This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program originally aired on June 2, 2022.  To listen to the program, please click HERE.

Sam Rohrer:                      Well, yesterday on this program, I mentioned that if possible, we would give an update on our American Pastors Network Ukraine Initiative, and specifically our 10-men project, which, as you’ve been listening to the program, we started concept with saying, “Take 10 men for 10 days, each taking $10,000 with them in cash, that’s what you are allowed to take by law, and go to Ukraine for the purpose of providing assistance to the people there in their time of need, which is great, but uniquely working in and through the churches and the pastors in Ukraine with whom we’ve been associated there, really, since 2014.”

Well, in just a moment, I’m going to talk with Pastor Alex Cherny from Ukraine. And again, if you’ve been listening, you know that we’ve interviewed him here, and on Stand in the Gap TV program, and he is now the director of our Ukraine initiative. He’s going to give us the latest update on the progress of the 10-men project. I’m going to ask him to identify some of the greatest blessings that we have seen in this effort, identify some of the greatest needs that we are experiencing. And then, we’ll conclude with what you can do to best pray and participate.

So, we want to do that here. We’ll do that here in just a second. In segments two to four, Gary and I are then are going to talk with constitutional attorney David New, as we specifically look at further aspects of the leak from the US Supreme Court, if you recall, there in regard to the potential decision on Roe versus Wade, the 1973 ruling, that made abortion legal. Now, I’m going to put in there, my words, legal, but not moral and not lawful. Those are my words. They made it legal, but it didn’t change those other factors.

Now, David’s going to identify some key statements in the leak documents that may not have been things that you’ve heard about before. In segment three, we’re going to talk about the actual underlying legal framework of that ’73 ruling.

And then, at segment four, we’re going to consider what the impacts of a court ruling reversing Roe versus Wade might actually look like in real life. So, with that, I’m going to welcome you to the program and we’re going to get right into it. Alex is sitting here right beside me in the studio today. Alex, thanks for being here again.

Alex Cherny:                      Hi, Sam. Pleasure being with you here.

Sam Rohrer:                      Alex, first of all, as best you can, not an in-depth thing, we’re hearing all kinds of things in the news about the war itself. There may be some things you can’t even share, but just in a general sense, what’s the status? I’m going to say it’s a war, because it is a war, not just a conflict, the Russia-Ukraine situation there, but Ukraine have been extraordinarily bold, done far better than anybody had ever thought.

First of all, just a quick status. How goes the conflict?

Alex Cherny:                      Well, Sam, first of all, the conflict is not going to go away anytime soon, and that’s the worst thing about it. The war has deepened. The fightings are still there. We’re still losing lives. I want to be very specific, we’re losing about a few hundred people a day, so are the Russians.

This whole war machine takes lives every single day. It causes the destruction, it causes mislocating people around the country, and that brings us to a dilemma, what are we going to do? Are we going to grow tired of what has been going on and just stop fighting, or we’re going to continue to fight our battles, which Ukraine has been doing bravely.

And we still do, but we are overpowered with weaponry, heavy weaponry, which we badly need in this particular moment. And we hope our partners in the west are going to have enough boldness to act upon what they promised.

Gary Dull:                           You know, Alex, many of us are truly in prayer for you and for those in Ukraine and our hearts go out to what’s taking place over there and we will continue to pray for you. We promise you that. But one of the good things, I guess, you could say is that the American Pastors Network has put together what we’re calling the 10-men project.

And I’m just wondering if you might be able to share with our listeners today some of the blessings that have resulted because of that to 10-men project, as well as what are those men doing? What have they been doing exactly? What does it look like in their ministry on the ground there in Ukraine?

Alex Cherny:                      Well, Gary, it’s interesting because God requires man to change the world. And 10-men initiative includes this human element. And as we go into the country and as we go into the time of need, what we see right now, what we see right now is when people who are coming over are getting engaged with providing food, providing medical supply, we are seeing a beautiful thing that God is doing every single day. It’s from the human heart that inspired by God, from above, it’s a divine inspiration, to a human heart that is in need out there.

A blessing, if you’re asking of blessing, that was one particular episode that really touched my heart. We’ve been contacted by a family that was residing in the territory that was temporarily seized by Russia, and they were begging and an appealing, help us, evacuate us. So how do you assist? How do you try to help when you have to reach out to a location that is completely shut down? I mean, there’s no way you can get in. And it really got me wondering what the Lord is going to do.

