This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program originally airing on Jan. 13, 2022. To listen to the program, please click HERE.
Sam Rohrer: Well, hello and welcome to Stand in the Gap today, and this is our first constitution update of 2022. I’m Sam Rohrer. I’m going to be joined in just a moment by Gary Dull, and after that, by constitutional attorney, author and speaker, David New. Now, when it comes to constitutional and freedom issues, we are awaiting some very, very key results, some clarification by the Supreme Court of the United States on several key issues. One of those we mentioned yesterday and we’re all watching for, and that deals with the matter of mandated COVID shots as a condition of employment or travel, and the underlying institutional considerations, such as this, how can the executive branch make law and do what only Congress has the authority to do? Or another consideration tied up in this is can individual constitutional rights guaranteed by federal and state constitutions be nullified by an unelected bureaucrat and staff person?
Now, there are a whole lot more hinges on it, but those are questions that are key. Of course, we await the same time some direction from Supreme Court as well regarding the 1973 decision legalizing the murder of our unborn children, but there are other key issues as well that go to the heart of law and the Constitution. Historical fact and moral truth much is at stake, and thus far, the history of the court on some very key issues has not been overly promising so it does warrant our attention and certainly our prayer. Now, for today’s program, we’re going to focus on the origination of the United States. You say, “Well, don’t we know all that?” Well, we do, but at the same time, when did we actually begin and for what reason? I bring it up in the context of this because the issue of some, they say it was 1619. Most of us would say 1776 or possibly another date, so it does make a difference.
My title is this, The United States’ Founding: 1776 or 1619. The facts that we’ll share will come from an historical perspective, and that’s something that David New does very, very well. We’re going to focus on that as kind of behind this theme here today. I think the information we share will be informative. And then in segment four, we’re going to kind of conclude some thoughts relative to the importance of beginnings and origins, and then we’ll tie into all of that. But with this, let me welcome to the program here for the first time of 2022, David New. David, thanks for being with us again.
David New: Well, blessings to you and Happy New Year to all of our audience. Blessing to you too.
Sam Rohrer: Well, thank you so much. David, let me get into this, before we get into the 1619 issue, I want to bring up something else for some comment and the only way to do that, I think, to do justice to it, I’m just going to read a little bit of an article. This just came up yesterday and it’s regarding a new effort initiated in Washington, D.C. within what is referred to as the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia or shorten as PSA. Now, ladies and gentlemen, you may not even heard of this, but it’s important. I want to put it on the table here, get some commentary from David, because this agency, while it was formed and actually brought into existence about 50 years ago, according to CBN News, based on an article from the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal, a potential move by the Biden administration would create great potential harm.
Now, let me read just a bit from this article. And then, David, listen to it and I want you to comment if you don’t mind. It says this, “In a move that could be likened to George Orwell’s novel 1984, a small obscure federal agency issued a public notice Tuesday, two days ago, about a new policy that could mean that the United States government is preparing to assemble a database containing the names of Americans who claim a religious objection to taking the COVID-19 vaccine.” Going on the article is saying, “The federal agency responsible for gathering information about newly arrested defendants and preparing the recommendations considered by the court in deciding release options.” It said that the agency announced the creation of a new records system that will store the names and, get this, personal religious information of all employees who make religious accommodation requests for religious exception from the federally mandated vaccination requirement.
Now, going on, “The notice published in the Federal Register says the agency will create the employee religious exemption request information system.” The notice reads, “The system of records maintains personal religious information collected in response to religious accommodation requests for religious exemption from the federally mandated vaccination requirement in the context of a public health emergency or similar health and safety incident, such as a pandemic, epidemic, natural disaster, regional emergency, and so forth.” And it goes on. I’m going to just stop right there just for the sake of it, but all of this is going to be engaged in and housed within this official aspects of this agency. End quote. That’s basically that article. So, David, I’m not sure that you’ve been able to review the substance of this matter or read the Federal Register. I read through it this morning a little bit. But however, in a general sense, do you have a constitutional or even practical concern with the federal government collecting names and reasons, such as what this portends, what potentially could go wrong or rights violator? Just expand upon this from your perspective, please.
