and of course our recurring guest constitutional attorney, David New.

Well David, before we get into these constitutional, and historical issues, and registering illegal aliens to vote and rights and duties as they’re laid out, we’re going to go back just a couple of days if we don’t mind. On this program, we’ve talked a lot about the Trump, Putin meetings, and everybody’s speculating. What is it the Democrats are saying, that the president is in Putin’s back pocket?

The other ones are saying, wait a minute, wait a minute, this is just a style of negotiation, that this president has. And everybody is all wrapped up tighter than a drum in what, depending on which side of this issue they are in. However, we’ve not had you on, and I know that you have a perspective of how we should look at this, so I’d like to hear what your perspective is David New.

You’re looking at it from a few miles further west than we are on the left coast. What do you think about the reaction and the interaction of the President and Vladimir Putin?

David New:       Well, I have a theory, and it’s only a theory, but I think it may be true. As you know, President Trump is attacked for his closeness to the Russians as being too friendly and then the critics attack him for attacking the allies, and of course President Trump has a difficult relationship with the allies because he’s twisting their arm to spend 2% to buy more bombs and bullets to kill Russians.

So I’m not sure how they can have it both ways. He’s pro Russian. Then these anti-ally for wanting them to build up their forces to kill the Russians. I don’t know how that works. But if you remember during debates, if you remember when President Trump was running, and he had all these other candidates, there was one brief moment where the subject of the nuclear triad came up, and the president and candidate Trump had no idea what that was.

And for the benefit of the audience who do not know what the nuclear triad is, it’s a policy of the United States to have the delivery of nuclear weapons by three basic methods. Number one, by land, number two by air, number three, by sea. By land with ICBM, Intercontinental ballistic missile. Number two by air bombers, and number three with submarines and also the aircraft carriers.

President Trump … and none of the other candidates for what ever reason did not beat them over the head for not knowing what the nuclear triad was. I don’t understand it, but be that as it may, it doesn’t appear that President Trump have a lot of experience, or thought about nuclear weapons before he became president. But subsequent to becoming president, it has affected him enormously, and I think that’s the core of what’s happening here.

This has happened to other presidents, LBJ, when he took over after President Kennedy assassination. He had a front row seat of the Cuban missile crisis, and after that event and all during his presidency, he was haunted by nuclear war. He was fearful of it, he was really frightened by it. It affected his sleep. People watched him. A lot of people believe one of the reasons why he did not throw everything he had against, in the Vietnam War to win it when he could have, is because he was so frightened that it might lead to a nuclear war.

Even though he knew that the Vietnamese and the Chinese hate each other’s guts, they are bitter enemies. And all he had to do was invade the north. That’s all he had to do. Go 50 or 75 miles and invade the north and that’ll stop all these invasions coming into the south, but he didn’t do it, whatever. Think how many times President Trump has talked about nuclear weapons and nuclear war in the last 18 months.

Then think how many times you heard President Obama do that. Think how many times President Bush talked about nuclear war during his eight years of as presidency. If you took those two presidents, President Trump has talked about nuclear war more than those two presidents combined in a year and a half. Just yesterday with Tucker Carlson, he’s talking about world war three over this little country in Europe.

I think what’s happened is that President Trump is haunted by the fear of nuclear weapons. Once you become president, the military comes to you. They laid out the various scenarios of how nuclear war will start, the various game plans about how it will go, and how many people will die, so forth and so forth. And I think that’s what’s upsetting him. I think that’s what’s driving them to be as nice as he is to this very bad guy.

Sam Rohrer:     Well that’s where I was going to go, because we’re running out of time in this particular segment, and I appreciate you giving us the update and leading us along here. And so you think that by virtue of the fact that he has learned about the seriousness of what a nuclear war would be, he doesn’t want to say anything that could in any way, shape or form trick bring nuclear war in the reality. Is that what you’re saying?

