New Supreme Court Case Coming!

Lance: Welcome to the Lance Wallnau Show. Today, we have a special report that’s going to be coming to you on what’s happening to the Supreme Court. But it’s not the Roe V Wade story, because what I’m concerned about Mercedes is that there are at least four or five key decisions that are coming down. That have been lost in the shuffle here because the news cycle is all about Roe V Wade. But there are significant issues that are being discussed. So, I have somebody I go to. A friend of mine who I have a high degree respect for attorney Joe Franco 19 years who is with Alliance Defending Freedom. Oversaw a network of some 3,000 lawyers, and is frequently involved with the kind of like Christian arbitration and stuff that he works almost like in the biblical model of helping resolve issues consulting and educating the church on issues. I want to welcome Joe Franco coming into us live. Hey, Joe good to see you again. 

Joe Franco: And you as well. Great to be with you.

Lance: Alright. So, have you met Mercedes Sparks here our wing-wing woman. Okay. So here’s the deal. I was with Kelly Shackleford. He was bringing me up to date on the significance of the Coach Kennedy case. I want to go there right now because this involves this whole problem we have of the leftist become an ideological force. They their agenda with LGBTQ with race with equity. I mean they’ve really done a brilliant job of merging a theological movement of moral axioms and absolutes and impose them corporations and culture while the church is still struggling to be able to, can I say a prayer? Can I say Jesus?

And seems to me like this has gotten way out of hand. We might as well reframe the argument and at some point and say we have competing world views that are making sacred claims on human beings having to bow the knee to them. I think that we got to start protecting the right of religious choice in America that some of us don’t agree with their religion. Am I going too far when I frame it that way?

Joe Franco: No, I don’t think so at all. Kind of a the left sort of majors in grievances and they said, the most important thing in the constitutional equation is not your right to speak and believe. It’s whether they take offense. If they take offense at something, a religious symbol on a veteran’s memorial, a prayer at the end of an event or an invocation before. Their offense at having to hear that, they say Trump’s your constitutional right of speech or free exercise of religion.

Lance: Wow, that’s a powerful way to frame it. Their sensitivity and offense to your beliefs is the issue that defines your freedom to have a belief. And that’s I think was coming to a head with the coach Kennedy case. For those who don’t know what’s going on, tell us the background of Coach Kennedy, where this is taking place and what the issue is.

Joe Franco: Yeah, sure. So, it’s kind of in a nutshell. It’s a little bit of a technical issue, but you can have government speakers or you can have private speakers on government property. Private speakers yet are protected by the First Amendment on government property. Going back 40 to 30 years ago in New York. I represented loads of Bible club cases. Schools would say, oh this is the school. Oh, you can’t have a Christian club in addition to our communist club and our environmental club and our this and our that because nobody can ever come in here and pray. Well, why not? I would ask them the prayers seep into the walls and to pounce on the unsuspecting children when they return on Monday. They just said, you can never have anything the separation of church and state is absolute prayer religious expression always loses. So, this is kind of a throwback to that.

Now if a school itself because the Kennedy case deals with the school, but this would apply to other types of government entities. If the school itself said, hey, let’s have a rally for Jesus. They’re dead on arrival. They can’t do that as a public school. The problem is what we have the Christian teacher or the Christian student and the Christian teacher says, hey, I want to pray with my students. Then, this in the Coach Kennedy case, he wanted to go to midfield and bow a knee and pray with students who are gathered for prayer before or after the game. And the school said, no, no, no. You’re a government official. When people see you, they’re going to think we’re speaking.

So, this is actually getting to that kind of tricky area of is the government speaking? Is it individual speaking? How much does the government have to allow for individuals to speak? How much flexibility do they have to give in those? So, this is kind of put this squarely in them. Based on the old Supreme Court precedence, not surprisingly, Kennedy has lost every step of the way. The Supreme Court struck down high school graduation prayers in a 5-4 vote and Levy Weissman. So, he struck down prayers.

Lance: Now what year was that?