David New: There’s a concept within constitutional law called chilling effect, chilling effect, where the government is doing something that has a chilling effect on people to exercise their legal rights. The government is doing something that will discourage, intimidate, or inhibit people from doing that which they have already a right under the Constitution to do. So, this data collection could easily legally be attacked in court as having a chilling effect upon the free exercise of religion in the First Amendment. Because by merely collecting the data, which it’s not clear of why they need this information, what is the compelling state interest in collecting this information, but just the mere fact of being collected and identifying people who ask for a religious exemption, which is available under the law, that has a tendency to discourage the freedom of religion. It has a tendency to discourage the free exercise of religion.
Sam Rohrer: Well, David, you put it out. Ladies and gentlemen, you’ve heard it. You’ve heard it before a chilling effect. That’s a matter of law. That’s a consideration there. That’s a big deal. Be aware. This just came out a couple of days ago. The implications of it, the applications of it, not fully known, but sufficient for CBN and Daily Signal and Heritage Foundation to bring it forward for attention. We bring it out and laid on the table and saying there are big issues before the court, before a matter of law and justice, constitutional underpinning. We need to be aware. Stay with us. We’ll come back.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Sam Rohrer: Well, today is a constitutional update. Like we’ve been doing the last couple of weeks, there are certain themes that we are covering on a regular basis on this program. This is one of them, constitutional update. We deal with matters of current law. We’ve talked about some of the decisions coming before the Supreme Court, which may even happen during this program. If it does, then we’ll mention them perhaps, but that and other historical matters we cover in this emphasis. Today is one of them. Our theme is this, The United States’ Founding: 1776 or 1619. Now, here’s where we’re going to go. This deals with the beginning. The beginning or the origination of anything, a movement, an ideology, a family, a nation has great significance. How the world began, for instance, whether God in creation or no God in happenchance evolution makes all the difference in understanding the matter of social interchange, the nature of man, sin and death, heaven, and hell.
The beginning of a nation is closely paralleled. For instance, Hitler’s Germany, for instance, is totally different than the pre-Hitler Germany. The genesis of the United States is also critically important and the effort to rewrite history and hijack why, when, and how this nation began is now the object of revision and manipulation. For instance, on August 18, 2019, a few years ago now, the New York Times published a series of articles by various authors under the title, The 1619 Project. Now, we’ve talked some about this theme, but we’re going to go a little different direction today on it. The articles then made what many consider to be an outrageous claim that America was founded not in 1776, but in fact, it actually was founded in 1619, and connected to this with the introduction they say of 20 to 30 slaves at Point Comfort, Virginia.
Okay. David, putting on your historian hat here now, the facts about our founding, our true history of those who actually founded our nation, when and why is critical. I’ve tried to lay the foundation for that here, but can you share a bit about the origination of what is referred to as The 1619 Project and the original article that appeared in the New York Times in August 18, 2019, and actually got this thing going?
David New: Well, the brainchild for the project appears to be an individual by the name of Nikole Hannah-Jones and she believes that the founding of America should be dated 1619 with the introduction of slavery in the North American continent. She’s not denying that 1776 was the beginning, but she thinks that the 1619 date is just as important, or if not, as important as the 1776 date. Now, there’s some real problems with that view. For one thing, it’s obviously not historically accurate.
I am sad to say slaves were introduced in Virginia in 1619, and that was a horrible event to say the very least. It was sin. It was ungodly. It’s man-stealing, which is condemned by the New Testament in one of the Timothy books, but it is not the founding of America. For one thing, 1619 was British North America. You can’t really say the word America until you come to 1776, because that’s when the Americans broke from the British. So, 1619, the British government was in control of Virginia. They were founded in 1607 under a charter by the British government. Why she doesn’t pick 1607 and 1619? I don’t know. It doesn’t make sense.
Gary Dull: Well, thank you, David. Again, it’s a delight to have you with us. Let’s continue to think a little bit about Nikole Hannah-Jones, as you have brought her name into the discussion here. Is she credible? What really is her background? What is motivating her to push this 1619 Project? Who is she associated with? Give us some understanding of Nikole Hannah-Jones, if you know anything that you can share.
