The One Word on which the 2024 Election May Hang
April 25, 2024
Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer
Guest: Constitutional Attorney David New
Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program originally aired on 4/25/24. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.
Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.
Sam Rohrer: Hello and welcome to this Thursday edition of Stand In the Gap Today and it’s also our bimonthly constitution and history update focus. And as we’re also aware, this is an election year, right? You can’t get away from that. It’s an important year. Elections literally drive everything. If you look around and consider, it drives everything from laws that are being introduced to laws being passed and policies made and promises made. It really affects Wall Street, whether it goes up or down. It impacts our actions, affect our international allies and enemies and determines foreign policies to domestic policies, establishes media, headlines, money raising, and literally everything is impacted by election. It’s very important, but as someone who me talking about as someone who ran nine times a Pennsylvania House of Representatives seat and then statewide two times, I can personally attest that it gets very old. The campaigns and the elections get very old and it particularly got old for me when increasingly, nearly every campaign, particularly I found federal campaigns were driven by polls.
Sam Rohrer: And you see that now more than ever, polls, research, slights of hand, pragmatic and mostly unbiblical campaign strategies. Hard to find anybody who can be a staffer on a campaign who has any understanding of biblical truth literally in those kind of capacities. Truth is not the most important asset to protect and doing right is all the time as defined by God’s word is either never embraced or only selectively considered. So this produces a corrupted environment and I’m going to suggest that’s in which we live now and it makes it impossible for anyone to trust the process. We know that you can’t, neither can God-fearing people trust any candidate. I’m going to say nearly any candidate since nearly all promise things that they cannot actually produce. They contradict each other by telling some people what they want to hear and telling other people what they want to hear and they’re different just to get a vote.
Sam Rohrer: We’re seeing Joe Biden so shamelessly do this right now in regard to Israel claiming support for Israel because he wants the Israeli vote, mean the pro Israel vote, but actually is wearing the Iran shirt as former Congresswoman Michelle Bachman and I discussed yesterday on the program. Now that being said, important voter issues are a part of what the campaigns identify and around which they shape their strategies and that’s appropriate. One issue of longstanding importance is the matter of abortion, right? It’s on the front page, it’s all around us on this issue. Joe Biden and the Democrats have determined well that running flat out in wild-eyed support of abortion unlimited and murder of the unborn being a human right, I’m going to say is purely evil by any consideration, but I guess say this as well, there are very few who are running on a pure life platform. Sadly, even Donald Trump repeated public statements many times that the life issue he says without some compromise is not a politically winning issue. Well, that tends to fuel the confusion on life versus abortion and how people approach the matter of life where God has said thou shalt not murder.
Sam Rohrer: Alright, now in today’s program, David New and I are going to come at this issue not comprehensively, but by revisiting history and identifying how it was that we got to this point where murdering the unborn became legal and now institutionalized. The one word on which the 2024 election may hang is the title I’ve chosen, and that’s right, and you say one word. Yeah, it is one word. It’s based on one word in the Constitution and rather than going into it right now, I’m going to walk right into it and invite in David New right now. But I ask you, do you know what one would that could be that the court actually well talked about and brought to us legalized murder? Think about it. Pull out your 14th amendment, your Constitution if you can and take a look at that. David, welcome
David New: Blessings to you and blessings to everyone listening to us today.
Sam Rohrer: David, in your legal and your constitutional analysis of how abortion, and I’m, when I say flat out, call it what it is, murdering of our unborn has become so accepted and institutionalized. You believe that it actually can be tracked back to one word and revolves around one word. That being the case, this word has to be quite important. What can you tell us about that one word before we actually share it in the next segment?
