Sam Rohrer:                  Today we’re going to continue our focus on the rise of socialism in America. 

                                    On Monday, on this program we highlighted the division in America that these two competing ideologies, socialism and one would say capitalism is happening. We see that taking place all around us. Because of that, we’re spending time on it this week to try and provide the basis of information to help all of you who are listening to this program to understand what’s taking place. 

                                    Now, yesterday on this program we talked about and we entitled the program, The Dethroning of God in America and the Rise of Socialism. And we focused on the four great thought leaders, Marx, Freud, Neche, and Hegel in conjunction with the Frankfurt School, who targeted specifically in America education and the media to purposely dethrone God, which is what Marx said he wanted to do, and to move our culture to a God-hating culture. Intentional by design, strategic.

                                    Now, today we’re going to conclude our focus by looking at the Constitutional and the legal considerations of socialism versus the U.S. Constitution. And that’s going to be our theme for today, socialism versus the U.S. Constitution.

                                    Now, taken together, these programs will provide perhaps, I believe, the most condensed and easy to understand analysis and the understanding of how and why socialism is on the rise in America, the dangers it poses and the antidotes that can be applied and must be applied immediately if freedom in America is to continue. 

                                    With that introduction and the roadmap for today, let me welcome you to Stand In the Gap Today. I’m Sam Rohrer and I’m going to be joined by the full team, Dave Kistler and Gary Dull. And our special recurring guest, Constitutional attorney, David New, as we examine socialism in light of the Constitution.

                                    David New, thanks for being with us and we’re glad that you’re on board today.

David New:                   It’s so nice to be with you.

Sam Rohrer:                  David, we’ve got a lot to talk about in this program and so I want to get right into it. According to many reports, David, millennial Americans say they prefer socialism to capitalism by margins of between 44 and 58%, that’s in the last couple of years. 

                                    The President said in the State of the Union address that we’ll never have socialism in America. Then the candidates from the left announced their socialist agenda for everything from guaranteed living wages for those who don’t want to work to healthcare to the full grain agenda. 

                                    Now yesterday, on this program, we identified the fact that the common denominator in the promoters of socialism is a rejection of God and absolute moral truth. According to a Fox News poll last night, a poll that they’re reporting saying that most Americans favor capitalism and not socialism. 

                                    All that to the point is that it begs the question here, as we talk about this, what is the definition of socialism from a legal and Constitutional perspective? We always like to define our terms.

                                    David, define the terms as you’re going to look at it here as we go into this issue of socialism versus the Constitution.

David New:                   Absolutely, I’d be delighted to. By the way, ladies and gentlemen, you may want to get your copy of the Constitution out and turn to Article 1, Section 10. That is a very, very important part of the Constitution. If you think that the First Amendment is important, and of course it is, it talks about the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech and the press, but what’s the wording in Article 1, Section 10 could be in the First Amendment just easily because that is a hallmark of freedom.

                                    Now the reason why we’re talking about socialism again is there’s an awful lot of discussion about it and people are calling things socialist that really aren’t socialist. And the way we’re going to make that definition correct or understand the difference is to give the definition of socialism.

                                    Some people say, like if you want to have a tax of 70 or 80% on people who make $10 million or $50 million, that’s socialism. No, it is not socialism. That’s a high tax rate. It may be stupid, it may be a smart thing to do, but it’s not socialism. 

                                    To get our definition, and I know of which I speak, because although I am an attorney, in my undergraduate degree, I have a B.A. in economics and a B.S. in accounting. I have six years of undergraduate study. And so, studying socialism is a big, big thing when you study economics. 

                                    And I’m reading from the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, get out your dictionary when you want to have the correct definition of socialism. Here it is, socialism is an economic system advocating government ownership of the means of production. Let me read that again, socialism is an economic system advocating government ownership of the means of production. The second level definition is, it’s a system in which there is no private property. There is no private property. Okay. 

                                    If somebody was to ask you, “Why does socialism fail?” It’s right in the definition, an economic system advocating government ownership of the means of production. The key words are ownership of the means of production. What does that mean? It means instead of GM and Ford and Chrysler and Lexus making cars, it means that the Department of Transportation would make all the cars in the United States. 

