This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program originally airing on 2/28/24.  To listen to the program, please click HERE.

Sam Rohrer:       Hello and welcome to this Wednesday edition of Stand in the Gap Today. If there’s one specific blessing, if you think about that we’ve enjoyed in America for so long, there are many of them, but here’s one, it’s the relative security that we’ve experienced and with oceans on either side, relatively friendly nations to our north and our south, we as a nation have been remarkably insulated. And other than during our original war for independence so many years ago when we fought an enemy on our soil, we lived in peace until the great Civil War. And in that war we fought among ourselves over 5% of our population. One and a half million Americans estimated out of a total approximate population then of 26 and a half million lost their lives. That was a costly one. And since that time until 9/11, wars were generally fought over there, on somebody else’s ground.

Sam Rohrer:       So we now have a generation, or actually maybe a couple generations who really can’t come to grips with the reality that the enemies over there can now reach into our nation from abroad and that these same enemies have infiltrated us from without and are now within even in positions of great authority, kind of like wolves, watching over the sheep, forgetting the real truth, that God is our only security and has been our security. And having thrown God out of our culture and our public policies and our political posturing, we’ve really made ourselves very vulnerable. And it’s this vulnerability that in my opinion, is the very greatest of all because trust in the military or leaders or technical prowess or economic or financial strength is temporary at best. And all of those though are subject to wide exploitation at every hand by the enemy. And herein is the concept of national security and the idea that some government leaders, entities are truly watching out for our physical security.

Sam Rohrer:       In fact, there are entities and people charged with that responsibility, but what if they don’t do what they’re supposed to do or even worse, enable the very enemies that would do us harm? Well, that itself is a matter of national security. So today I’ve asked Frank Gaffney, national Security expert, executive Chairman for the Center for Security Policy and Vice Chairman for Committee on the Present Danger China. I’ve asked him to join me for a reliable and a current update on our state of national security. The title I’ve chosen for today is this, the State of US National Security. And with that, welcome to the program again, Frank Gaffney. Frank, thank you so much for being with me today.

Frank Gaffney:   It’s always a delight, but never more so than today, Sam. That was an absolutely brilliant exposition on both a fundamental reality that security does matter, our national security especially, but also that we take it for granted and that we can certainly no longer afford to do that in this environment. I look forward to talking with you about it.

Sam Rohrer:       Absolutely. So Frank, let’s get right into it. Let’s get some definitions down here. You are national security, that’s what you’ve done for your whole life. Could you quickly define what do we mean by national security and then as I refer, there are people there supposed to be doing that, but what are the governmental positions who are legally responsible to protect our national security?

Frank Gaffney:   Well, let me just say at the outset, you make me sound like Tony Fauci is saying I have science. I think I’ve had a lot of experience in the national security arena, very, very blessed along the way working for a couple of extraordinary United States Senators of Jackson and John Tower, one Democrat, one Republican, and then going on to the Reagan Pentagon where I was privileged to serve under him and Casper Weinberger for four and a half years ultimately acting as an assistant secretary. And ever since then, basically it was all sort of downhill from there, Sam. But ever since then, as you know, I’ve been working in this space outside of government through the Center for Security Policy. And I would define what it is, what national security is, is basically it is the fulfillment of the oath that every one of us who has had the privilege of serving in the government past and present.

Frank Gaffney:   I took this oath on a number of occasions to support and defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And by that of course it means though it’s not explicit doing so in every way required physical violent means where that’s required through deterrence, wherever possible. Ronald Reagan, my old boss, famously talked about peace through strength. That’s much to be preferred over fighting obviously. And then there are a whole host of other battle spaces, economic warfare, political warfare, information operations, and the like. And as you say, quite rightly, and as that oath addresses, we have to be alive to dangers both foreign and domestic and bringing those capabilities to bear appropriately against them.

Sam Rohrer:       Alright, that’s excellent Frank. And when I generally think of threats, and you issued it there, I’ve often said, alright, most people would say external, those in the outside internal, those in the inside, but you took it to heart of the personal because everybody who serves in the federal government takes that oath that you’re talking about. So external really becomes foreign, internal would really become domestic. So we’re going to use those terms as we go through the program, foreign and domestic because ladies and gentlemen, that oath should be as an oath before God should be the driving controlling promise to the American people and before God that they actually are going to watch out for anything that threatens our Constitution or our freedom.