Joe Franco: Levy Weissman was back in the 90s. Then, about maybe 10, 12 years ago, struck down prayers before high school graduation, pardon me, at prayers at football games. And they’ve just had this kind of no prayer zone. When Levy Wiseman struck down and the rabbi praying was like a very general kind of to whom it may concern prayer but the Supreme Court was concerned and said, well, you have captive students. They have to hear a prayer and on that same basis, there been attacks on prayers before city meetings, town meetings. When I was at ADF we represented and had a win on the Supreme Court on the right to pray to have an invocation before a meeting where the individual praying uses the name of Jesus or praise in their own tradition. And that was an important win. Galloway versus Town of Greece. And the other side hated that.

So, you can have an invocation of prayer before Congress. A state legislature school board meetings are still slightly unsettable. We think you can do it there as well. So, Kennedy is kind of in that stream of decisions where we’re asking the question though, does a teacher have any individual rights? You can ask interesting questions. Is a Muslim teacher allowed to put his prayer up and face Mecca and pray during the school day? Well, I I’ve never heard of a school say no under that circumstance but coach Kennedy kneeling at midfield they can’t have. People going to see that and think, oh, the schools in endorsing religion.

So that’s kind of where that case is lining up. The arguments went well. I am cautiously optimistic. I’ve called every decision correct so far including the vote. So, I’m kind of optimistic that that’s going to be a 6 to 3 win but we’ll see.

Lance: And so now does the case with the teacher. I guess is gym teacher is something in some Virginia school who wasn’t going to be using pronouns that the students were insisting that the transgender is I she/shem/him whatever. And he said, no, I’m not actually going to subscribe to that as a Christian that’s not my worldview. He actually was did he win that case in terms of being fired by the school district?

Joe Franco: When I was at ADF, we had a number of those and we were successful we had a college professor who won, and you win these cases lands by analogy. So, you had a student saying oh the professor in a philosophy class won’t use her or she. And that’s kind of an odd thing and you’re discussing with a student why would you even use that pronoun. But the way we win those cases we would ask the school what if a Jewish teacher was told by a student my preferred pronoun is my Fuhrer. Or what if a gay teacher was told my preferred pronoun is a homosexual slur or something. And what you find in these cases is nobody’s ever compelled to do something that violates their belief unless it’s the Christian, and they don’t want to firm something they don’t believe. Like, well we want our case for the baker at the Supreme Court.

One of the things that impressed Justice Kennedy so much was we developed a record. Would you make an African American baker bake a cake for a KKK rally? Well, and these were the city officials. Never. Oh of course not. Would you make a gay baker make a cake for the Westboro Baptists? Oh, no never. Would you make a Jewish baker make a cake for you know a neo-Nazi group? Of course not. We go through every hypothetical. No one’s ever compelled to do anything unless it’s a Christian being told you must affirm and actively celebrate every sexual choice of every sort. So the analogies display that this is not so much about speech as it is. It’s a one-sided issue. So yes, we’ve had some success with those. There will be more of those cases. They’ll probably go both ways. They will probably reach the Supreme Court and I think the Supreme Court which has been this court has been very very strong on speech rights and very good on religious freedom. I think there’s a good chance the professor wins in those cases. There’ll be some guidelines on how it works but I’m again optimistic on that case going forward.

Lance: Well, tell us about the main case because that one I think was decided already. And I think we’re losing some significance here, because every case if I understand this correctly.Remember we’re layman out here in the social media and the radio world. So, every time there’s a decision made it’s significant because it establishes a certain kind of a precedent in its own domain that can be linked to the next case. So, there’s something we don’t want to lose in the cases that we’re winning. Because they’re telling us where the ground is being at least clarified in our favor as people that want to protect our religious freedom.

Joe Franco: Yeah.

Lance: What happened in Maine?