                                    The government owns the means of production. There are no corporations. There are no for-profit corporations. All of them are government entities. So the FAA would own United Airlines. The FAA would own Delta. There would be no private airlines. That is the correct definition of socialism. 

                                    A lot of the stuff that a lot of these new people that are in Congress are talking about, it may sound like socialism, but it really isn’t. What I’ve just told you is the correct definition. Now you could argue, you could argue that what they are advocating is leaning or going towards socialism, and that you could do sincerely and be correct. But technically it’s not socialism.

                                    Now, why do people, Sam Donaldson on CNN just the other day said Denmark and all these other countries, they’re all socialists. Sweden, socialist. You’ll see that by conservatives, you’ll see it by liberals, all of these people who say these Nordic states, Norway and all these outfits, they’re all socialist economies. Totally wrong. They are not socialist economies. 

                                    Why do people think they are socialist economies? The reason is because they have a much more generous safety net than the United States. 

Sam Rohrer:                  Our program day, basic focus today, socialism versus the U.S. Constitution. This is the second in a three part series that we’re doing on this most important issue. Now, to set up this segment, properly understood, socialism must be viewed as an entire worldview. We talked about it yesterday, it’s an atheistic worldview. 

                                    So to some degree, socialism is religious. Since of necessity socialism must dethrone God as supreme. How do I know that? Well that’s because that’s what Carl Marx, one of the four main thought leaders said and believed.

                                    It’s also economic and political as demonstrated by Marx and confirmed by Neche and Hitler and many others who came on board and the definition that David New gave was primarily economic and politically related. That’s what you will find if you just open up in a dictionary right now and find the definition of socialism.

                                    But it’s also an unrealistic utopia and goal, in that according to Marxist theory, as Marx himself said, socialism is a transitionary state, now get this, a transitionary state between the destruction of a capitalist view of economics to the socialist Keynesian view of economics. 

                                    In reality, socialism represents an entire worldview resulting from the complete rejection and replacement of a well articulated biblical worldview which has these four pillars which underpins our system of government up to this point. Meaning there is God, there was a creation and act of God, there was a fall where sin and death entered creation, precipitated by the devil. But there is redemption and restoration secured by Jesus Christ. 

                                    Those are the four pillars of a biblical worldview. They’re the exact opposite of socialism. In this segment, we’re going to highlight an example or two of nations exalted as models of socialism. And then connect to key provisions within the U.S. Constitution in the next segment [inaudible 00:10:06] to how it interrelates with the goals and the principles of socialism as a political and an economic philosophy.

                                    Hopefully you understood what I was just saying. Socialism is not some simple matter, it is a worldview that has dethroned God, that focuses on economics, yes, political system, yes, but also has as direct view of God in that he does not exist.

                                    We start there. Now, David, let me go back to you right now, ’cause you were saying that are some countries that are often held up as models of perfected socialism. Sweden I think is one and some others. Even Venezuela to our south. Let’s not go to Venezuela right now, let’s go to Sweden.

                                    Take a model, like Sweden or any of the Scandinavian countries that people will point to to say, “Here’s an example of perfected socialism and a good example of it.” Talk to us about it, do they represent socialism? And should we view them as a socialistic country or what are they if they’re not?

David New:                   They are socialism countries. They are social democrats. And a social democrat and a socialist are not the same being. Just recently, the Prime Minister of Denmark was at the Harvard Business School and he told the public, “Please don’t call our states socialism. We are not.” And why? Because there are corporations there. There are people that are making profit. There is private ownership of property in those countries, every one of them. 

                                    Just to let you know how incorrect it is, some of the safety net programs for the poor that they have in Sweden are administered, not by the government, but by private corporations for profit.

Sam Rohrer:                  Now, Dave, Gary’s going to jump in with a question, but I want to clarify something here because you described socialism as the government ownership of private property. Then that would be the historic definition. But, you’re pointing to the countries over there and we see those elements, they would more accurately be defined as fascism, right? I mean, from the standpoint of government actually controlling the means of production, which is really probably close to what Sweden would be, more of a fascist society more than a socialistic society?

David New:                   Yes, the difference between socialism and fascism is this, in socialism there is no private property. In fascism, there is private property. You own it, you own it, but the government tells you everything you will do with that private property. If you own the corporation, you own GM, but the Department of Transportation says you will make so many compacts, you will make so many SUVs. So that’s the difference.