David New: Yes. This one word in the constitution justifies according to the US Supreme Court Roe v Wade, this one word didn’t appear in the Roe v Wade decision, but this one word appeared later to explain the constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade, this word is the source of judicial activism. When you learn about this one word, you will now know what judicial activism is. This one word is more important than the First amendment. It’s more important than the Bill of Rights when it comes to social issues. This one word is more important than any other word in the Constitution. It is the reason that abortion exists. It is the reason that your children cannot pray in a public school. It is the reason that homosexuals is a constitutional right. It’s the reason that homosexuals can get married. It’s all based upon one single word.
Sam Rohrer: All right, well, you’ve baited everyone, David and ladies and gentlemen, I’ll just comment on it because when we come back we’ll talk about it and there’s one thing we talk about a lot here. Words mean things, they really do mean things until and unless you change the meaning of the words literally giving you a heads up, that’s frankly what was done. But the ramifications are frankly enormous. David, in the matter of law, if you have firm words and you change them, the law doesn’t mean a whole lot, does it?
David New: Yes. What it is is just simply manipulating the definition of this one word. What the Supreme Court has been doing is a complete sham. It’s a joke. It’s all junk law. Everything they’ve done with manipulating this word is nothing but junk law. They cannot go to the history books to find justification for manipulating this word the way they have been, but the consequences have been enormous. Once they found it, they went crazy and they became social engineers. They became sociologists in all kinds of things. So it all hedges on this one word. Ladies and gentlemen, get out your 14th amendment, turn to the very first section of it and you’re going to learn something that very, very few Americans know about.
Sam Rohrer: Alright, and with that, ladies and gentlemen, stay with us. We’ll be back in just a moment. Our theme, the one word on which the 2024 election may hang David New and I will engage that. I think you’ll find it to be most interesting if you’re just joining us today. This is our bimonthly emphasis on constitutional matters and history. And David New is my guest as always, and our theme today, well, we’re going to share it in just a minute, one word, our title is this, the one word on which the 2024 election may hang. Now it goes far beyond that, but you’ll understand here shortly when it comes to matters of law and agreements, the Declaration of Independence as important documents, the Constitution, but treaties or frankly anything of importance were words are down on print and you sign them. They’re all based, the integrity of them, let’s put it that way, are all based on the assumption that there is unchanging truth, which then undergirds and maintains the integrity of words and terms, right?
Sam Rohrer: That just makes sense. That’s why I say repeatedly on this program defined the terms as I’ve addressed on previous programs and one with Dr. Marlene McMillan. But six weeks ago we talked about the dialectic process, that process designed and used by Marxists in our nation and around the world to undo any free nation. Their goal in their strategy under the dialectic is to strategically redefine critical terms according to something other than unchanging truth. So you replace truth, you assign a new definition, and then you begin to use it and then you control the debate. Now once a term is redefined and truth, which is its integrity is set aside, there can be no certain standard, no due north, no fixed point, no position on any issue which cannot be changed or compromised or altered. The result is, as she and I have talked in this program, that the result of the dialectic is to move people from a truth-based approach built in and replaced by deception and self delusion. Once that becomes embedded, then freedom, liberty is lost in tyranny, embraced. Okay, now that’s the underlying David. Now it’s time to share that one word, which I’ll say upfront has been redefined and redefined and redefined as you said on the other side. And it relates to this matter of legalized murder we now call abortion. I’m going to say it’s sanitized form. What is that word and why do you think that one word might define the outcome of this 2024 election?
David New: What word is the word liberty? It’s in the 14th Amendment in section one, and if you’re going to study the constitution, there are certain key areas you want to focus in on. One of those key areas would be like Article one, section eight, which lists the powers of Congress, basically the federal government. It would also be this phrase here and the word liberty. Let me read it to you. Article one, I mean 14th amendment section one, all persons born are naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. And here it is. This is the key phrase. This is judicial activism on steroids, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That word liberty is the basis and only that word, only that word is the basis for abortion in the United States.