Joe Franco: Exactly right. So, well said I wouldn’t expect anything less of you. So, the main case is I think the death of something called Blaine Amendments. That’s not going to mean much to people. It was a senator back in the 19th century ran for president he tried to pass a federal amendment to the US Constitution barring government money going to what he called sectarian schools. What did he have in my Catholic schools? There’s a lot of anti-Catholic bigotry at that time. I say that because public schools back then used the King James Bible, so it wasn’t a question of that. The Federal Amendment failed.

So, close to almost two thirds of states passed what were referred to as baby Blaine Amendments and they’re floating around in state constitutions and they say something like no government money can ever go to a religious institution, no religious education. Well, what happens is you get parents. They get a voucher program say because they’re below a certain income line or something like that. They get a voucher and they can abuse at any school. They can go to a public school. They can use it a private school, but some States say, oh well you can’t go to a religious school with that. Well, the Supreme Court has said no, no, no it’s the parent’s choice.It’s not government supporting the religious school it’s the parent’s decision. The parent acts as the circuit breaker.

Lance: So, now this is the part I want to really zero in on. Therefore, the distinction we’re making now is the government it’s kind of like the Terry McAuliffe stepped in it big mistake Liberal Progressive, Governor of Virginia. This is how they think. We in the government are going to decide what your children are taught through the education unions and the curriculum that we approve in government. That’s the Chinese version of government. We will determine what’s good for you and you’re saying the big pushback here is the parents will decide what is in the interest of their children not the school superintendent or something. Is that what I’m hearing?

Joe Franco: Yes, exactly right. A public school to the extent that public school is interested in indoctrination. I had this discussion with one of my brothers who’s a teacher and he said, no, that doesn’t happen in my school. So, I don’t want to overgeneralize but to the extent that you find people in the system whose interest is indoctrination on these issues. They’re going to be correspondingly opposed to private options. They don’t want charter schools. They don’t want Christian school alternatives. So, they’ll do anything they can to prevent that from happening and these so-called Blaine amendments were a handy tool in their toolkit. It looked like they should have died in a Montana case couple years back and here’s what happened in the state of Maine. State of Maine has a lot of very rural areas. So you don’t have a public school within a certain driving time. Whatever I don’t recall it’s 45 minute whatever it was.

So Maine says, okay, if you’re in a rural district, you can go to a private school that’s in reasonable driving distance and will pay your tuition because we have to guarantee you a public education. So, you had some students in very rural areas and the only reasonable school nearby happen to be a Christian school or even more broadly a religious school. And the state of Maine said, oh, we’re not going to pay for that. Well, the alternative is they don’t have a school in reasonable driving distance. And why would you pay for my choice as a parent for a private school that’s not religious but not a private school that’s teaching through the mandated courses that is religious.

So the Supreme Court struck that down and said to me, no, this is just like all the other cases we’ve had with school vouchers and all those things. You can’t discriminate against the parent who qualifies under the law and they want to use this Christian school. This is tendency to push Christian organizations or churches out of generally applicable government programs. When I was at ADF we had a wonderful win in the Supreme Court case Trinity Lutheran, where they applied for a Missouri program to get recycled tires in their playground. So, kids are safe, you fall off you get that. They qualified in every way but the state of Missouri said, we still can’t give it to you because you’re a church. And by putting shredded tires in your playground, we’re benefiting religion.

Well, how they benefiting religion? And we were saying things like, well hold on. does the municipal fire department show up and put out fires? Yeah. Do the police investigate crimes here? Yes. So, like what’s the problem. General government programs you know can be provided for churches and they wouldn’t do it in the Supreme Court says it was a slam dunk decision. The Supreme Court said to the State, you can’t do that. They qualified for a neutral program. You can’t punish them because of their faith. That’s the same kind of animating spirit if I could put it that way that’s shows up in these educational cases.

So I think this the main case the Carson case Carson versus is a very important case. Because it’s sort of like, it was an old movie The Black Knight. It was a Monty Python from you cut off one leg you cut off the other, I’m not dead yet.

Lance: Yeah.