                                    And in that sense, if you use that definition, which I recommend, even then they really don’t quite fit under it because they do have a market. That’s the key. They have a free and open market in all of those countries. And so, the reason why people keep calling them that is because they have a very generous safety net. We have social security and Medicare, okay? You go over there, there’s all kinds of free stuff the government gives. 

                                    And because they have a large safety net, people interpret that to mean socialism and it is not. It is just a large safety net. There’s a difference.

Gary Dull:                     Well, David, let’s go down to Venezuela. And Venezuela is in the news a lot these days and we take and see what’s happening down there with food shortages, we see a lot of anti-United States people raging against us. We see the full embracing of the atheistic support from Russia and China and Cuba, as well as Islamic support from Turkey, Iran, and Hezbollah, and so forth. 

                                    Can you comment on what’s taking place in Venezuela and whether or not what is happening there qualifies it as being a socialist nation. Is socialism taking place there? 

David New:                   Venezuela’s a bad example of socialism. A good example of socialism is the USSR, that’s a much purer one. The reason Venezuela is bad is because it is a socialist economy, but also there’s another reason, the United States put sanctions on Venezuela and that is crippling, we are crippling, and thankfully so, we are crippling that economy to bring that dictator down.

                                    So the socialists came in and they took over the gasoline industry, the oil industry, Citgo, and 49% of the state owned gas company, oil companies are owned by Russia. 

                                    Now, I think the next thing we want to go into is Article 1, Section 10. If you –

Sam Rohrer:                  Dave, if you could hold that.

David New:                   Sure.

Sam Rohrer:                  Hold that until the next segment, if we can. Dave, you got a question there that you can pose to David? 

Dave Kistler:                 Yes, I do, Sam. And David, I appreciate what you’re saying because you’re creating some very clear and easy to understand definitions of what socialism is, what it’s not, what fascism is, and this is very productive.

                                    I want to go to the Constitution though, because we believe and you are a Constitutional expert, we believe that the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, both are built solidly on a biblical worldview and they reflect that in the wording of both documents. 

                                    Can you go to a specific place in the United States Constitution and extract from it comments either in direct comments or in principle form that contradict socialism and its atheistic foundation?

David New:                   Absolutely. Go to the Bill of Rights, the Third Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. 

                                    In the Third Amendment in the Bill of Rights, it talks about the consent of the owner. The consent of the owner, uh-uh! There’s no such thing in the socialistic economy. There’s no private property. The state is the owner. 

                                    In the Fourth Amendment, it talks about the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Sorry, darling. You don’t own that house, the government owns that house. 

                                    You can go to the Fifth Amendment and look at the very last clause called the eminent domain clause. Look what it says, “No property shall be taken nor shall any private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” You see those naughty words there, private property? No, no, no, no, no. You’ve got to delete that from the Constitution before you can have a socialist economy in the United States, ’cause there is no private property. You don’t have to worry about eminent domain. Why? The government owns it. 

Sam Rohrer:                  Well, David, in addition to those things, you’ve just given a couple, but clearly under a socialist view, a Marx, Freud, Niche, Hegel view, all of whom dethrone God, deny the existence of God, would have real problems with the beginning of the Declaration of Independence with recognition of the Creator a judge anywhere within there. Right, David?

David New:                   Absolutely. I mean, the Declaration of Independence is the foundation for the United States Constitution. The Declaration is the dream and the Constitution is the answer to the dream. And it’s the fulfillment of the Declaration of Independence. 

                                    And the Declaration of Independence talks about government being accountable to God. The purpose of government is to enforce the rights that God gave the people. That’s what it’s for. Forget that under a socialist economy. It doesn’t happen.

Sam Rohrer:                  All right, ladies and gentlemen. I think if you just pick up those basic things right there, socialism, atheistic. What we would have here, a representative republic, it represents that under God. God is present in one, what we have had. God is absent under the concept of socialism. Private property, the rights that we have that the Declaration calls out, absent under socialism because God doesn’t exist. Therefore, he’s not a giver of rights. 

                                    You can see the distinctions as we’re walking through. They are polar opposites.