David New: So let’s look at this phrase, nor shall any state deprive, this is known as the due process clause. That’s why it’s called without due process of law. Due process of law is simply a fancy way of saying there has to be a fair trial. That’s all it means. There’s got to be a fair trial. So nor shall any state deprive. Now here what the due process of clause is answering is when may the government deny an American citizen of his or her life that is capital punishment. When may the government deprive a person of his or her liberty by being put in jail and it could have a civil context as well. Supposing the government decides that you’re crazy and you have to be institutionalized in an insane asylum of some sort. There still has to be a trial or a hearing to make sure that you really are out of your mind and therefore you have to be committed and be deprived of your liberty by being confined into a mental institution.
David New: So that’s what this clause does. When can the government deny your, deprive you of your property? You speed, you get a traffic ticket, you have to go to court unless you plead guilty, you have to go to court and there must be a hearing to decide whether that speeding ticket depriving you of your property. Your money is valid, that there was a fair trial. Here’s what the Supreme Court does. It’s going to make you sick. When you learn what they do, what they do is they take that one word liberty. And if five members of the Supreme Court can agree amongst themselves that that word liberty means abortion, then abortion instantly becomes a constitutional right. So what they do is they lobby each other looking for five people to say, will you agree that the word liberty means abortion? Yes or no? And if you say yes, and you get five of them, you now have Roe v. Wade, let me read to you from 1992, the Supreme Court decision. And listen, this is about abortion, constitutional protection of the woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy de rise from the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
David New: It declares that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The controlling word in the cases before us is liberty. That one single word is what everybody how to interpret that one end of quote, that one single word in the due process clause is what everybody is fighting about. Most of them who are for Martian have no idea that they’re fighting for the interpretation of one single word in the US Constitution. The Supreme Court has never cited any other area of the Constitution to justify portion other than that word, liberty. And the whole thing is a sham. It’s all junk law because it’s totally arbitrary. It’s a flimsy excuse to make abortion legal because there’s nothing in the history of US law that says that the word liberty in the 14th amendment means abortion without question. When the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, no way, no way could it refer to abortion. Now this word liberty in the 14th Amendment has its origin in the word liberty in the Fifth Amendment. How many people claim that the word liberty in the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment means abortion? I’ve never heard it yet. And yet they do that with the 14th amendment and the word liberty there, why? It’s politics. It’s not constitution, it’s not the law. It’s 100% politics. And David,
Sam Rohrer: That’s a great little treatise. I didn’t want to interrupt you on it. Get that thought out there because that’s exactly the connection. So ladies and gentlemen, as I said when we began, when you redefine a word the implications, particularly when it’s in a matter of law or well for us, our primary, highest civil law, the constitution you take and you redefine a word as fundamental as that, well then well what can’t you change? And I’m going to submit that when you feel you have the right to take and change the meaning of such a fundamental word such as that, you can really define who is God. You can really define, well actually they did define and change what was right to wrong, what was moral to immoral. Now think about that in light of biblical truth that talks about when the time comes when right shall be declared wrong and wrong shall be declared right?
Sam Rohrer: That’s what we’re talking about. This is the human explanation of how those who have been in office have actually taken, changed the definition of a word and not brought freedom, not liberty, but actually more bondage and far worse. When we come back, we’re going to give some other examples, David will, of how that change of liberty has affected other major areas of our liberty. Well, the consequences of deceptively changing the definitions of words, it can literally set the world on fire, literally cause bombs to be dropped. Wars engaged in it’s big. In the book of James, the Apostle James actually talks about how great a fire the tongue can create just by the choice of our word. So it is very critical, but whenever truth becomes subjective, contracts become void because they’re not predictable. Constitutional oaths of those who run for office who say, I do solemnly swear before God to uphold and do my oath.
Sam Rohrer: Well and then they don’t. Well, it becomes a lie. Marriage vows tell death do us part, they mean nothing too frankly. Every one of the 10 commandments I’m going to suggest become, well 10 suggestions or even worse, as in the case of thou shalt not murder, it becomes go ahead and murder if you want. And we just won’t call it murder. We’ll just call it abortion. And as your government, we will not throw you in jail for it. We won’t even tell you it’s wrong. We’ll tell you it’s your rates. So when you think to God you can tell God what to do effectively, that’s what’s happening. But that’s not just the only one. How about this? Thou shalt not worship any other God. That’s the first command. But that becomes well government is God and on government we’re going to do everything we can to make you dependent.