Joe Franco: We cut off one leg and the other leg in the arm it’s like I’ll still fight you. It’s like it’s finally dead now after this case no state’s going to be able to say our State constitutional blame amendment says we can never fund religious activity. So, it’s a very important case and as you rightly pointed out, it’s going to have some application beyond in general to Christian organizations to get excluded from government programs. Now, I could say for example, a Christian ministry is a feeding program. There’s a government program will give you X to feed hungry kids. Hey, we want to take part of the program. Oh, we can’t do that. That’s giving money to a church. Yeah, but we’re not using it for worship. We’re using it to buy food and give food to kids on your guidelines. Oh, no we still can’t have that.

There’s this kind of built-in presumption in government thinking. That if you’re religious, you should be disqualified because we can’t ever do anything to benefit a church. So that’s the kind of backstory to a case like Carson. That’s why it’s so important, so significant.

Lance: That makes a great deal of sense, and I’m curious about because look at the time here and there’s so much to discuss. Are there any other Supreme Court cases that have to the Christian community that they should be aware of?

Joe Franco: Not quite as directly. There are some that could indirectly affect it but some of them could be a stretch. A number of Christian communities were watching the New York State gun case, and that was, I’m there are people I know who have tried to find a connection there. I think it’s kind of strained. When you have a case involving speech or free exercise of religion those are the most essential. The biggest one of course was the bombshell that the Supreme Court dropped today. It was muted somewhat because of the leap and nothing changed from the league the kind of friends I had who hang around the Supreme Court and here are things. They said, yeah, the Alito Coalition of five justices to strike down Roe V Wade held firm. And ironically, the leak if somebody was planning to intimidate a justice.

It looked like it had the opposite effect where judges were saying, wait a minute. If I show I can be pressured with threats, every time I’ve got a decision they’re going to do this kind of they’re going to leak and there’ll be threats and then there’s no longer an independent judiciary. So, if anything it kind of hardened the justices in their positions like I’m not going to be intimidated by hoodlums.

Lance: Joe, I have a question. It’s just a personal beef of mine. The FBI The entire apparatus of the government could take like I was saying in a broadcast. We got a million people go to the Capitol on January 6th. They’re able to geo–trace every device that goes into the capitol comes out, goes all the way back to Colorado. And if you went into the capital, you’re going to get visited by the FBI. You might even be get hauled off to jail. Somehow, they were able to move expeditiously, proactively. They were even tracking devices before they went in there and follow them out. Why is it that they can’t find who the leaker is? What is the joke here? Are you telling me the entire FBI? Nobody knows who the leak, they only have four clerks reach justice.Probability is it was a liberal justice that limits you down. So, what are you talking 16 potential people? What’s the story here with finding the leak source?

Joe Franco: Well, but you can’t rule out it was a conservative. I mean you may have a conservative who just didn’t agree on abortion, so but the universe is so small, as your point.

Lance: You got what? 25.

Joe Franco: You have 36 clerks. You have 4 or 5 staff personnel and the 9 justices. It’s not a big universe. The justices are not going to do it. I don’t know why there’s not more aggressive movement to try to identify the leaker. And Justice Scalia famously said if somebody ever betrayed the trust of the Supreme Court I would do everything in my power to destroy their legal career. And there are some arguments that that such a person may have committed a federal crime. It would not surprise me to see a federal prosecution if the leakers identified. Why they have, the Supreme Court is very secretive in their internal workings.

So, it’s maybe not surprising. There have been some reports led out that clerks are telling their friends I feel so stressed. Am I under suspicion? I feel like there’s a blot over me.

Lance: Well, yeah no kid I think it’s to their advantage to have that leaker identify because all of them have a cloud over them. I don’t want them clerking for me if they’re going to be linked to the New York Times and an activist. Mercedes, I’ve let you, you’ve been vigilantly working on stuff here. What are you thinking?