But without a context, empowering pastors, we were able to send enough resources, by a miracle, we got those people out and they are now on their way to Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine. Once again, we save those lives out of the territory under control of Russia, and that brought joy to my heart.

Sam Rohrer:                      Alex, and of course, you’re talking about delivering food, you’re talking about medical assistance, you’re talking about evacuation, all of those things are some of what the 10-men team are doing. We’re just about out of time here, but just very quickly, identify one great need, and then, go right into how our listeners can best pray and partner in this effort.

Alex Cherny:                      The biggest need is, please, continue to stand along with us. That’s what we need. We need a constant support of prayer and funding. And one of the greatest needs right now, we discovered that we can buy medical supplies locally in Ukraine, which is three times, at least, cheaper than buying it, let’s say, in America.

So what we are willing to see breakthrough is that we would empower power those people in the key places that they go into the local warehouses, buying medical supplies and we’re sending them to the hospitals. Hospitals are contacting us every day with their list of supplies needed from the different regions of Ukraine, and that’s the biggest need now.

Sam Rohrer:                      Okay. And ladies and gentlemen, so you heard that a lot going on, a lot happening. The need becomes greater. The blessings are greater, but the needs are greater. So, for all of you who have helped in prayer and partnering financially, thank you so very much. It is being used of God like loaves and fish, they’re being multiplied.

Pray for us. Go to our website,, to sign up, to go as a volunteer, or to give, which is what more people are obviously doing because most are not able to go. But do it all there. We’ll be back in just a moment.


Sam Rohrer:                      Well, we’re going to move now into our normal constitutional update focus with attorney David New. Now, if you’re just listening, I hope that you enjoyed the update from Pastor Alex Cherny relative to our Ukraine initiative and the 10-men project. Do really pray for that. And again, thank you so much for those who have sacrificed. Some of you have really sacrificed extraordinarily. Some of you listening to me right now have given five figures and more. Very significant. Thank you so much.

And for all of those who have given whatever, you are helping to make a difference. And again, we don’t have time to go in anymore, but that was just a little bit of an update from Alex. And I hope that that encouraged you. And if you have not done so, go to our website,, because there, actual live video footage and pictures are posted regularly. You can find and you can see exactly what’s happening. And some of those things are really pretty amazing. So, I just put that there.

Okay. We’re going to shift now into the constitutional theme here. And so, for those who come to the program prepared, if you have a pocket of constitution or however you may have it, go ahead and flip through that right now to the fifth and the 14th amendments in particular, because we’re going to talk about them specifically. Now, in general sense, as you know, some weeks ago, a draft opinion by the US Supreme Court was improperly leaked to the public. Likely, the leaker had to have been someone very close to the justices on the court, and the action of that leaker is, at least, highly unethical may well be a criminal act. So, it’s a serious matter.

The draft opinion that was leaked was written by Justice Samuel Alito, and it gave an indication that Roe versus Wade just may be overturned or overruled or reversed, depending on how you look at it. Now, if this happens, it will, of course, be a major shift in the American cultural landscape. And as we all know, and as we’ve witnessed, the leaked draft opinion became the justification for, in many cases, unrestrained outraged by the secular left, attacks on churches have been made as an example. Protestors magically appeared in every major city and in front of the homes of several conservative justice who are suspected of voting likely to overturn Roe.

So, while the Supreme court has rarely, and this is an important thing, we’ll talk about it next in just a minute with David New, but the Supreme Court has rarely overruled its own decisions, but it does happen. But some observers of the court only place the chances that such a major reversal would occur, they place at less than 1% chance. So, that’s not real good. So, what is happening behind closed doors and what may happen, frankly, is uncertain at best, but significant at this point regardless of what the court decides to do.

And with that, David, welcome to the program, and great topic. We’ll get into it just a moment. But anyway, but thanks for being back.

David New:                        Well, nice to be with you, and blessings to everybody.

Sam Rohrer:                      David, I want to go right here on that number. Some people fully expect the court to reverse its 1973 ruling on abortion, yet, as I just indicated, when one reviews the history of the court over time, the odds do not favor in overturning. Can you share just a bit more about why the chances from a human and historical perspective at least is less than 1%?