Now I just rephrased a little bit, Frank, what you said, but that’s perfect and that helps to lay the foundation for today’s program. Now let me come back and ask you a hard question and that is this. If you were to grade the actual level of our national security on a level, and I’m going to put this way one to 10, one being the most secure, very secure, and 10 being totally insecure, where are we now as America and as average Americans when it comes to national security?

Frank Gaffney:   I regret to have to say that I think we’re pretty close to 10 on that scale. Wow. And it’s for two reasons, Sam, as you know, and by the way, you’ve sworn that oath, I believe, in your various official capacities as well. It’s a function of two things. One, it’s a function obviously of the threats that others are mounting against us, the state of those threats, how advanced, how well emboldened are those who are mounting those threats? Those are all very important considerations.

Sam Rohrer:       Alright, and that’s perfect, okay, Frank, sorry to interrupt. That’s a perfect setup, ladies and gentlemen. Alright, our theme today, the state of US national security, Frank Gaffney, national security expert, vice chairman for the committee in the present Danger. He’s my guest, he defined it. We’re talking about enemies, foreign, domestic. I asked him where we were. He says close to 10, meaning almost totally insecure. When we come back, we’re going to begin to identify those top threats both foreign and domestic and look at them in more detail.


Sam Rohrer:       Well, if you’re just joining us, the theme today is the state of US national security. My very special guest, knowledgeable in this area fully is Frank Gaffney, executive chairman of Center for Security Policy. And if you did not catch our first segment, go back and listen to it again on stand in the gap because we defined what the term is and we’re getting into now a description of the greatest threats that are facing us with the increased level of international dependency. And I’m going to give my thoughts here to frame it a little bit more from my perspective. But with the increased level of international dependency of nations, which obviously is the international part, it’s developed over time over the last century, but the range of potential areas as that has happened now comprises the area of national security. That whole thing has tremendously grown once, if you can imagine this, the security threat to our nation was limited to, for instance, soldiers on the ground who could only reach us by ships, right?

Sam Rohrer:       Then it went to planes. Now quasi soldiers can reach us via missiles or satellites or pilotless drones, as Frank said in the last segment. Communication, communication control via the internet in the form of sophisticated artificial intelligence designed to digital communication daily brings, strategically placed information warfare and threats, enemy ideas and puts them right into the hands of every person via our cell phones, through programs like TikTok and even Google and Meta and the entire platform of big tech that you’ve been listening. If you watch anything that’s happening in Washington, a lot of testimony in that area recently, but you get the idea yet, regardless of the means of security threats, the broader aspect of domestic versus foreign, internal versus external, frankly is still fairly accurate in that we frame it that way. So Frank, let’s go here to the, I want to say external or the foreign first, a foreign threat. If you were to identify the greatest external threat to our freedom, our national security, what would it be? And while you do that, give me the top three, top 1, 2, 3, and then quickly associate who they are, a threat from what country perhaps is behind them.

Frank Gaffney:   If I may just complete the thought that I didn’t get all the way through in the last segment, Sam, just quickly because it leads right into this. I was mentioning that I regard our national security as in a very perilous state, nearing 10 on your scale for two reasons. One is the nature of the threats we’re facing, and I’ll come back to that in a moment. But so is the state of our defenses against those threats and the combination of those two really defines how vulnerable we are or how robust is our national security posture. So as to those threats, top of the batting order has to be the Chinese Communist Party. It is the greatest existential threat to freedom as Ronald Reagan used to say, I believe in history. And that is for a variety of reasons that we can explore if you’d like. But the main point is it is a mortal threat to our country because it is determined to destroy us and makes no secret of it because we are in the way of the CCP as it’s called, and its ambitions to be the dominant power in the world.

Frank Gaffney:   Number two, I guess I would sort of cluster all of the other nations that are now kind of vassal states of the Chinese Communist Party. And that would be the Russians, that would be the Iranians, that would be the North Koreans and a whole host of others, Pakistan and Venezuela and so on, and taken together, especially with their masters in Beijing, makes that a global threat. We’re confronting not just from one quarter and then this may seem unlikely, very much a nonmilitary danger that we now I think are facing. And we could talk about a number of things. You mentioned TikTok as an example, parts of what the Chinese describe as their unrestricted warfare against us. But one Sam that your audience especially needs to be aware of and that most of us are not is what the Chinese Communist Party has been doing to take over multilateral institutions.