David New:       Yes, he is very thorough, and yes he wants our allies to build up and he’s expelled a lot of them are Russians from the United States. He wants to build up the space us, but what he is frightened, I think in my theory, the reason why he treats the Russians the way he does, is they’re the only nation on earth other than China who really can wipe us out.

Sam Rohrer:     In a media world that’s dominated by the fast paced spectacular, the flash in the pan headline news and a culture fixated on 12 second video clips, and fifth grade level commentary. History past, becomes old and unwanted news. Yet, we discard our very heritage in our lives when we throw out to the side as old, or outdated the people, the passions and the pursuits that laid the foundation for the freedoms we now enjoy.

Revisiting some American basics is always important to do, and interjecting some really good news about some really good people with great goals, and aspirations that should inspire us all today should be the kinds of thing that we hear more of and we’re going to talk about that here right now. And really we need to do that, if our nation is to survive, and freedom is going to be made possible to the next generation.

Well, one such little known, but inspiring, founding father, also a signer of the Massachusetts constitution was a religious man, and a fighter for human dignity and equality. His name was Rufus King. Probably never heard of him. But we’re going to talk about this man right now with our special guest, David New.

David you’re an historian, you’re a constitutional attorney, so it’s not a wonder that you regularly uncover people, and things that they did way in the past that helped to lay the groundwork for what we would say, would be a providentially established constitutional republic that we now call the United States of America. So tell us just a little bit, who was this man, Rufus King, and why did he jump out to you as someone that would be able to encourage us all today?

David New:       Yes. Rufus king was a person … and by the way, this material is being incorporated into my book of the Separation of Church and State. But this man, Rufus King, he was a member of one of the most exclusive clubs in the history of the United States, and that is he was a signer of the US Constitution. There are 39 people who signed the constitution and they constitute the most … one of the most exclusive clubs you can ever possibly be in.

He signed for the state of Massachusetts, and he did something that is quite profound that has effected all of our lives. He did a lot concerning religion, but I’m going to do slavery first. This individual, when he was … when the constitution was being debated in 1787, he was also a member of the continental congress, and he had an impact on passing a law that the continental Congress wrote and approved about two months into the continent … into the US debate about the constitution.

It’s called the Northwest Ordinance. I’m sure a lot of people have already heard of it. It’s a wonderful law. The Great David Barton talks about it a lot and for good reason. And this man wrote a paragraph, he made two particular contributions to the Northwest Ordinance that are very profound to US history. And the first I want to talk about is slavery. In Article Six of the Northwest Ordinance, he wrote the law that banned slavery.

And once this Northwest Ordinance was passed in 1787, George Washington and the federal congress passed it all over again for the United States federal government. And they kept the article six just the way it was. And if you look at articles six and the Northwest Ordinance that says, Thou shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, that’s the northwest, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, those states.

Now, what’s important is that the constitution has been attacked repeatedly because it allowed slavery. Well, it’s adjusted attack. The constitution is a document of liberty and freedom, and yet, it allowed it as a necessary evil in order to get the Southern states to ratify it. Well, it’s only poetic justice that the man who … one of the men who signed the US Constitution, one of the 39 signers, Rufus King, wrote the law that banned slavery throughout the United States.

Because the wording for Article Six, ladies and gentlemen, that banned slavery in the Northwest territory, became the wording for the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution, which says, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime shall exist in the United States or any state. So many years later, 70 to 80 years later, after he wrote the Northwest Ordinance articles article six, it becomes the 13th amendment to the US constitution.

By the way, if you notice in the 13th amendment, it says, “Or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” It says, “Shall exists within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” When the constitution uses the word United States, it does not use it in the singular. It uses it in the plural. So here you’ve got a signer of the constitution, writing the law that eventually would ban slavery.

And the Southern states, they incorporated this same law in their state constitution when they realized slavery is no more. Nevada and California and a lot of the western states when they said we don’t want slavery in our state from the very beginning, they used Rufus King’s law. So this is a very, very powerful law.