Sam Rohrer: What is that? Well, that’s exactly what it’s redefining what the Bible says as liberty. Why is liberty important? Because it’s from liberty. Faith in Christ who sets us free from bondage changing that puts us back under bondage. How about this? Thou shalt not steal. Alright, well we can change that too. You’ve got to do what we say. But we government now, God, we can take from you your property. We can steal your children’s inheritance and we can deplete frankly all of your savings that you’ve worked so hard to put aside. How? Well by running up a national debt that now stands at $35 trillion and call it necessary for the basic functions of government, you get the idea. That’s how it’s done. Alright, David, the redefining of the word liberty not only has affected the meaning of murder, thou shalt not murder in abortion. It’s also been used to impact the seventh commandment also, hasn’t it?
David New: Yes, without question because it changed the institution of marriage. Now, when it says nor shall any state that refers to the 50 state governments, it does not refer to the federal government. It refers to the 50 state governments. When it says deprive any person of life, that is very solid evidence that capital punishment is constitutional. A state may perform executions. Now, the constitution in this phrase does not say that you must have capital punishment. If a state chooses not to, no problem. You don’t have to. But if you do have capital punishment, it has to be done by due process of law. There has to be a fair trial and you can’t have capital punishment for one group like black folks, but not for other folks, white folks. They all have to be the same. Okay, now here’s another thing that’s happened. This has happened never. This is the amazing thing about this word, liberty. Not only on the pro-choice side, do they not understand what they’re really fighting for is an interpretation of one single word. But on the pro-life side, it’s the same way. Very few pro-lifers know that abortion is based upon one single word by five people who simply agree. Today that word now means abortion.
David New: Very few people, the press doesn’t know that it’s based upon this one single word. Now let’s talk about Bobby and Chucky. Let’s talk about homosexuality. That is where the right to homosexual and same sex marriage comes from. Also from the same word, liberty. And you can imagine there’s nothing in western law, US law, common law anywhere that says that homosexuality is a right. In fact, it is a crime. Now let me read you the key paragraph by our good friend, justice Anthony M. Kennedy. The case does involve two adults who with full and mutual consent from each other engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct and crime their right to liberty under the due process clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. Bang, homosexuality just now became a constitutional right.
Sam Rohrer: All right, David, and see ladies and gentlemen, how quickly Now why didn’t people in the past, ladies and gentlemen catch that? I don’t know why certain attorneys and others back then that when these things happened didn’t make more of an issue. Certainly the legislators in office should have, they didn’t. But the definition will change of one word. So the seventh commandment, thou shalt not commit adultery, which we know by the meaning of that in Hebrew is all acts of sexual conduct outside marriage. That’s what that means. And so by one definitional change, you take what God said, thou shalt not, and then change it into something that God actually calls an abomination. A complete flip, how quack the definitional change. But David, it goes beyond even that seventh commandment or the commandment. Thou shalt not kill the sixth commandment that it acts touches on the first commandment too about worshiping God, doesn’t it?
David New: Yes, it does. In 19, this is how long the Supreme Court has been messing around with this word liberty. In 1940, the US Supreme Court became the final arbiter or referee for religion law of the United States. Religion law became federalized in 1940. What does that mean? Before 1940, if you had prayer or Bible in your public schools before 1940, where did you go to decide the case? You went to your state constitution, you didn’t go to the First Amendment. Most people don’t know that. Why? Because the First Amendment has no jurisdiction over your state. Have you ever wondered why the First Amendment begins with the word Congress? That’s the most important word in the First Amendment. It tells you where it has power and it only has power over the federal rallies. That’s it. So before 1940, there were about 30 cases involving religion in the public schools, prayer, Bible, reading, singing, religious songs, et cetera, et cetera. All of them, none of them were decided on the basis of the First Amendment amendment. When did it first become used in the school prayer case? Not until after 1940.