Frank Gaffney:   And one that is particularly urgent in terms of the need for our attention is something called the World Health Organization Three months from yesterday, an organization that is made up of the members of that World Health Organization called the World Health Assembly, will all other things being equal, mind you, vote to approve the destruction of the sovereignty of this country and every other in favor of having a new kind of dictatorial regime established in the name of healthcare, public health emergencies and the like and have it all run by and executed by a guy who is a Marxist communist terrorist, some say out of Ethiopia, handpicked for the job by the Chinese Communist Party, Ted Reus. Okay.

Sam Rohrer:       Alright, perfect. Frank. Those are a

Frank Gaffney:   Set of threat problems.

Sam Rohrer:       Okay, those are perfect. You got them on the table. Lemme go now and shift to the domestic. Those are the three CCP, but really what you’re saying, the CCP Communist Chinese Party is really involved in the other two other nations, the Eastern Alliance, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, we’ve talked about them on this program before. And then the fact of taking over key organizations that can threaten national sovereignty being the World Health Organization. Okay, that’s that. That’s the forum. Let’s go to the domestic 1, 2, 3 biggest threats.

Frank Gaffney:   Number one again is the Chinese Communist Party because it is very much present here inside our country in any number of respects. They are inside our wire, most notably through the friends as they call that they have recruited to their cause. Starting with the president of the United States, I’m sorry to say Joe Biden who, a colleague of ours, I believe you’ve had him on your program as have I, Sam Faddis, career intelligence operative who ran and recruited, ran assets for the Central Intelligence Agency. He said Joe Biden is in the terms of the trade, a controlled asset of the Chinese Communist Party that is bar none the greatest domestic threat we face, but they have a lot of other friends as well, Sam. And I guess I would put at the top of that heap though, you could cite corresponding figures in academia, the media, Hollywood, well, our political system beyond the president, but the folks on Wall Street who have been recruited and are friends of China and have been enabling them with our money by and large, our pension funds, our 401k plans and so on are a horrific threat. And finally, I would argue that what has come across the border, again, much of it at the hands of the Chinese Communist Party in terms of well tens of thousands of individuals who are here to do us harm, including by some estimates, multiple divisions of Chinese people’s liberation army personnel to say nothing of scads of Jihadists that constitutes a whole internal, or if you will, domestic threat, unprecedented in our history. We must contend with it all.

Sam Rohrer:       Okay, I’m going to summarize it ladies and gentlemen, because you probably weren’t writing it down. Frank Gaffney, my guest, he’s got a website at center for security I’m going to give that one center for security But I asked him to define, identify the three leading domestic threats to our national security started right off Chinese Communist Party and then Chinese Communist Party in their outreach to their alliance of nations, which we’ve talked about here before. Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Pakistan, and it goes on beyond that. And then thirdly, communist Chinese party and their strategy and their takeover of the World Health Organization and all that’s involved with that. Those are the top three. Now, the three domestic Chinese Communist Party friends that they have put in place here, governmental, we have sadly our president an asset and then we’ve talked about that on here as well in the government perspective.

Sam Rohrer:       But then there are those in our economic and financial entities in Wall Street can say it, but BlackRock is one of them and others who are involved in moving funds around here in relationship invested in China. That’s another one. And then the other is those who are physically crossing our southern border led by encouraged by the communist Chinese party. Frank, it’s an amazing thing to me. I didn’t think that they would actually show up in every one of those six that I ask you, but that is extraordinary significant when the next step we’ll get into it, but it’s kind of like if it’s so obvious to you, why in the world isn’t so obvious to those in our positions, ladies and gentlemen, of watching over our national security, when we come back, I’m going to talk specifically with Frank about a couple of things, comments that for instance, FBI, director Christopher Ray has been saying more red flags now than ever before, even before 9/11.


Sam Rohrer:       We’re going to ask specific questions about it because that’s a big, big issue. And then we’re going to talk specifically about cyber because cyber-attack is one method of a threat.


Sam Rohrer:      Those of you who were involved in the Cyber Attack a week ago lost your coverage. Okay, we’re going to talk about that as an example of talk about cyber threats, what it means, how real it is. And then these warnings from the FBI director himself in testimony before Congress on December the fifth, 2023, just a couple months ago. And then I’m going to say many times since then, FBI director Christopher Ray warned in his words blinking lights everywhere and he has said that everywhere he looks there are blinking lights way more than prior to nine 11. That’s what he has said. Now, while this undoubtedly is true, when I heard him and if I listened to him, I immediately began to ask myself such questions such as for instance, wow, I believe you, but what just happened that makes you all of a sudden see blinking lights everywhere and why didn’t you say anything before?