Sam Rohrer:     Dave, I appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Now you and I would say that most people don’t know of Rufus King from Massachusetts, but you stated that he was a religious man. You know that word. Religious today is used to describe a lot of things I would say. But let me drill down into this just a little bit more and ask you to define the word religious, and how really was his faith in God and how was his faith in God manifested in what he did in the early founding days of our nation.

David New:       All right. Here’s another thing, Rufus King not only wrote the emancipation law, which is article six of the Northwest arguments, which meant there would be no slaves in the Northwest territory. There were some exceptions that if you already had a slave, you might be allowed to keep him for a period. But basically, slavery was banned from the Northwest Territory. So he wrote America’s first emancipation law, but he also wrote America’s first school prayer law.

This is the one that David Barton, a famous article three, where it says, “Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government, and the happiness of mankind.” Heres the kicker, that the Liberal Left can’t stand, “Schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Now this man wrote that law, had the urgings of a man by the name of Timothy Pickering, he said, “We’ve got to have this included in the Northwest territory.”

We’ve got to have religion, morality, and knowledge in the public schools, and that law had a profound impact. A lot of people think that the churches put prayer in the public schools, wrong.

Sam Rohrer:     It was Rufus King.

David New:       United States Federal government did it.

Sam Rohrer:     Listen let me just jump-

David New:       And the way they did it is by article three. This law became the bubble offer, most of the remaining territories as they were added, of course in the South, the slavery part was deleted for a period, but this law became the model law and that is what encouraged prayer and Bible reading in the public schools.

Sam Rohrer:     All right Dave. I want to get back to my question that you’re saying that Rufus King was a religious man.

David New:       Very much so.

Sam Rohrer:     Does that mean that he had true faith in Jesus Christ? I mean today after there’s a lot of religious people that are lost and are on their way to hell. But, back in the day of our founders was the phrase or the word religion, another way to talk about Christianity?

David New:       Yes, and when Congress passed the Federal Congress, which George Washington as I said. They re-passed the Northwest Ordinance so that it would have legal effect within the United States federal government. And that occurred on August 7th. That’s the day George Washington signed it. And then the following month, September of 1789, the next month, Congress approved the first amendment, the bill of rights.

And so when they passed that, they kept the word religion in there. And at this time when they did that in 1789, the Christian churches ran most of the public schools in America what few there were. There were some public schools that weren’t run by the Christian church, but most of the public schools were run by the Christian church. It wasn’t till later that you had these secular, what you might call public school system, that really doesn’t start until around 1840 with a man by the name of Horace Mann.

So you’ve got three things working together, religion, morality and knowledge, working together to educate children. And this law by the way, article three, for those of you who live in Ohio, look at your religion article. You will find the exact same words that Rufus King wrote in your constitution. Those of you who are in Arkansas, look at your religion article. Those of you who are a Michigan look at your education article, you will see article three there.

Those of you who are in Nebraska, look at your religion article. And if David Kissler was here, look in the state of North Carolina Constitution, look at the education article, Rufus Kings, religion, morality, and knowledge statement is right there and your state constitution.

Sam Rohrer:     And Dave, I think that, that’s a great review. Ladies and gentlemen, I hope that as David New, has just kind of laid out some of these things, that it helps to counter the manipulation of truth, the distortion of our history, and the whole intervention of all of this nonsense, that we can have freedom, that we can have a constitutional republic separate from God, and the Christian religion. Our founders did not believe that, that was possible.

David New:       No sir.

Sam Rohrer:     This was a good example, David New, thank you, thank you, thank you for sharing that here right now with us. Let me go back to our special guest, David New here, and David, I want to set up something here. You’re from California. Well California is doing something that again … I mean California has set the trend for the nation many times, but on Monday of this week, just two days ago, the city of San Francisco began registering non citizens.