David New: Well, she worked at the New York Times. I think she has moved on to Howard University, I believe. I listened to her being interviewed on Meet the Press. I saw her interviewed on a show called After Word for a couple of hours. My impressions of her as a person are very favorable. She’s a very polite person, very nice person. I don’t think she hates white people. I don’t think she hates America. So, I didn’t see any malice in her spirit. Obviously, I don’t think as a historian, she is very credible, and she is also not a healer of the racial divide in America. I think she’s more of a divider than anything else. I don’t know if you remember the Alex Haley novel that was put to TV called Roots. He helped bring a healing to the racial divide. He taught Americans many, many things about slavery in his novel and TV series that we would not have known and he did a lot of good. She is not that. She is not an Alex Haley.
Sam Rohrer: Okay. David, well, that makes a good point. I think we’ll bring out more of this. You’ll bring it out about the why and the where for. I want to go there just a little bit more at this point, because I want your comment on this. It seems to me that underlying or woven within the entire 1619 narrative of the U.S. founding is, you say, a black-white mentality. You said that she leads to division, but I have known even within that, perhaps even a thread of economic philosophy as well. Have you noted that?
David New: Absolutely correct. A major motivation for The 1619 Project, in my opinion, when you read these papers, these articles that the New York Times has published… By the way, ladies and gentlemen, if you want to download on the internet for free The 1619 Project that was published in the New York Times, you can do so at your leisure and take a look at the things that’s written. A major source of information in this project is capitalism and why capitalism is not particularly good. So I think they have more than one target and it’s even possible that they’re using the race card as a cover for their real target, which may be capitalism. It’s discussed quite a bit. They have lots of interesting information about the slavery business.
It is true what they said that the slavery business and pre-Civil War America economically was worth more than in the South than all the industrial banking and railroad and manufacturing industry in the North. Most of the millionaires in America in the South were slave holders. Only about one in 20 Northerners owned a slave, and very few, it was most for… And out of that group, most of them only owned one or two. But nevertheless, slavery was a big piece of the U.S. economy. There is no question about it, and that might be the real target of The 1619 Project.
Sam Rohrer: Well, David, that brings up a question because we know, all of us listening, that woven through modern curriculum, revised curriculum in the schools and we see it just through our colleges and all is a very heavy Marxist thread, which obviously we know it has a spiritual undertone because it’s an anti-Christ, anti-God worldview, but there’s a Marxist thread that goes under and they go right to the heart of the economic aspect of what you’re talking about. Have you been able to identify any, let’s put this way, direct Marxist connections, either in ideology or relationship by any of those that you’ve looked at that involved in the 1619 narrative?
David New: I have seen with her, which I think totaled about three hours or two and a half to three hours, I didn’t hear her say anything about Marxism. It’s not like critical race theory, where part of the original founders are identified publicly as Marxist, but there’s no question that this is not a happy group in terms of capitalism. These people are not particularly enthralled with it and they don’t understand… They don’t see the virtues of capitalism. It was abusive without question, but that’s not the essence and problem of capitalism. That’s human beings making money out of something that’s bad, but capitalism itself is good. It has brought more people out of poverty in the last 20 or 30 years than in the history of the world. The standard of living in the world is improving wherever capitalism goes.
Sam Rohrer: Ladies and gentlemen, hopefully you heard that because isn’t it interesting, David and Gary, as we’re talking here that you brought in the economic philosophy and all the discussion here that in these days, we’re witnessing right now this move towards globalism, consolidation of government, government ownership in the hands of a few big guys at the top? It goes right at the heart, strikes at the heart of free enterprise and capitalism.
So, ladies and gentlemen, there’s the impacts for these things that we’re talking about, 1619 Project. There’s more than meets the eye is the bottom line, and it does go back fundamentally to worldview. On this program, we talk about biblical worldview, Judeo-Christian worldview because it is so… Well, it stands in such sharp contrast to those things, which oppose it, tyranny, consolidation, centralized gov, all of those things. So, when we come back, we’re going to bring in some historical facts now that should have been considered when The 1619 Project was laid out, but it didn’t. I think you’ll find these quite fascinating and interesting. Stay with us. We will be right back in just a moment.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Sam Rohrer: Well, we’re talking today on our constitutional update with constitutional attorney, author and historian, I’ve asked him to put on historian hat today, David New, as we look at an issue that deals with the founding of the United States. Beginnings are important. Most would say, “Well, it’s 1776,” but there are others, as we’re talking about, who are saying, “Well, no, no, no, no. It really was 1619.” Well, all right, we’re going to look at that because there are some historical facts that just need to be put on the table and we’re going to do that as we get into this segment. One of the inescapable realities of history is that ultimately the truth will come out despite the efforts of many people to shape and interpret and manipulate that history for their own advantage.