Sam Rohrer:       Or here’s another one that came into my mind. Why are Christians and patriots on the watch list, but Muslim terrorists aren’t? Third, is it a coincidence that this warning is linked to Hamas attack on Israel? Well anyway, this question because the timing, it was interesting and here’s another one that came to my mind because generally when testimonies happen in Congress and you hear things in the news, it’s for another purpose that you don’t generally see. Here was another one I thought, well, is your testimony director linked to a broader effort perhaps to put pressure on Congress to pass another massive sweeping surveillance bill that was under discussion then? Or here’s another one. Is it just part of a broader effort to cultivate fear among the American people to justify perhaps a possible draconian effort by the Biden administration to declare some type of national emergency to impact the fall election?

Sam Rohrer:       Alright, you elect me. Wow. Same. That’s some kind of questions. Well, I’m telling you every one of those have a bit of truth to them, but they’re the kind of things that come to my mind. Okay, Frank, I’m going to give to you and to get your thoughts about director Ray’s repeated warnings to how real and purposeful for doing so. Because when I ask you on a threat, one totally secure, 10, totally insecure when it comes to national security, you said actually painfully close to 10, well into that steps. All right? The director’s comments more red flags than ever tends to support exactly what you’re saying. What do you think he was really saying,

Frank Gaffney:   Sam? I think your various options are all possible explanations, and it probably is the case that it’s a combination of several of them, if not all of them. But I have to tell you what jumped out at me is, well, I’m not sure how to say it on a religiously themed program, but CYA, I think this is a case of a man who has egregiously failed in his oath of office to do his duty. I mean he’s been malfeasant and derelict on a serial basis. In fact, many of the things that we just enumerated in terms of threats are ones that he has been inadequately attending to. And so to hear him suddenly warning about them, and yes, it is in the run up to an election, and yes, he is among those trying to get a new statutory mandate for this. So-called FISA system, the foreign intelligence program that has been badly abused by the FBI over the years, by the way, since it was enacted after 9/11.

Frank Gaffney:   But I think basically what he is now seeing as I think I am, and I think anybody with a lick of sense who’s paying attention is seeing is the sorts of threats that we’ve just discussed are metastasizing. And I mentioned earlier, I think in the first segment, the degree to which we have emboldened various enemies, foreign and domestic of this country. By the way, the Biden administration has conducted itself I think in part because they’re taking orders from the Chinese Communist party, but Director Ray is I think now trying to position himself so that he can say, I told you so I warned you rather than that I failed egregiously. But the reality is he’s warning us, I think because he has failed egregiously and we are in peril as a result.

Sam Rohrer:       You know what I thought of that too. I did jot that down as one of the questions, but I thought that’s exactly the case. But herein, if what he is saying, I believe to be true what you’re saying, it is true. Have you seen any change in what that institution, that department or anything within the executive branch which oversees then the whole aspect of taking the lead from an executive perspective of protecting and all of that that we’re talking about, have you seen them do anything different? Has any policy changed within that department or anything within our other areas that are involved in national security that actually reflects the fact that they believe this is true?

Frank Gaffney:   Sam, it’s been a long time since I had clearances and would’ve had access if I had a need to know theoretically to the inner workings of the FBI or the Defense department for that matter. So I can’t, or the intelligence community more broadly, let me say I can’t say for sure. I can tell you from what is evidence on the outside is that the FBI is failing egregiously to attend to these sorts of problems and notwithstanding these warnings, the one exception being that they are expending enormous amounts of resources and energy chasing after so-called extremists of the Christian Stripe or the January 6th related individuals or others that they ascribe the desire to become violent extremists with, as far as I can tell, absolutely no basis in fact. Whereas they are continuing to ignore these Chinese military personnel, if that’s indeed what they are. And I think it is. And the Jihadists who are here in huge numbers, I mean quite apart from those that have been allowed in across the southern border, many of them, some across the northern border, by the way, we have 70,000 plus we explicitly imported from Taliban, Afghanistan who are now here in this country as well. And I don’t think the FBI is doing anything to even monitor these guys, let alone get them out of our country and spare us what they have in mind for us.