                                    Let’s go back now to the Constitution, the socialism versus the Constitution. Once understood, as we were talking about, that socialism is the logical result of a God rejecting atheistic worldview, and that it’s in direct competition to a biblical worldview that recognizes that God created all and that he is the bestower of unalienable rights such as life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which means private property rights as identified in the Preamble of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. 

                                    It should help us, as we think as American patriotic citizens and Christians, of how we should view and respond to the rise of this clamor for socialism in America. And since we know that the U.S. Constitution was based on biblical principles, it recognized God as Creator, as redeemer, as judge. It only makes sense that we can find within the Constitution guarantees that directly oppose the construct of socialism. 

                                    Now in this segment, we’re going to identify and discuss some of what the Constitution prohibits against the pure definition of socialism. With that I want to welcome back in now David New, Constitutional attorney. He’s an author, he’s a speaker, and a regular guest on this program.

                                    David, let’s go back now right into this matter, and we asked people to pull to their Constitution, Article 1, Section 10. Ready for your discussion here. 

                                    But, David, the effort to bypass or to undermine and destroy our Constitution has been underway for a long time. We know that. By many in elected office, as well as those in the culture who are just plain bent on destroying our nation as established.

                                    Take us now to the Constitution and identify the guarantees that prohibit or directly compete against the provisions of atheistic socialism.

David New:                   If you look at Article 1, Section 10, it limits the powers of what state governments can do. Now, this phrase is extremely important that we’re going to read. If somebody said, “Give me the top ten phrases within the seven articles of the U.S. Constitution that are the most important,” this next phrase would be in there in the top ten. Everything you do in your entire life is covered by these few words.

                                    It says, “No state shall … no law impairing the obligation of contracts.” The state governments cannot pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. You can put next to that capitalism. You can put next to that power to the people. You can put next to that voting. 

                                    Listen, when you walk up to a vendor and he offers you five apples for $1.00, you and that vendor have created a contract. A simple contract. You give him $1.00, he will give you five apples. You want to buy a house? You’ll sign a contract. When you want to go to get a job, you will sign a contract. 

                                    There’s nothing you do every day that can escape contracts. Everything you do and everything you have and own is a result of a contract. Even a will, when you inherit something, that is a form of a contract. 

                                    Now, listen, you see that word contracts, what is that? That’s freedom. That’s freedom. That’s even just as good as the First Amendment. Why? Because who makes the law? The citizen makes the law, not the government. If there are no contracts, the government decides everything. But because of contracts, where’s the power? The power is with me, myself, my individualism. And that makes me powerful. 

                                    When you and I sign an agreement to paint my house red, we have signed a contract. What is that? That is the law. The citizen is creating law. Every time you sign a contract, you are making law. So it’s not just Congress that makes laws, it’s not just the legislature that makes laws, you, the citizen, are making a law. And that means freedom.

Dave Kistler:                 David, let me jump in and ask you this very, very quickly because I want to ask an application question. This past week, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed what she’s calling the Green New Deal and it would call within ten years of doing away with airplanes, doing away with automobiles, doing away even ultimately with cows because of the methane gas that they emit from time to time. 

                                    And let’s try to keep a straight face here, but anyway, the bottom line is this, all of that is being done under the guise of helping the climate. Because of climate change, but what you just said, David, this opportunity to enter into contracts with other people, what she’s proposing is the polar opposite of that. 

David New:                   Oh, yeah.

Dave Kistler:                 It’s antithetical to contracts.

David New:                   [crosstalk 00:24:16].

Dave Kistler:                 So this has really nothing to do with climate, it has to do primarily with socialism. Correct?

David New:                   Well, and we’ve got to be careful, because I read her proposal, the one that’s on the House of Representatives that she has put together. And in there she does talk about unions. In there she talks about collective bargaining. She also talks about employers. She uses the word employers. And it talks about even eminent domain. And of course nobody would talk about that unless there’s such a thing as private property.

                                    She does not advocate the abolition of all private property. But by the time she gets through with it, you will think she had advocated the abolition of all private property.

Sam Rohrer:                  But David, David, David-

David New:                   [crosstalk 00:25:02] She has not done that.