David New:                        Yes. Historically, the evidence suggests that… Now, I personally do believe they’re going to reverse Roe, personally. But historically, the Supreme Court rarely reverses itself. One constitutional scholar by the name of David Schultz said this about it from 1789 to 2020, there were 25,544 Supreme Court opinions and judgements after oral argument. So, from 1789 to 2020, 25,544 opinions.

Out of that number, he believes the total number of reverses amounted to 145, which puts it at less than 1%. So, it’s extremely rare for the Supreme Court to reverse itself. I do believe it’s going to this time, if it sticks to its guns.

Gary Dull:                           David, in the past, and even when you were with us a couple of weeks ago, we talked about the leaker and the actual leak from the court, and you gave some information regarding both of those in our last program. But in the last two weeks, do you have any additional observations or information that you could share with our people about either the leaker or the actual leak before we go further into the program?

David New:                        Apparently, they are very being very tight lipped about it. Not much has gone out. Also, we thought there might be a decision coming out a week ago by the Supreme Court that they were going to release their opinion early, that didn’t happen. So, we do believe that the decision will be issued this month, sometime, this month. So we’re not far away from a final judgment here.

Sam Rohrer:                      Okay. That being the case, let’s actually go a little bit further here. Most people have not actually read the actual leaked document. I think you have done that. My guess is you probably found some specific things in there that’s worth commenting on specifically. If so, can you identify some of those?

David New:                        Yes. I liked several… This brief that Justice Alito wrote is very, very good. Well thought out, well written. This kind of a brief is he has told more truth about abortion since 1973 than anybody else. So, this is an excellent brief. One of the interesting sentences that he starts off with, which I found very, very good was he puts the opposition immediately on divorce just on the defensive, just by saying what was the truth.

He said, “For the first 185 years after the adoption of the constitution, each state was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this court decided Roe v. Wade, even though the constitution makes no mention of abortion, the court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one.”

Now, that’s an excellent sentence because it tells you that what they did in 1973 was novel, it was not in alignment with American traditions and American values on a subject like this. That it was out of step with the judicial process. So, this is a very, very good sentence. And this is before he even really makes his argument, he made his argument right there.

Sam Rohrer:                      Yeah. That was an excellent statement I thought as well, David, because that gets us into the whole issue of what the implications may be if they overturn it. We’ll talk about that in another segment. But at the point that Roe was made in ’73, the majority of the states at that point had already made a decision that they were not going to permit abortion.

And so, what the court did, it was not only unprecedented from the standpoint of the court making a decision at that point, but it really went against the majority of all the states and their position. So, it was a big deal, of course, wasn’t it?

David New:                        So, here’s another quote by Justice Alito, which was very interesting. It’s a short sentence, but it tells you the truth. Quote, unquote, it said, “At the time of Roe, 30 states still prohibited abortion at all stages”. And that tells you where the law was in ’73.

And then, he goes on and he talks about how about a third of the states were liberalizing their abortion laws through the political process, through elected leaders and their state, but then, again, Roe stopped all of those states that wanted to take a different approach to abortion, shall we say a more liberal approach, a more permissive approach to abortion, and they were cut off too.

So, the political process was completely undercut by the US Supreme Court. By the way, you can get a free copy of the dissent just by Googling leak case on abortion by the US Supreme Court. And one of those articles that you’ll see that’ll talk about it, they will give you a highlight to download the PDF file. Now, on appendix A and B, you want to take a look at that if you have a chance, because there, they list the laws on abortion, and you can see that America was suddenly pro-life in its attitudes and values.

And these laws dealt with, I don’t know, 20 or 30 different states, and they covered the 19th century, and you can see the criminal effects of somebody who performs an abortion, all kinds of things.

So, if you want to see what the law was earlier in American history, go to appendix A and B.

Sam Rohrer:                      That’s excellent, David. And one of the notes that I see that Alito made, which caught my attention was this, he said, “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The constitution makes no reference to abortion effectively. Therefore, no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.” That is also an extraordinarily strong statement, ladies and gentlemen, which I think is part of why David, you think that, in fact, the court will overturn it, because the fundamental elements of it are worthy of it being turned over.

So, ladies and gentlemen, we’re going to continue to go along in discussion here. In the next segment, I’m going to ask David this question, and that is the legal concerns with the existing abortion ruling. And you got a hint of couple of those things by what Alito said, but we want to talk to David more specifically about the actual legal problems that was created by that rule.