Sam Rohrer:       All right, so ladies and gentlemen, that’s why I said at the beginning, it is itself a matter of national security concern when those who are in a position to actually do what they’re supposed to do, don’t, alright, just raise that, put it on the table the last remaining minutes here, Frank, I’ve got to talk to you about it. And that is this, we’ve talked about it before. You’ve talked about on this program the threat of Chinese involvement or someone else perhaps called an EMP, something that would be a missile above us that would knock out all of our cell phones and all that kind of thing and everything else. But at the same time, just a week ago, those who were AT&T  customers lost their ability to communicate, but also so did independent pharmacies across the country who could not take customer orders online. And so that disturbed a whole bunch of things. And some said it was cyber, some said it was not, but there’s been a lot of cyber-attack issues going on- water plants here in Pennsylvania some weeks ago and other things talk about cyber, the reality of that when we talk cyber attack, is it the same thing as an EMP? I know it’s not directly, but put some of that together and how much of a reality and the threat to national security cyber attacks or an EMP actually are.

Frank Gaffney:   Sam as you say, I have been on this case for a long time, as has our center for security policy, particularly under the president of it now, Tommy Waller, with whom I think you’ve spoken on a number of occasions. Cyber is one of several very, very serious lines of attack against our country. Physical sabotage is another. And yes, you’ve mentioned EMP, which stands for electromagnetic pulse. And interestingly enough, shortly before that I’m told that there were some 20 other services that were impacted as well. And I think the expert opinion of that individual was who reported it was that yes, this was engineered using cyber techniques, but EMP also featured prominently recently because cause congressman by the name of Mike Turner, who is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, suddenly popped up warning about some grave new national security threat the other day.

Frank Gaffney:   And it turns out what he was warning about we’re told was a Russian space-based nuclear weapon that would be designed to create super electromagnetic pulses and thereby, as you said, wipe out cell phones. Yes, but power grids more to the point. And if you think that it was a bad day for people who lost their cell coverage, it was a day at the beach compared to what would happen if the grid went down in that fashion because it would not be coming up anytime soon. And the bottom line of that is, Sam, just to give you again, a point of calibration for the danger, we’re in every enemy of this country around the world knows how critically dependent we are upon the grid and how easily it can be attacked through one of these means or another and has in I think all of the most important cases, those enemies have baked it into their doctrine. This is how they will attack us. And if we lose power and it does not come back on most of us, like some estimates say 90% of us if it lasts for a year or so will perish because we simply don’t have the beans or the knowledge to survive.

Sam Rohrer:       Alright ladies and gentlemen, you get the idea. And again, we’re trying to give a state of national security not too far up the road the president is going to give and come before the American people and give a state of the America what I’m trying to put some things out here because I guarantee you he will not say what we’re saying, but this is the truth compared to what he’s going to say. We’ll conclude in just a moment.

Sam Rohrer:       Well, as we go into our final segment, just want to remind all of you’re listening again, if you didn’t catch this entire program, please go back and listen to it again. You can find it on our website, stand in the gap or you can listen to it on their app, which is how I listen to past programs. It’s very easy. Just go to your store and put in the phrase stand in the gap that way you’ve got it.

Sam Rohrer:       But when you do that, you can communicate to us, you can access a whole wide range of smaller Q and A’s that are there and available. And sortable, our TV programs are there, all three radio programs are there. You can donate online, which is very, very important for us. If you’re being blessed by the program, we need your prayer support, we need your financial support. You can do all of that right there. And a third thing, which is so very important, if you find what you hear on this program, which so many do to be valuable, then tell a friend. It’s not good enough to know when there’s a time of drought that there’s a lot of food over here and just shirts for yourself. Tell your neighbors who are also hungry. There’s a lot of hungry people looking for the truth. So let them know.

Sam Rohrer:       And your word of encouragement means all the difference. Alright, one other thing, my guest again today is Frank Gaffney. He is executive chairman of Senate for Security policy, but he’s also national security expert and he’s vice chairman for the Committee on the Present Danger, which is China. And if you’ve listened to it, talked a lot about China and he didn’t highlight China just because he oversees a grand group of people who are in the know he’s doing that because they are in the know. So go back and listen to what we’ve identified, what he identified as the lead foreign threats to national security and the three leading domestic threats. Alright, so when it comes to national security threats, we’re talking about the state of our national security and it is not good. There are enemies without enemies within foreign domestic. And the more that these are integrated and the more they are working in tandem, the greater the obvious threat.