Sam Rohrer:                  I’m going to jump in and say based upon what we are hearing from individuals like her, and the others, the fences that are put up. The fences in law, fences like contract law like you’re talking about or unchanging truth that allows for us to have justice and for law to be enforced with predictability, they appear not to have any concept of those things. Bound by anything, honesty or predictability or law of any type. 

                                    David, I’m thinking when I listen to people like that, they’re not trying to pursue something that is in any way pure as much as it is something that necessitates the tearing down and the destruction of what we have. I don’t think they know where they’re going to begin with, do you?

David New:                   There’s no question that she’s going to fundamentally alter the United States, if she has her way. And it’s very destructive. But basically what she’s doing is she’s even going further than Denmark and Sweden in creating a giant safety net. But technically, she does talk about employers, she does talk about ownership, she does talk about unions. You wouldn’t have unions if you didn’t have private ownership. 

                                    So she’s not taking that away, but there’s going to be so little left by the time she gets through that for all practical purposes I can understand why somebody would see it as socialistic.

Dave Kistler:                 David, let me ask you this, you may remember in 2007 when Congressman Michelle Bachmann from Minnesota came into Congress. She began doing something because she realized the gross ignorance on the part of people that are elected to Congress raise their hand and swear to uphold the Constitution, but most of them had never even read the Constitution. 

                                    So she began teaching classes on the U.S. Constitution, bringing in experts, not you specifically, but people like you, to teach those that are representing us. Those sworn with an obligation to uphold the Constitution, teaching them the Constitution. What hope does our country have a Constitutional republic if the people that are swearing to uphold the Constitution don’t even know it?

David New:                   It’s really bad and it’s even worse. 

                                    But getting back to this word contracts in Article 1, Section 10, what contracts do is that they create markets. And if you don’t have a market, then the government decides everything. But what a market does, it decides how many shoes are going to be made, how many jars of mustard are going to be made. 

                                    And the reason why socialist economies have a shortage of everything, the USSR, you had wait years and years to get a car, but the markets create the cars. And they do it on the basis of price. Every time you go into Safeway or any supermarket and you see the price on an item, you should think of that as freedom. Why? Because if that price was not there, somebody in government would decide how much you get of that product.

Sam Rohrer:                  David, very good and practical. Ladies and gentlemen, when we live in freedom as we have for a long time, we often don’t believe that these very simple things, going next door and agreeing with your neighbor that something will be done or going down and buying something from the store, you are utilizing a biblically based system, a contract and private property, that is not found in any atheistic form of government or thought. Major, major differences important to know.

                                    Since the provisions of the United States Constitution, the U.S. Declaration, frankly all of our organic documents of law which would take you back to the Mayflower Compact as well, all of them directly reflect what we talk about regularly on this program is a biblical worldview that starts with God, then goes to creation and then ultimately to Jesus Christ as redeemer. 

                                    Since the goals and the principles of atheistic socialism, which we’ve clearly identified from the standpoint, particularly on the program yesterday, since they directly undermine our documents, the Constitution, Declaration, Mayflower Compact and others, there is a mutually exclusive competition that’s in place. They are totally different. 

                                    In the end, I’m going to submit that one must prevail, the other must be subdued and rejected. It’s been that way since the beginning of time. The question is, what will be the result of this current time in which we are now standing? 

                                    As we said earlier, one of the definitions as interpreted by Marx, when you use the word socialism, he talked about it being not necessarily the end, but a transition time where capitalism is where you started and it’s destroyed and you end up with socialism, as David New has talked about, which really means government ownership of all things including private property. So there is no more private property, no more contracts, and those kinds of things involved in it.

                                    So, David, I want to go to you right here next and I want to conclude then with Gary. There is a biblical principle that comes to my mind when I think of this and it’s a question, can two walk together if they are not agreed? Now that’s talking about people and unions and how things work together, but I’m going to apply to these two competing systems, socialism and capitalism. They’re not the same, they compete. You’ve said that, we’ve said it. They can’t agree.

                                    In your opinion, what must be done to subdue the advances of atheistic socialism and to enlarge the biblical principle foundation of our Constitutional republic? Because these two are going at each other loggerhead right now. So, David, what’s the solution here?