David New: In fact, it didn’t happen until 1950 in the case to arenas in New Jersey. So how did that happen? How did the Supreme Court eventually get the power to say to kids, you can’t pray in class anymore as a group vocally, or you can’t read your Bible as a group in class anymore. What is the basis? Most people think it’s the First Amendment. Well, in a sense it is, but that’s not the hooker. What makes the First Amendment binding on the States? Let’s read it is as nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, IE, they interpret that word liberty to refer to the First Amendment. Well, let’s read the case. Kawell versus Connecticut, 1940. Here the Supreme Court speaks, we hold that the statute as construed and applied to the appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law and contradiction. Contravention of the 14th Amendment, the fundamental concept of liberty embodies in that amendment embraces the Liberty’s guaranteed by the First Amendment end of that’s it. The moment that happened, that means at any time from 1940 on, if the Supreme Court thinks your kids should pray in a public school, they can stop it. Because what they did is they wrote the First Amendment in that little word, Liberty did.
Sam Rohrer: Okay? And ladies and gentlemen, you got it. Do you see how quickly, I mean it’s over time, but simply redefining a word and thinking that you are God instead of God, we come back, we’ll complete one other change that the definition of change of liberty has made. Alright, David, quite some information here today on this program. I would suspect that it is probably information that very, very few have heard. Thank you for doing the investigation on the court cases and finding that connection to liberty. But as you and I talk about many times, a lot of times big things result from, as we’ve talked about today, from small changes and just five people changed the definition of a word. And wow, that whole country has been changed, our whole culture. So we’ve picked out, and I think probably if we were to go ahead, we probably would find other things that have happened that one by one we’ve gutted God’s 10 Commandments, which the same court obviously ladies and gentlemen, also pulled off the walls of our public school classrooms long ago because they said as a part of their ruling, we can’t let it up.
Sam Rohrer: We can’t let their children read those because if it’s hanging there, they will likely read it. And if they read it, they likely will do it. Well, what a terrible thing for our children to obey the 10 Commandments. So they took it down and now nobody knows what the 10 commandments are. And not only that, the government who has a responsibility to uphold God’s moral law, it’s called the law, take and redefine what God says and make it legal. But I’m going to submit to you that these kind of changes, be it calling murder, abortion or calling two men, marrying two men or however you want to call it and call it a right, the new definition of marriage. However you want to go ahead, I think you could probably go down through probably most of the 10 commandments and find changes where we’ve turned God’s definition upside down.
Sam Rohrer: But it’s not only the redefining of moral law out of attempt to make it legal, because remember the Supreme Court, when they make a jurisdictional change, they may make it legal, but it does not make it lawful. And we can’t get into that distinction, but they’re not the but David. There’s another area tremendously impacted by the redefining of this one word, liberty. And it’s the fact that it totally changes God’s moral law as they have done. But it also fundamentally, well I’m going to say challenges a fundamental underpinning of our whole representative republic as was put together. Talk about that one.
David New: Yes. And by the way ladies and gentlemen, the way to know that the word liberty and the 14th Amendment does not mean all of these crazy things that the Supreme Court claims it means is to look at the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment uses the origin for the word due process clause in the 14th Amendment comes from the Fifth Amendment. What they were doing is they were trying to make the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment binding on the States. So then they wrote the 14th amendment to do that. That’s why it says no state in the 14th Amendment in the Fifth Amendment, it says, nor shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Since when has anybody ever claimed that the word liberty in the Fifth Amendment refers to the First Amendment? That would be crazy. There would be no need to say that the word liberty, there will be no need for a First Amendment.