Sam Rohrer:       So as Frank has said, Chinese Communist Party, they have their own outreaches, they have built, well an alliance with the Eastern Alliance. We’ve referred to them here, Russia, Iran, well, Turkey’s kind of going into that category. Pakistan, Venezuela to our south, that’s part of an alliance. But they also have made friends, they’ve bought off people who are in positions of authority inside our Wall Street, white House, educational institutions, Hollywood, you name it. It’s a very, very sinister goal and effort that they have undertaken because they want to dominate the world and we are a threat to them. Alright, so with that being the case, Frank, let’s go back and revisit just a little bit more about the border circumstance. A week ago or so, it came out that actually the CCP has been involved directly in helping folks get across the border. It appears the UN has actually been helping escort enemies into our country. Now there’s a little bit of a standoff down there with Texas. I don’t really know exactly what’s happening, but it seems like people are still coming across. You identified some Chinese people we’ve talked about here in the past. Hezbollah people have come across. There’s other Jihadists frame that again of what the threat to that open border has really become

Frank Gaffney:   Experts in the subject. Sam say it’s not really just a matter of there being now an open border and north and south, by the way. But the borders have essentially been eliminated and therefore the main control being exercised at this moment, particularly along that southern border, is by the cartels. And they’re now operating on both sides of what was previously the frontier, which is huge implications for both the flow of, well, not just the illegal aliens, but of people who are coming here, many of them what are called gotaways. They don’t allow themselves to be intercepted, they don’t turn themselves in, at least to the border patrol as do an awful lot of other people.

Frank Gaffney:   And then there’s the fentanyl that is coming across the border as well. But I have to tell you that I just think we’ve never, you did a history in your opening of the country. I guess I would add that war of 1812. We had an invasion there, but since that time we have not had foreign forces in large numbers, division strength, multiple division strength, some say inserted inside this country and bombers attack Pearl Harbor, of course. But I’m talking about inserted inside the homeland of the United States, the continental United States, and that’s what we’re confronting now. And just to add, and I don’t want to leave our audience so terrified. You mentioned fear as a consideration possibly for those in the administration who seek to control us or can seek to affect the outcomes of the elections or what have you. But I want people to be empowered by what we’re telling them and to be motivated to become part of the solution to it. And let me just give you one,

Sam Rohrer:       Okay? And Frank going to do this. Let me tell you right now, there’s three minutes until the end of the program. Take those three minutes and provide that what to do about it,

Frank Gaffney:   Please. Okay. I’m just going to mention this one other thing because it adds urgency to what to do about it. We have at least one bio lab that the Chinese Communist Party established in California. We believe there are more of them. If those military personnel coming in marry up with things like the pathogens that we found in that lab, we’re in a world of hurt inside this country what to do about it. Every single person listening to our voices today can make a difference. I encourage you to go to resources like ours at, the Center for Security Policy site, the Committee on the Present Danger site, present danger, a very important initiative, the Sovereignty coalition, sovereignty Each of these has action items that we want people to take aboard and become engaged in. We’ve got ways of facilitating that called Align Act campaigns, particularly at that Sovereignty Coalition site.

Frank Gaffney:   And Sam, I just want them to know for the next few months, every person standing for office wants your support. It is a very unique opportunity to tell them what it takes to get your support. And I encourage you to tell them the National Securities specifically countering and defeating the threats from the Chinese Communist Party of all kinds, their unrestricted warfare, but especially between now and May, the World Health Organization global governance gambit, this is something that your elected representatives or wannabes can do something about. You need to make sure that they do it. Thank you.

Sam Rohrer:       Alright, Frank, that’s perfect. And again, give the one website for people to remember again where they can find out that information on the sovereignty issue.

Frank Gaffney:   Sovereignty

Sam Rohrer:       Okay. Sovereignty, ladies and gentlemen, go there. That is in fact something that we can tangibly do. Yes, as long as we have the freedom to actually vote for people, we do need to participate in that. And I’m going to also anchor everyone else that’s on here at the end of the day, it is God, as I start this program, who is our security scripture says that some trust in horses, some trust in chariots, but we will trust in the name of the Lord. Our trust must go somewhere. It must be anchored there first and be more concerned about doing what God is doing. But when we do that, we will be involved and be aware of what’s happening and involved in what Frank has just laid out. It’s all of that that goes for the person who fears God and keeps his commandments and understand what’s happening. Frank Gaffney, thank you so very, very much for being with me today. So much information here, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for being with us as welcome back and listen to the program again. Put it all in context. See you tomorrow.