In our current age, when information can be shaped so quickly due to technology and digitized communications and when you combine that with responsible journalism and the press being hijacked and compromised, it is possible to launch a thought and make the unreal appear real and position a lie as the truth. Then when truth as the disciplining standard is thrown out, which it has in our society, the conditions are ripe, indeed, to appear to alter the reality of history. And that is the attempt, I’m going to suggest, of The 1619 Project. Yeah, there are historical facts, as I mentioned, which do not change. So, David, before we get into identifying two facts and don’t bring them up yet, but I just want to get an overall perspective from you. In the compelling issue, when you look at the overall aspect of The 1619 Project, we looked at details already, how would you describe this effort in broader terms? What’s actually at play by an effort to all things to try and redefine what we generally have viewed to be the founding of the United States? What’s really behind that?
David New: Well, the key sentence to read or to know about Nikole Hannah-Jones and her belief that 1619 is the true founding of America, the key sentence can be found on page 18 and I’ll read it to you. She said, “Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” Wow. That’s end of quote. Wow. That’s quite a statement because that’s something I’ve never heard of before and now I’m expecting to read something from this individual to back it up. The very next sentence goes like this, “By 1776, Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution that had reshaped the Western hemisphere.”
All right. So I’m waiting for something to be told to me that I must have missed when I went to school, that I must have missed in my academic studies about the history of this country. What does she offer? And I was shocked, she offers nothing. She doesn’t offer a single historical fact from anyone at the time to back that statement up, absolutely nothing. She does not offer any way to show that the British were trying to end slavery in the Americas in 1691, much less 1776. The British did not end slavery until 1833. That’s 57 years after 1776.
By the way, Britain did not have slavery on the island itself. It was in her colonies that she had slavery to work the land. There were about 26 colonies in British North America. 13 of them revolted in 1775 and 1776. Nowhere do we find anything by the British government saying, “You’ve got to get rid of your slaves.” Nowhere, not even close. Nowhere do we find documents by the framers of the constitution or rather the people who were leading the Continental Congress saying, “You’re trying to take away our slaves,” nowhere, nothing, and she offers nothing. This makes no sense for her to come out with a naked statement like that and then offer absolutely nothing to back it up.
Gary Dull: Okay. David, let me just jump in there for a moment because I think what you’re talking about is extremely concerning in the fact that she makes a statement, she offers no support, and yet we see that this 1619 Project versus the 1776 Project is making some headway, particularly in the more liberal aspects of our society. What does that tell you about our people, our educators, and generally speaking, citizens of the United States of America, if we will follow the statement of an individual and there’s no basis for that statement?
David New: Well, this is it. This shows how poorly educated the average American has become concerning American history, that this type of thing can happen and be accepted and be so controversial when she doesn’t offer anything to back it up. It even gets worse. Here’s what she doesn’t say. The same thing that was going on in Britain against slavery, what she said is true. Britain was moving against slavery, but it takes 57 years for it to happen. But what she forgot to say is that the same thing was happening in America. Now, if you want to have a revolution to reserve slavery, what you don’t want to do is start getting rid of it. Look what she did. This is what she forgot. The very state where the American Revolution began was the first state to abolish slavery, and that was Massachusetts.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me repeat that again. The very state where the American Revolution began was the first state to abolish slavery, which was Massachusetts. That revolution in Massachusetts begins in Lexington and Concord in 1775. Now, this is what happens. In five short years later, in 1780, John Adams writes the first and only constitution Massachusetts has ever, ever had, and it’s the oldest constitution enforced. It’s not the U.S. Constitution. It’s the Massachusetts Constitution written by John Adams. The U.S. Constitution is the oldest constitution enforced for a national government. Now, here’s what happens, when you read the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, it does not allow or make any provision of any kind for the slavery, none whatsoever. In 1783, three years after that constitution was written, the Massachusetts judicial courts ruled slavery is unconstitutional in Massachusetts, end of statement.