David New:                   Well, the solution is to educate people about the Constitution because when you see that word contract, contracts create markets and markets decide how many products of various things will be made. And the market will do it on the basis of price. And the price is determined by profit. That’s the fourth ingredient. 

                                    Profits, if the profits are large, the price will go up and the market will say, “I need to make more of this.” If the profits are small, the price will be small and the market will tell the producer to make less of it. Contract, markets, price, profit, that is the invisible hand of Adam Smith.

                                    The main thing we’ve got to do is educate the public about the Constitution and most importantly, we need, as the church, as the body of Christ, to let people know where true freedom is. It’s not in government.

Sam Rohrer:                  All right, David. And that sets it up very perfectly for going to Gary. 

                                    And ladies and gentlemen, when David says education, knowledge, can I take you to what the book of Proverbs says? The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge, the pursuit of knowledge, which is truth. So if you’re going to know the truth, it has to start with the fear of God. The less fear of God, less knowledge. More fear of God, more knowledge. 

                                    And that’s what this program is really intended to do, to help provide knowledge of what’s going on around us, starting with the fear of God, a biblical worldview, and how we look at these things. That’s how it’s all connected and I just wanted to connect some of those dots. 

                                    So if you’re listening right now, to say, “Why do you things like you do on Stand In the Gap Today? That’s why, it’s the linking of these things.

                                    So Gary, I do want to go to you now. And David said, it’s got to be ultimately coming from the pulpit. This is my question for you, as you answer it here, should the pulpits of America be addressing the underpinning of the escalating conflict between socialism and our representative republic we’ve been talking about today? To what extent do these things, should these basic principles be covered from the pulpits of America?

Gary Dull:                     Well, yes, Sam, I believe that they should. And let me just go back a little bit in history. I believe absolutely that one of the reasons why we have the nation that we have today and the Constitution that we have today is because of the preaching in the pulpit back in the days of our founders in early years. I think both the Declaration of Independence, as well as the Constitution itself stems from the pulpits preaching the word of God from pastors who understood biblical truth.

                                    Bring us up to where we are today. Yes, the pulpits of America are very important at this juncture. And I say that because from the perspective that socialism is a religion, it’s a false religion, it’s a religion that denies God, it’s a religion that rejects absolute truth. It’s a religion that does not agree with the Bible or the Constitution, and thus it’s over the pulpits that this false religion must be identified and revealed and rejected. 

                                    And so the pulpit can do a lot as I see it to preach the truth that will reject socialism and bring us back to understanding what this country is all about. A lot of what we talk about on this radio program goes back to the strength of the preaching in the pulpit in addressing the issues of the day. And so I challenge pastors all across the nation to recognize what socialism really is and deal with it from the pages of scripture. That’s the only thing that’s going to get us back on the right track in America and that’s what we need today greatly.

Sam Rohrer:                  Gary, I think that’s a great, great summary. And again, ladies and gentlemen, as you’re listening here, you hear Gary saying the pulpit should cover these things. Can I just share with you one thing? When I was in the Pennsylvania legislature and I spent 18 years there, we were dealing with matters of law. That affects us all, right? Aren’t we concerned about those who are in office? We’re talking about those who are in office now wanting to talk about socialism, all right? 

                                    How do you address those things? How do those people in office know what to think? Why do they vote the way they do on matters of taxation or marriage or family or education? Ever wonder that? And why some vote right and some don’t vote right according to how we think?

                                    Well, it’s what they think about God. And I will tell you that when I was in office, some of the most helpful material that I saw and that I got a hold of to help me on certain matters, you could put gambling in there, you could talk about recreational use of marijuana, you could talk about a whole host of things that are happening across the country. 

                                    Do you know where I found the most helpful information? Old sermons. Old sermons preached by founding father type pastors from the pulpit, who outlined biblical truth, even preaching some of those sermons in front of General Assemblies in the various colonies of the early days. That’s how the guys in office understood how they ought to pass law and what things were right and what things were not right, they got it from the pulpit.

                                    So ladies and gentlemen, if your pastor never talks about the issues underlining these kinds of things, socialism or private property or taxes or the kind of things that affect us all, ask them to take and put together a sermon on what the Bible says about these things. It would be very, very good.

                                    And pastors, if you’re there, do it. Your people are hungry for the truth, we want to be a part of helping to do that.