Mercedes: Oh well, I would love to hear some comments on so to those two other cases we recently just touched on a second ago with the gun rights and how, I believe it was Justice Thomas who said, you don’t even need it concealed carry permit. Like the constitution doesn’t even outline that. I think that I’d love to hear his thoughts on that and then also in North Carolina in a 8-1 decision they ruled that North Carolina Republican lawmakers can intervene in court and defend the state’s voter ID laws. Because that’s something.

Joe Franco: Yeah, I’ll start with the second one because that’s more significant. Sometimes what happens is there’s a law passed but then depending on the State. It might be the responsibility of the State attorney general to enforce the law or to sue in case it’s not being upheld or something or make the arguments. Well, what happens if you have the governor and attorney general from different parties or the legislature’s one party and the attorney general is a different party. What you find happening is sometimes the individual responsible for enforcement doesn’t personally agree with it.

So, they’ll say, oh I’m not going to enforce this, I’m not going to bring a lawsuit. Even though that law was passed, too bad for you because I think it’s wrong. So, that becomes the stopping point.There’s nobody to go to court and plead the case. The way the law works, you have to have an actual controversy in parties and they have to present. You can’t argue for theoretical things. So,if the person responsible is not willing to enforce the law and this can work both ways. What’s happening here is Republican legislators are saying, we want to intervene in the case and when you’re granted intervention, you become essentially a party to the case.

You get to argue and make the arguments and the motions. And if the person who should be defending it is doing it lackadaisically, you can pick up the slack and say, hey, we’re going after this now and make the right arguments. So, for example, when California’s passed proposition 8 in another time and another day defining marriage is one man and one woman hard to believe that happened in California, right. That was challenged in the courts and the Democrats in charge of the state just said, well, we’re not going to defend it we think it’s unconstitutional. So, the voters had no say, there was if there’s nobody to defend it you lose. So, what’s happening that’s why intervention is so important. So, the Supreme is granting intervention that the people who pass these voter protection laws are allowed to go into court and say, hey, here’s why we did this.This is the evidence of fraud we found. These are the concerns that we have. These are the precautions we put in so people don’t get disenfranchised. So, somebody’s there to speak to it.

So that’s the idea of intervening is very important especially in so polarized and environment where you might pass a law and somebody from the other party with a different view just says,hey, I’m not going to defend it. I know I’m supposed to I don’t agree with that. So, that kind of goes to that sort of thing. The gun case is interesting. I’ve not followed that quite as closely, but Justice Thomas said, hey, the right to bear arms that doesn’t just mean to have it, I mean it’s to bear it. And New York is one of a small number of State that basically put you to extra steps. If you were a law-abiding citizen, you wanted to carry because you felt like you were in some kind of danger. New York required you show these extraordinary circumstances.

My job is delivering diamonds and I have to sell them on the street in a gang, on a block with gangs or something. It makes up some crazy example. So, but if you were just an ordinary citizen and you wanted to lawfully carry, you couldn’t do it unless you met this very high burden. So again, it’s sort of the government the idea the government intruding on your rights. This is same sort of big brother spirit. Yes, you have rights in the constitution, but we decide how far they go.So, that New York law was struck down and this is what people don’t get. They’ll talk in, they’ll sound often talking points we need to protect children. Who’s not in favor of that? We need to make schools safe. Great. You know, sign us all up, right.

What was really though in play here is New York just doesn’t want to see guns there. The gun owners are saying, hey, if a dangerous situation happens, you might be glad for me to have that weapon on the street. So, that was kind of where it was being played out but the State can still do a lot. The State can require criminal background checks, you can require firearms and safety training. You can prevent felons from getting a license. There’s a lot a state can do. What New York and a few other States is they went beyond those kinds of steps that most of us would think are reasonable to essentially an outright ban. Unless you can meet our extraordinary test for circumstances that you really need to be carrying that gun, you can’t do it. You don’t get it and so now, that’s gone in those states.