Slavery ends in 1783. You could also put 1780, and the name of the case is the Quock Case. This guy walked in court. He was a slave. He said, “Read your own Constitution, Your Honor. It doesn’t make any room and has no way to allow slavery in this state by the constitution John Adams wrote.” And the judge said, “You’re right. Slavery is unconstitutional.” And guess what they did? They abolished slavery in 1783, for sure. Black men were made citizens of the state of Massachusetts, citizens. Black men were given the right to vote just like white men in 1783 in Massachusetts. So here she is saying we started this revolution to get rid of slavery or to protect slavery, and the very state where it starts, the first thing they do is get rid of it. I don’t know about you, but there’s a little problem here.
Sam Rohrer: Well, David, I would say, yeah, you’re being kind, a little problem. That’s a very big problem. But as Gary asked the question how we can get into that, give it just a challenge to our listeners from the standpoint of why it’s important when we hear a statement to not just take what is there, but to analyze it and to check it out. All of us, as citizens, have a duty to do that, don’t we?
David New: What is desperately needed in the public schools is there needs to be what they call civics, where they teach the Constitution in social studies, where they teach what it says. They teach the Bill of Rights. They teach these things add in their historical context. She thinks that the American Revolution was designed to protect the institution of slavery. It’s the exact opposite. That was the beginning of the end of slavery in America. It began in the American Revolution when the Americans were free to do what they wanted to do concerning slavery and they started to get rid of it. American slave holders in 1776 saw the hypocrisy the moment they looked in the mirror. Here, they’re fighting for liberty and freedom against the lobster backs. And what are they doing? They’re enslaving black people. The American Revolution was the beginning of the end of slavery in America, not its protection.
Sam Rohrer: Ladies and gentlemen, again, the application, worldview makes a big difference. A biblical worldview makes all the difference, and that’s what we’re talking about. The beginning of the end of slavery in this country was all about those who held to a biblical worldview of life and living, of God as creator, men equal in His sight, makes all the difference. So truth is important. That’s why we say pursue the truth, embrace it, and then you can stand upon it. When we come back, we’re going to talk about the broader aspect of beginnings and origins.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Sam Rohrer: As we discussed many times on this program, and I actually referred to it in the last segment, and that’s worldview. When it comes to worldview, which everyone has one, how one approaches the concept of beginnings and originations, which is a little bit of the theme we’re talking about today. When did the United States, when was it founded, its beginning? It makes a difference. The distinction between a Judeo-Christian world, worldview, for instance, and all other worldviews actually hinges on where did we become? Where did we start from? And that’s why the Bible is and Genesis 1 is so very pivotal. For instance, if not in the beginning God, then what was in the beginning? If God then other things naturally follow, and we find them in the Word of God, but if there is no God, then anything goes. So, beginnings are important.
Now, Gary, let me just come and ask you here. I don’t know if you’ve ever done this, but I’d like you to give a short biblical apologetic, more or less, on the concept of beginnings. I’ve kind of discussed this a little bit here, but why should we be concerned that we get it right when it comes to beginnings generally and certainly when it comes to the beginning of our nation? Can you flesh that out a little bit for us?
Gary Dull: Well, Sam, I think that’s a very, very good question and something that every one of us I think would do well to dig into it in even to a greater degree. But the beginning of any organization, whether it’s the nation or college or whatever the case, lays the foundation for why that organization exists. As a matter of fact, the beginning of an organization usually establishes the purpose, the mission, the core values of that organization or nation, and then offers the basis for the growth and development. When we look at our nation, we find that it was founded on biblical purposes. It was founded on the concept of absolute truth. It was founded on the concept of biblical concepts from the Judeo-Christian ethic that has allowed this nation to develop to the degree that it has.
Now, here’s the point, if the principles of an organization or nation, whatever the case, are not properly laid out at the beginning, then the growth and the development of that organization will never be as effective as it should be, and as a matter of fact may lead to the demise of that organization or nation. In other words, original intent is very important to know and to understand as to why that organization was founded. I firmly believe, Sam, that one of the reasons why our nation has grown to be the nation that it is and why it has been so effective down through the years is simply because of the fact that for generations, the original intent of our nation was not only known and understood, but taught from generation to generation. We are in a situation right now, though, that’s very, very concerning because we have people who want to try to redirect what our nation stands for, what the beginnings of our country really were.