Sam Rohrer                       We’ve been talking today in our constitutional update focus here, the Supreme Court of the United States, Roe versus Wade leak. We’ve talked a little bit about that, but then, more considerations and more concerns, and we’re talking about some of those now relative to this highly awaited decision.

Now, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe versus Wade back in 1973, it essentially set into motion legal and government, this is what I’m calling it now because it did, government sanctioned murder of the pre-born. One of those effects is that we’ve effectively killed off. I hate to use that word, but an entire generation of Americans. 65 million almost. Isn’t that an incredible thing?

The consequences to that, not what we’re discussing here today on the program, but you almost have to say it because, from a moral perspective, we know what God says about this. And we know that He says when innocent blood is shed, the judgment and the justice of God will fall on that nation. At some point, they will feel it. But there are consequences along the way. We’re feeling it. Economic consequences, financial consequences, and a whole lot more.

But as we look at the constitutional aspect of this decision, there are also legal concerns which go to the heart of what the court may or may not do, these legal concerns, which are important to identify. And I want to do that, David, right now, if we kind of walk into that. But when you, another constitutional scholars evaluate the original Roe versus Wade decision, what legal basis did they ultimately cite for their decision, and do you agree or disagree with what they did?

Actually, what you read a little bit from Samuel Alito’s comment, he gave some concept of what he thought about it, but what do you think about what actually happened when they made that decision back in 1973?

David New:                        No, the decision was decided incorrectly. Let’s take a quick look at why that’s true. Take a look at the fifth amendment to the bill of rights. Look at the first four words. No person shall be. That phrase applies to each clause within the fifth amendment. Now, go down to the second to the last clause in the fifth amendment, which starts nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, due process of law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

What is due process of law? It’s a fancy way of saying there’s got to be a fair trial. That’s what it is. It’s trials, fair trials. Now, notice what it says, in a free society, we don’t want the government doing things that they shouldn’t be doing, but there are going to be times where people disobey the law and they have to be punished.

The due process of law tells you when the government and a free society may punish somebody. Look what it says. Nor be deprived, that’s government punishment, nor be deprived. You are going to be denied certain things if you disobey the law and if you’re found guilty in a fair trial.

So, what’s the first thing? Life. If you want to know where there’s authority to execute human beings, it’s right there in the word life. Now, you see that word liberty coming next to it, that’s the key word. That’s the key word. That’s where the pro-abortionist claims he has authority to make abortion legal. It does not refer to abortion, it refers to your personal freedom.

It refers to going to jail or prison or property. That refers to receiving government fines. When you get a speeding ticket, your property’s being denied to you because you violated the law. You’re going to have to pay money. Without due process of law, that is the trial. And each state has its own due process of law. So, there are 50 different due process of laws in the United States, one for each state.

So, that’s what the fifth amendment does. Now, comes the civil war. African Americans are no longer slave, but the Congress wants to make sure that these new free Americans, the Black people, they’re going to be treated the same as anybody else. So, what does Congress do? They pass the 14th amendment, and to make sure they get a fair trial, just like everybody else, they stick in a due process clause in the 14th amendment and it applies to the states.

Now, the one of the fifth amendment only applies to the federal government. But if you wanted to make the due process clause to apply to the states, you’ve got to say states. So, now, look, nor shall any state deprive any person… This is the 14th amendment, of life, liberty or property without due process of law. So, a state can execute people because of the word life. A state can put people in jail and in prison because of the word liberty. A state can fine somebody for speeding because they can be deprived of property if it’s done according to a fair trial, due process of law.

Now, our friends on the Supreme Court came up with a brilliant idea that that word liberty also includes abortion. How David New do you prove the word liberty and the due process clause does not refer to abortion? It’s actually fairly simple. For example, take a look at the fifth amendment, the word liberty in the fifth amendment. It’s the same word, it’s the same phrase. They both mean the same thing. There’s no difference.

Now, question, in 1791 when the fifth amendment was ratified and became part of the constitution, part of the bill of rights, could a federal judge take the word liberty in the fifth amendment and say, oh, guess what? Slavery in the United States violates the liberty clause of the due process of law. As much as we might like that to be true, a federal judge could not take the word liberty and say it refers to slavery. So, now, we know one thing, the word liberty cannot mean it cannot refer to slavery. Otherwise, there will be no purpose in passing the 13th amendment, which ended slavery in the United States.