Undocumented immigrants, as they say, and the proponents of the law, they will call them that, but I’m going to call them illegal insurgents, so they’re registering to vote illegal insurgence. Now, according to Hillary Ronen, a San Francisco supervisor, she said, “This is a no brainer legislation.” One republican supervisor Harmeet Dhillon, disagreed and according to San Francisco Examiner said this “The reason I voted against this law is that I think the right to vote is something that goes along with citizenship.”

What a noble thought I put in there. The inability of our culture to understand basic purpose for voting and the relationship of this right to citizenship I submit is destroying our self governing republic and will undo the great legacy left to us by our founders. So many of those who went before, we’re so careful to lay out as we just discussed, Rufus King. Now let’s talk further about the implications of San Francisco or any municipality or state granting the hard earned right to vote to people who are here illegally and people who are not citizens.

So David New I’m going to come back right into you. You’re a constitutional attorney, and from a constitutional perspective in constitutional terms, how does the right to vote tie together with illegal citizenship and what are the implications to our nation, if noncitizens are granted the same right to vote as law abiding citizens, where are we going?

David New:       The criteria for who gets to vote within the state is decided by the state. So they can do that. It’s just the way it is.

Sam Rohrer:     All right, so you’re saying that what San Francisco is doing then within California, they’re bound by California law and if they want to grant the ability for dogs or cats to vote, they can. Is that right?

David New:       I hate to say it, but that is actually the law.

Sam Rohrer:     Oh boy.

David New:       There are other jurisdictions that have done what San Francisco has done. It’s a very, very bad thing. A very foolish move. Voting should be tied to citizenship, and citizenship is tied to taxes, and taxes is tied to people’s money. And that means that the voters are people who have a stake in that election in some fashion. Illegal aliens do not own real estate by definition. They shouldn’t be allowed to own real estate.

They don’t pay the taxes that a citizen pays and they don’t have an allegiance most of all. They have never sworn allegiance to the constitution of the United States, or the constitution of the state of California. So what is their responsibility? They have no legal loyalty to the United States government or to the government of California.

Sam Rohrer:     That is very interesting that you bring that up and explain it that way David. You know, let’s take it from the constitutional perspective and let’s try to be reasonable here if we can, and I know you’re reasonable, but you understand the law as well. It would make sense to me to say, just clear across the board, that if you are not legally a citizen of the United States of America and you are not expressing your loyalty to the United States of America, that you then should have no rights to vote in the United States of America.

So how does this come to be that someone in that particular situation could possibly vote in California or at your state and any other state?

David New:       Yeah. The reason why it was set up that way, it’s a way to limit and to limit the power of the federal government. The reason why the primers left voting issues, the qualification for voting was to limit the power of the federal government. Remember before the civil war, before the 14th amendment, your citizenship in the United States was contingent on whether you are a citizen of the state.

Sam Rohrer:     All right.

David New:       After the 14th amendment is the exact opposite. Your citizenship in the United States is by birth, and you are subsequently made a citizen of any state that you happen to live in. But before that was the exact opposite. So that’s one of the … and they did it to limit the federal power to control states, that the states get to decide who could vote in this state. And of course when you have slavery, you want to make sure there aren’t too many black people voting, which of course they didn’t have.

And that’s why it was very important to them to control, at least from the Southern point of view, to make sure that we decide who gets to vote, not the federal government. That’s one of the reasons why they can do, with these crazy people in San Francisco who snack on bird seed, this is why they can do this kind of stuff.

Sam Rohrer:     Well David, I mean, so what you’re saying, and I think our listening can understand this, I mean when we say the United States of America, we are the United States of America, and that’s what a republic is. States that are united, that forms one entity called the United States of America. But before we were ever a United States, we were states, disunited, and then brought together. That’s a very, very critical point.

But I come to a practical aspect here and say, all right, for the citizens of California or any state, if in fact the states can grant citizenship, not citizenship but the right to vote to literally anybody at anytime or anything. And I use that hypothetical dogs and cats as a wild example, but you said there’s nothing prohibitive. So are we therefore at that point bound strictly by common sense and the moral understanding of the people in office to limit themselves to reasonable things?