So it cleared up a lot of Second Amendment issues. The Wall Street Journal opined upon the earlier in it, that it’s good they finally took a bite out of this. They didn’t just keep piecemealing it as they’ve done another Second Amendment cases. This is a clear comprehensive decision. It avoids litigation and that’s what you wish the court would do more of. And I don’t need to transition to something you’re not ready to talk about, but the overturning of Roe V Wade and the Hobbs decision is interesting because Chief Justice Roberts voted to uphold the Mississippi law. It was a 3-6 win actually on the question presented. But Roberts said, but let’s not go further. We don’t have to address Roe V Wade. Let those cases keep going and all that.

The majority basically said something like let’s rip off the bandit. Why are we killing Roe V Wade inch by inch? Let’s rip it off. Let’s get to the Democratic debate State by State. That’s the way we’re going. Let’s give them more guidance instead of less. So that’s the kind of thing that happened as well in the New York litigation was a kind of a ripping off the band–aid. Hey New York and other States you cannot do this.

Lance: Which is really a courageous thing to do in light of the fact that the disposition of the country is so incendiary and punishing and punitive to especially from the left and from the media. It’s courageous. I got more question and then we went a little bit over, but I don’t want to keep you all day here. But the question is this. You were overseeing at 1.3,000 lawyers. I saw something of rather ominous import to me, when I looked at the president could hardly get a law firm that would work with him in his fight for election integrity. I mean, because they were just being targeted as it was as though lawyers proliferate over their Perkins Coy. Even to the extent that they’re involved with the Russian dossier and it’s like they’re embedded almost in the left in the Democratic Party.

But when it comes to Republicans it looks like the front lines and everyone’s got to know this of all of these cases they’re being championed to a great extent by Senator for law and justice or you got you got Matt Staver you got Kelly Shultz. And of course all of their teams, you got Mike Ferris. But my gosh, it’s the Christian lawyers that are actually the front line, the firewall when it comes to the protection of freedom and Christian liberty. Are you concerned about the recruiting and growth of lawyers that’ll be conservative that’ll be reformation oriented where we got to deal with corruption and systemic issues? Or do you think we have a strong bench? Is this sustainable? Because I am worried about the future of legal professions in this toxic bar environment.

Joe Franco: Yeah, the answer is you have a strong enough bench. You should have a stronger bench. The dynamics and the large prestigious law firms is they would never touch one of these cases. There was a time that was not so. You had some that lean conservative, some that lean liberal and everybody understood you were representing a client. I think what happened was with Trump you had this unprecedented buildup of toxicity that a lot the firms that might have been willing to do something like that just backed off and said, let’s stay out of this one. We don’t want to lose corporate clients and all that. but I think that was partly driven by an effort to raise the toxicity level so high that it would have just that effect. So, that’s the kind of thing that you have.

Now, there’ll always be enough lawyers around to defend some and interesting thing, it’s always been a trademark of the legal profession that we defend on popular causes. Going back to John Adams representing British soldiers and the Boston massacre. We’ve always had the idea everybody deserves a day in court. Everybody deserves an advocate. But sometimes now it it’s the operating manual of some of the really hard left sorts that we don’t even want you to get into the game. We don’t want you to have an argument. We want to close you down and scream and shout.

One of my colleagues went to Yale Law to do a debate and she and the opposing attorney on a case were going to talk about civility how well they got along, and how you can have opposite views and be professional and extend courtesies and all that. And while she’s in there for the debate 150 yell law students show up and start screaming and yelling and banging on things and making threats. Because they don’t want her there expressing, because she has beliefs that they don’t hold. Now to a great credit a number of federal justices pardon me judges said, I’d like to see that list of students because I would never hire one as a clerk, and then all of a sudden, they’re backing up. But that’s their MO and I don’t have to tell you. You’ve talked about this many times. I enjoyed a lot of your shows on this.

They want there to be a one-sided debate and that’s kind of emblematic of what’s happening. We don’t even want you to have attorneys to represent yourself and that’s the finest tradition of the legal profession many lawyers say. The mass murderer gets a defender. The person heading to the electric chair gets a free defense if he or she can’t afford it. This is just a thing. It’s a system of justice and what should be a great proud tradition. People like Alan Dershowitz talking about the same. This is disgraceful what’s happening with this kind of cancel culture. We used to be proud of this kind of thing.