Look at the word liberty in the 14th amendment. Well, how do you know that it doesn’t refer to the freedom of religion, David New? Because if it did, there would be no purpose to the first amendment. Can’t the word liberty in the 14th amendment refer to my right to have a gun? No, it can’t. Because of the second amendment. What about a woman’s right to vote in elections? Does a woman have a right to vote in the elections?

Can a judge come up and say the word liberty, and the 14th amendment refers to your right to vote, ladies and gentlemen, young ladies? No, a judge couldn’t. That’s why the 19th amendment had to be ratified, because the word liberty does not mean anything and everything under the sun you could possibly want it to mean.

And if the word liberty in the 14th amendment doesn’t even cover a woman’s right to vote in elections, how could it possibly refer to abortion?

Gary Dull:                           That’s quite an explanation there, David. I was just thinking you remind me of J. Vernon McGee. J. Vernon McGee was a tremendous man when it comes to exegeting the word of God, and you do a tremendous job in exegeting the United States constitution.

David New:                        I know him. I know him. He was wonderful.

Gary Dull:                           Well, you do the same thing when it comes to the constitution. I’ve never known a person in the world who can take the constitution and explain it the way that you do. But let me go to this concept of the due process of law. You explained to our audience what it means. It means to have a fair trial.

But David, how does that relate directly to the concept of abortion? When it comes to an abortion or having an abortion, or whether abortion should be legal or even illegal, where does the concept of due process of law come in to that discussion?

David New:                        Because the Supreme Court, out of thin air, said that the word liberty in the 14th amendment is referring to abortion. What they’re doing is they’re doing a little bit of politicking on the court. If they can find five people on the Supreme Court to agree that the word liberty refers to abortion, same sex marriage, homosexuality, bingo. Now, the word liberty means those things and they can constitutionalize it and enforce it on everybody throughout the United States.

So, that’s why the word liberty, really, when it comes to the social issues is the constitution, the bill of rights and all these other things. That’s the key word. And it’s a corruption of the word liberty.

Sam Rohrer:                      So, in reality, David, what you’re describing is what we talk about here so much on the program, ladies and gentlemen, is that you have to define the terms. Words do mean things. But if you can change the meaning of the word, love could become hate, good becomes evil, ah, evil could become good, right? How do we know that? Because we learn that in the scripture.

Scripture says that when a nation rejects the God of heaven, ultimately, it’ll be seen and be evidenced in their leadership that good is pronounced evil and evil is pronounced good. That’s exactly what David is talking about. It’s a worldview change. It is a rejection of God, which, then, frees us up that they can define whatever we want to be as in this case, liberty. Wow. Just think.

All right, when we come back, we’re going to talk with David a little bit about the potential, now, what if Roe versus Wade is overturned? What kinds of implications will it make nationally, or even on state level?


Sam Rohrer:                      Well, the actual impact to US law, to court rulings and the conducting of legalized mass baby murder, which is what exactly happened when the Supreme Court created the ’73 abortion decision, the impact is not really fully known, but perhaps, the greatest fear, as I look at it, and David, I will ask you for your opinion on that. But when I see all these people, the supporters of baby murder and they’re crying out and they’re threatening their… All the protests and threats that they’re making, I look and I say, what do they fear?

Well, one aspect I look at it. I think the greatest fear, perhaps, for those who want to continue to murder helpless babies in the womb under the umbrella of an official government sanction is that such a decision that was made in ’73 actually gave them license to do what they knew in their heart and by law could never do, and that a reversal of Roe versus Wade now might just elevate the fundamental consideration of the opponents of abortion when we claim that it is immoral, that it is anti-God, that is anti-Bible to murder the most helpless among us.

So, in my opinion, 1973 Supreme Court Roe versus Wade decision provided an escape from God’s prohibition and promise of judgment against those who would murder and take innocent blood. It gave a justification for those opposed to God to actually go ahead and do what they wanted to do under the claim that it was now legal. Think about that.

All right. David, those are just my thoughts on why the pro abortions are so afraid that this ruling may be overturned. But if you want to comment on that, go ahead and do as to the why, but otherwise, I’d like you here to point out some of the likely potential impacts that could likely happen if the Supreme Court actually overturns Roe versus Wade with that decision, probably one way or the other occurring before the end of this month.