I mean, I’m assuming that’s where we’re talking. So when we … it makes a big difference who we put into office and we put people into office who think like children, they will vote like children.

David New:       The legal way to fight this business of what they’re doing in San Francisco. And of course, you know, this is naturally a San Francisco thing, but it is being done in other jurisdictions I will admit. But you’re going to have to use the California constitution to say that you can’t do that. You can’t use the US Constitution. It won’t work because that’s left to the states. A lot of people they don’t understand how that could possibly be true, but it is.

Sam Rohrer:     David in reality is this kind of thing, when it happens, do you think that’s probably in part what was driving the referendum that supreme court just threw out that was going to split California into three parts? It was because you’ve got people who say, it’s fine to let an illegal vote to access the tax payers wallet of the Law abiding tax payer, in some parts of the state and other parts are saying no, you can’t. I mean, is that part of what’s causing this?

David New:       Definitely. Because, it’s goofy, it’s crazy, it doesn’t make any sense to allow.` I’ll tell you something. These immigrants are allowed to come here to vote, who are illegal, basically these are people who want cut in line. You’ve got millions of legal immigrants. God bless them and welcome to all of them. You’ve got millions of legal immigrants who go through the process that the law requires, these people want to cut in line.

Well, do you like it? Do you like it when somebody cuts in line in sake way? I don’t like it, but these people, you know, they may make a mistake because supposedly they vote for their Left wing agenda. What happens then? Just because they come to San Francisco doesn’t mean they’re as crazy as the city supervisors.

Sam Rohrer:     Yeah that’s true. But let me ask you this. If an illegal immigrant would have the right to vote in California, would that illegal immigrants also have the right to run for office in California?

David New:       Who knows? But what I will say this, when I need to clarify something, if an illegal … they’re talking about the local election of school, but now the issue is for President. Could an illegal … then that would be illegal and I think the federal government have just caused the US Constitution would come into play there. This is going to be a local city election, but if they try to make it for Congress and senator, US senator and things like that, I think the federal government could stop that.

Sam Rohrer:     Well, on this final segment today we’re going to conclude with our thoughts about rights and duties. Our theme has been American Basics Revisited from the founding fathers. And we talked about Rufus King and the great element that he provided in the Northwest Ordinance and other thing relative to prayer in schools, and the elimination of slavery. We just talked about California, San Francisco specifically registering to vote illegal citizens.

We’re going to talk now about rights, and duties. In this modern era of American culture, it seems that we’ve not only jettisoned the past, we’ve often indicted the founders, and we’ve clearly spurned the God who made it possible. But with it, we’ve also turned the very high standards of self government under God, which is exactly what this whole experiment freedom was, then Pennsylvania and then to the entire nation.

We’ve taken that, and we’ve turned it into very low standards of do what you want, because there is no God, and self government becomes ultimately big centralized and iron fisted government. The ruling on these two choices, and whereas our modern culture emphasizes rights and unlimited choices, the founders and the very elements of self governed under God emphasizes duties and responsibilities.

We’re going to discuss the differences briefly here in this final segment. David, let me go to you first here in the simplest constitutional terms, what’s the distinction on law between rights? I’ll give you an example. Rights as the declaration of independence identifies as rights coming from God, and rights as most often interpreted by modern culture.

David New:       President Kennedy in his inaugural address in 1961 gave what I thought one of the best definitions I’ve ever heard for rights, and where they come from. And he said, “And yet the same revolutionary beliefs, for which our forebears fought are still issue around the globe. The belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.” Now, when he said that he was referring to the Soviet Union, an atheist sixth state.

And he said in our system of government rights, come from God. Now today, the secularist who denied God, in terms of, they may believe God exists, but they don’t believe God has any business in government. This applies now to them, except yeah, because the Soviet Union is no more, but the secularist who denied that our rights come from God, they don’t know where human rights come from.