Lance: I would be embarrassed to graduate from Yale, prestigious as the name is. I mean Eric Mataxes always reminds me he went to Yale. The fact of the matter is if you went to the law school, he should be embarrassed because the students are acting like high school adolescents. They’re supposed to be, this is supposed to be the cream of the crop, and it’s the screwballs that are now running the campuses. I’m going to let you go Joe, but how do people get in touch with you? How do they stay in touch with if they want to connect with you, what do they do?

Joe Franco: Sure, best way now is the church where I’m also pastoring now at this stage of my life and career. They can go on to Highlands Church One word. HIGHLANDS. “Highlandschurch.org” in Scottsdale, Arizona. You can access me there through the website under the pastors or email me directly Jinfranco JIN like Nancy,Jinfranco@Highlandschurch.org. I answer all my emails if you have a situation with your church or ministry and you need some help. Everything I’m doing at this stage of my career is pro bono. Oh, maybe I should have said that. And if I can’t help you, I’ll try to see that you get some help but I don’t want any member of the body of Christ to go unrepresented. so, I will try.

Lance: Oh, I wish you hadn’t said that. You’ll be getting some mail right now.

Joe Franco: It’s limits they have to be religious freedom type matters and ministry type matters.

Lance: There we go okay.

Joe Franco: I’m not going to be here doing criminal cases or family court dispute that doesn’t.churches or ministries with questions about being able to exercise their faith.

Lance: Wonderful. Thank you John Franco, we’re gonna have you back again. Glad to get you on the show today. God bless you and thanks for taking time to be with us.

Joe Franco: Lord bless you. My pleasure to be with all of you. Take care. Bye.

Lance: Alright. Now, something Mercedes, before we sign off here, it seems to me that there are people like this that are giving their life to the cause that are everybody at the ultimate judgement seat of Jesus. The reward is for faithfulness not for likes and followers. We become such as in narcissistic generation. You would think that only people that are well known are the people that are doing their job. This man is doing his job and has been doing it for 30 years. I’ve known of him for like 19 and he’s just like, whenever I meet him, I’m always, I go to him with the questions. I’ve got what’s happened with the government. What’s happening with this and that.

So, these people ought to be celebrated and celebrated consistently. Because that’s how we grow. And by the way we’re once again if you want to support the real businesses. The real the real heroes like this, that the American economy. Stop giving your money to the big corporations That are at war with you, that are against you, that are supporting financially, and in politics, the causes that are suppressing your freedom. You guys got to take a look at Public Square. This is an app that’s free.

You go to “Lancewallnau.com/PublicSquare” and download this app so that you in Scottsdale or any other part of the country can find out where the Christian businesses are or where the conservative and the patriot businesses are that stand with you. Don’t give your money to these woke corporations anymore. Stand with these people.

Mercedes: And if you own a Christian business, sign up. Put your Christian business on there. Put your conservative business on there. It’s either/or. If you’re conservative, you may not share the social aspect. But we want to help support businesses that hold our worldview. So, if you’re one of them, go sign up. Free. Go check it out. I can’t tell you. We were talking the other day. I think it was a chiropractor that put his business on there. His business is up like 400%.

Lance: 400% chiropractors for sure. I was just thinking about that. So, you want to do this again. “Lancewallnau.com”. For those of you that are listening to this podcast, “/PublicSQ” or “Public Square”. Either way, you’re going to be able to get access to that app and it’s taken off like gangbusters. We’re going to be seeing you again, on our next broadcast. Can’t tell you how much I love you all. Pray for you all and enjoy reading all of your comments. Please like, please subscribe. Please share. Fight back on text suppression, of our voice by sharing this with other people. We’re going to see you again tomorrow.

Closing: Did you enjoy this latest episode? Please remember to share it with your friends. Because the more knowledge you have, the better equipped you are to navigate the world.