And so, it’s up to those of us, I believe, who are alive today to teach to our children and our grandchildren the original intent of our nation, so that they might be able to carry that on to the generations that will follow them. You mentioned just a moment ago the concept of in the beginning God. That’s how the Bible begins. Once the Bible began with the concept that in the beginning, God was there and God created it, then the rest of the Bible was built out upon that particular premise, and those of us who believe the biblical worldview maintain that premise. Our nation was founded on biblical truth and it’s up to us to continue to proclaim that it was founded on freedom. It’s up to us to continue to teach that so that the generations to come don’t vary from it. It’s a crucial issue that we are facing today.
Sam Rohrer: Gary, what you’re talking about is very much a foundation. Ladies and gentlemen, if the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do? That’s what the scripture says and what are we talking about. You cut at the foundation, the beginning, well, then the walls, the structure, the roof, it all begins to crumble, doesn’t it? David, give you some final words here. In our nation, there is 1619, we’re talking about that, but there’s also 1620. That’s Plymouth Rock, the Pilgrim, and they called out to God right at the beginning in that document. But there’s also Declaration of Independence, 1776, but there are other key dates as well, distinguishing dates that help to define who we are as a nation, even different from, perhaps, those original things we’re talking about. Any other key dates that you might offer there? From a historical perspective, what difference does all this make anyways?
David New: September 17, 1787 is a good date. That’s when the Constitution was written. December 15, 1791 is a good date. That’s the date the Bill of Rights were added to the U.S. Constitution. May 20, 1940 is a very bad date. That’s when the U.S. Supreme Court issued Cantwell versus Connecticut. That’s when the First Amendment now comes into play to remove God from the school. It doesn’t happen until much later, but that’s the foundation to remove the Ten Commandments.
June 25, 1962, that’s a bad date. That’s the beginning of the culture wars in America and the Engel versus Vitale decision, where the U.S. Supreme Court removed prayer from the public schools. That begins the business of taking God out of the culture of America. Before June 25, 1962, the existence of God was the center of gravity for America. After that date, it begins to change. This is when homosexuality, sodomy starts to come into play. This is when transgenderism comes into play. That’s when all this nonsense about how many sexes there are. You’ve got to get God out of the public schools before you can get sodomy in, and that’s what happens starting on that date, June 25, 1962.
Sam Rohrer: Well, David, you just did a great job of just highlighting the fact that how we began, ladies and gentlemen, is critical. Gary laid that out. Where you began is critical. That’s your foundation for who you are, why you are, your purpose, your vision, your goals are all established there, but then there are evidences along the way because you have to maintain. You have to continue to reassure and confirm those things that were laid out the beginning. But if you can cut that foundation from the beginning and cut the legs out from underneath of it, you have no foundation. You can just take and do what you want and that’s what’s happening today. So when we say on this program, the necessity for America today is a return to God, a return to God is where we are and that’s what we’re talking about. That is why it makes a difference.
Gary, can I ask you to take and close the program in prayer today, as we wind this up here on this Thursday and this emphasis on our constitutional historical update?
Gary Dull: Yes, Sam. Thank you. Father in heaven, as we come to you today, we do thank you for the opportunity that we have to present these programs. I pray, Father, that you will take this particular program and use it to challenge our listeners to always search for absolute truth, whether it has to do with our nation or something that relates to Christianity. Because when we understand absolute truth, then we are able to build our lives upon the foundation that’s steadfast and sure. Lord, we know that there are many people right now who want to change the direction of our country. I pray that you’ll use those of us who love this country to bring it back to the original intent of our founders that we might build upon what they’ve laid and make this nation stronger in the years to come by your grace. In Jesus name. Amen.
Sam Rohrer: Amen. Amen. Thank you, Gary. Thank you, David New, for being with us today. Fantastic. We look forward to having you back with us two weeks from today. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being with us. Take listen to this program again, a lot of information here. Standinthegapradio.com, your place to go for all of our archives on radio and TV, this program and everything that is done. Share it with a friend. Let them know that you can find truth right here on Stand in the Gap today.
Recent Comments