Sam Rohrer:     So in reality, and I think I’m just going to leave it right there David. Rights as properly understood coming from God, our founders understood it. Then they said, we are endowed by our creator.

David New:       Yes.

Sam Rohrer:     Okay. That’s a very, very critical biblical world view perspective. You throw off God, then you throw off the concept that rights come from God, and then that moves us into the arena that we are now, which rights or just wherever you want them to be. Gary, let me go to you now, and I want to get a little bit of distinction from you. Let’s talk about rights and duties now. Not rights and duties, but duties and responsibilities.

They tend to walk together properly, understood rights as coming from God bears with it the continuation of the thought of duties and responsibilities. You separate God from that, then duties and responsibilities almost have no place to hang, it seems to me. But I’d like you to explain a little bit about duties, responsibilities. Define it if you could, to the extent that you want, and bring some of that into the perspective of why it’s so critical. We understand this part of it. If we’re going to maintain freedom as we’ve come to note in the United States.

Gary Dull:         Well Sam, it very interesting. You know, and I just want to say this with regard to what is a right, I’ve often said it this way, that are right is that which we possess. Whether it’s given to us by God, we understand that all of our rights come from God.

We go back to the declaration on that, but it’s basically that which we possess, whether it’s given to us by God, which is the foundation of our rights, or government or the employer or whatever the case may be, depending upon the context in which we’re talking about that, right?

But as it relates to a duty, I often say that a duty is that which we owe, by way of responsible action. Whether to honor God, to advance a society, to advance morality, to strengthen the family, to uphold our nation, whatever the case, but a duty is that which we owe in responsible action to strengthen the society, the nation in which we live.

And I think that one of the problems or one of the greatest concern that I have today, is that many people are out claiming for rights that they don’t have an are crying for rights that they don’t have, and as they are crying for rights that they don’t have, they are not willing to fulfill their duty, and when you do that, all of society is broken down. We need to clarify and reverse that trend.

Sam Rohrer:     And Gary, I want to pick up on that because Webster’s 1829 dictionary. I really like to go there because that dictionary tends to take things to the really root of the meaning. They say about duty, that it’s a reverence. It’s obedience, and prayer to God, [inaudible 00:33:14] as our indispensable duties to God, reverence, obedience and prayer.” They want to say that government in religious instruction of children, are duties of parents, which they can not neglect without guilt.

And that goes back almost to the Rufus King part David New we’re talking about where he by governments act, put prayer in the public schools and did not separate God from education because they understood the definition of duty and responsibility, but I find if a person understands duty and responsibility according to definition here, they cannot ignore their duty or responsibility without guilt, and I find that interesting because we throw out God, when we throw out sin.

We throw out sin, we throw out wrong and we throw out God, then we throw out guilt, so it’s been pretty convenient David New hasn’t it as a nation to throw off God, throw off the Bible, throw off the concept of sin and with it anything that’s wrong? Because, with it we throw off guilt and without that understanding, we really can’t exercise duty or responsibility. What are your thoughts?

David New:       Absolutely. I mean, you want to get rid of God for another reason. By getting rid of God, it opens the flood gates for anything to be called a right, and that includes sodomy. Where does the right to sodomy come from? There is no such thing. Under American and English common law, sodomy, homosexuality was a crime. Now the Supreme Court has come along and said, that sodomy is a right under the constitution. Where does that come from? Nowhere. It comes out of thin air.

Sam Rohrer:     Well, that’s the same thing David as the right to-

David New:       But the truth is it takes God to get God out of government.

Sam Rohrer:     Well, that’s the same reason that gave us, the supreme court, the right to declare that the taking of unborn life in the womb is also correct. Same thing, right?

David New:       Yes sir.

Sam Rohrer:     So Gary I want you to close in prayer here for us here, but ladies and gentlemen, consider duty, responsibility, they’re duties to God, they’re duties to government, they’re duties to our people, but if we don’t understand who God is, we never really can effectuate or carry out our duties or responsibilities, all of which are critical if we’re going to maintain freedom.