David New: If those 45 words are all wrapped up neatly in that little word, liberty in the Fifth Amendment, it can’t mean that. And if the word liberty in the Fifth Amendment can’t mean the First Amendment because the First Amendment is a separate amendment, then the same is true for the word liberty in the 14th Amendment. Nobody claims that the word liberty in the first the Fifth Amendment refers to school prayer or to Bible reading or to the display of the 10 Commandments. So that’s the key. The word liberty in the Fifth Amendment doesn’t even abolish slavery.
David New: Slavery was constitutional when the Fifth Amendment was ratified. I am sad to say that’s how limited the word liberty in the Fifth Amendment is. And that’s why we know it can’t mean all these wild things that the Supreme Court comes up with. Now, there is one other amendment that gets real, really affected by this manipulating of the word liberty in the 14th Amendment that is the 10th Amendment, the last 28 words in the Bill of Rights, what Trump did by reversing Roe v. Wade, he put the 10th amendment in play because that’s where it belongs. Now, I would support a constitutional amendment to protect pro-life to protect the child. Yes, but when you can interpret the word liberty to mean anything you possibly can dream of gay sex, drag queens, no Bible, no religion and abortion on demand in infanticide. If you can do that, what do you do to the T amendment? You wipe it out. There is nothing left for the states and that’s what they’ve done. You’ve taken the 10th Amendment and it might as well not even be there because that amendment tells us whatever authority doesn’t belong to the federal government, it’s all left to the state governments. And of course that’s no longer true because of the way they interpret the word liberty in the 14th Amendment.
Sam Rohrer: And David, we’re about out of time, but what you said there is extraordinary. When I was in the house here in Pennsylvania, the 10th Amendment was a very important issue. I spoke on that many, many, many times and I tried to when I was in office trying to say, how is it that the federal government tells us what we do with education standards, which ought to be up to the state and up to the parents? How is it that the federal government tells us how we ought to provide healthcare, which ought to be up to the states and up to the people within the states? And how is it that basically everything that we did on the state level, almost everything was directed by congressional action or federal action. And David, I’ll add this to what you’re saying, not just a change of the definition.
Sam Rohrer: That was the first start, I think. But the other is that what was left of the 10th Amendment, the states voluntarily gave up, ladies and gentlemen, you know how they gave it up? They gave it up because the federal government began to print money, steal money. As I said earlier, they learned how to steal money from the people by printing money, borrowing it from future generations, unlawful, immoral, evil. But it gave them a tool. And that tool fuels bribery. So they bribe the states. We’ll come up with money on the federal government. We’ll give it to you the states. Now you can have a whole lot more money to spend that than what you can raise on your own taxes and you’ll get more power if you do so. The governors love it and the leaders of the legislature on both sides, they love that federal money because it’s more stuff that we can hand out.
Sam Rohrer: So there it is. You move government into people to the point where you think you’re God and redefine the terms you have like we have here in the scene. You actually call what God said, evil murder. We’ll figure out a way we can murder marriage man and a woman Own it. We’ll figure out a way we can marry anybody you want. Covetousness not a big issue. You can steal anything from my buddy that you want. There’s a way to do it under the law and whatever doesn’t work well, you just provide the money and you bribe the people because people can’t say no to money. David. Well, we’ve covered a lot of issues right here. So only a few seconds here. Quick closing words, 15 seconds.
David New: It is very, very sad that the American people do not study their constitution because if they knew how arbitrary, flimsy the Supreme Court’s interpretation of one single word is, they would really be disgusted and upset.
Sam Rohrer: Absolutely. And ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to add to that, join me tomorrow on this program, Dr. George Barnum will be with me, and we’re going to go further on this as we talk about the latest research dealing with the thoughts of the American people, and it comes right down to this. Who determines truth? Well, we talked about what happens if you determine other than what God says, you can change anything. That’s what’s happened here. Join us tomorrow, David New thanks for being with me today. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being with us here today on Stand In the Gap Today.
Recent Comments