David New:                        Yes. Just to finish up, the word liberty is not limited to a criminal context. Say, for instance, you’re crazy and they want to commit you to an insane asylum, or to a hospital. You would be denied your physical liberty when that happens. That also must be done by due process of law. So, it’s not just criminal, but it does have a civil context as well.

But remember this, the broader you define the word liberty, the more power the judge has, and the less power the American people have. The narrower you define the word liberty, the less power the judge has and the more power the American people have. And what they did in 1973 by saying that the word liberty means abortion, which is absolutely crazy is equivalent to saying, in 1820, where a federal judge says, “Ah, slavery is no longer legal because of the word liberty in the fifth amendment.” That’s exactly what they did in 1973 with the word abortion. It is completely and totally illegitimate.

Now, one of the consequences of this decision if it goes the way I hope it will, you’re going to see a lot of people attack what they call Christian nationalists, because on the progressive side, they see this as a victory of Christian nationalism. In other words, they’re going to blame the Christian religion. And the other thing that you’re going to see is they are also talking about it right now. They see the denial or the reversal of Roe as effectively an establishment of religion violation of the first amendment. Because they’re saying the only reason you would not allow Roe v. Wade is because of religion.

So, there are very profound consequences of how this thing is going to go. It’s going to get a little bit nasty for the Christian church, because they’re going to take the brunt of the blame for it.

Gary Dull:                           Okay, David, it’s interesting that you brought that up because as David Kistler says from time to time when we were on the radio together, you are reading my mail. So, let me ask what I believe to be an interesting question that many of our people might be asking, and that is this. If the United States Supreme Court does overturn Roe versus Wade, and if those who oppose that will cry the concept of Christian nationalism, what must the church do to prepare for that and to deal with it personally, publicly, religiously, and constitutionally?

David New:                        The first thing that Christian church must always do is be loyal to the word of God. Those babies do not belong to us, they belong to God. And so, we must draw closer to God to be prepared, because it’s not going to be pretty. This is going to be… The temperature for the cultural war is going to go from bad to worse. So, we’ve got to get spiritual, so we can take the fiery darts that are going to come at us.

Sam Rohrer:                      And David, that’s an interesting response. Gary, I’m going to come back and ask you… Okay, now, pastors who are listening and church leaders, they also should be preaching on these things. I mean, to some extent, Gary, we almost need to be reacquainted with the value of life.

And even as David, you said, that baby belongs to God, life comes from God. Gary, just a very quick apologetic on life and reacquainting our listeners with why our best defense is a great offense, and that’s to understand what God says about life.

Gary Dull:                           Well, yeah, life is sacred simply because of the fact that God is the author of life. We find that right from the book of Genesis through the book of revelation inclusive. And so, anytime that we, as human beings, take life, we are exalting ourselves above God. But it’s important I think that we get back to biblical truth. You know, I’ve been thinking a lot of what’s been taking place in our country since these shootings have taken place down in Texas and out in Oklahoma and other places, people have been asking the question, what in the world has happened, and what can we do to fix it?

And the answer to both of those questions, the answer’s not complicated, the answer to the first question, what has happened is that we’ve taken God out of the picture, including the outlook on life that we have here in America today. We’ve taken away this sacredness of life. And so, if we’re going to fix what’s going on in society today, we need to bring God back into the public square. You know, we need to get the 10 commandments before people to understand what God’s standards really are. And until we do that, we’re just going to see our nation go downhill. And that concerns me greatly.

As preachers, we need to preach the whole council of God, and as people in the pew, we need to live the whole council of God, because that will make the difference in what takes place in our nation. I believe that 100%.

Sam Rohrer:                      And Gary, that’s a great set up. Ladies and gentlemen, go to our website. We’re emphasizing our return to God emphasis all year, again, we have that site return to God. And then, we have that video that we did a year ago, go back and watch that. You can find it at Look at that video, 23 minute long. And it lays out all of these things we’re talking, but it connects it together with what God says through His word.

But we’re emphasizing here coming up on July the third, Liberty Sunday, encouraging pastors and churches across the country and people involved generally to take that day, Sunday, July 3rd, right before July 4th, Liberty Sunday. Go to that website,, resources there, a lot of information ties right in perfectly with our discussion today.

Thank you for being with us, David and Gary. Thank you listeners for being with us. As always, there’d be no reason for us to be here if you are not there. So, until we meet again tomorrow, stand in the gap for truth, wherever God puts you.