Bakery Religious Freedom Case Is a Slam Dunk—In a Sane World

The Supreme Court made several monumental rulings yesterday and agreed to hear another that will decide whether religious freedom is still a core principle in the United States. The long-awaited showdown on religious freedom --- as it applies to Christian bakers, florists, photographers and owners of wedding venues providing services for same-sex weddings --- will finally have its day in court.

"Here's why you should care about this story. Freedom of religion, the freedom to exercise the dictates of your own conscience is at stake. You may have to participate in compelled speech. That's not good. You may have to participate in things that you have a deep feeling and a deep belief that it is wrong. We are talking about at the level of, if you're a pacifist and you're a Quaker, do you have to go and fight?" Glenn asked on radio Tuesday.

Unless the high court upholds the First Amendment as written, services providers will be forced to violate their deeply held religious beliefs to serve customers.

"How can you possibly violate the First Amendment by forcing the baker to participate in something that is a violation of his religious convictions? This is a slam dunk in a sane world," Glenn said.

We'll know in due time. The justices are expected to rule on the appeal case from Colorado baker Jack Phillips in 2018.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: I'm going to start with some really good news. The Supreme Court made some monumental rulings yesterday and agreed to hear another that will decide whether religious freedom is still a core principle in the United States, but let's look at what they did do yesterday.

The long-awaited showdown on religious freedom as it applies to Christian bakers, florists, photographers, owners of wedding venues and others who have been forced into participating in gay wedding ceremonies, we have a quick recap on this first ruling. There have been several of these incidents around the country, but the one that is going to be decided by the Supreme Court involves a case in Colorado.

Now, in Colorado, the lower court ruled that Jack Philips, he is the owner of a place called the Masterpiece Cake Shop, violated Colorado's public accommodations law.

Now, the public accommodation law means that you can't refuse service to customers based on things like race or sex or marital status or sexual orientation.

Here's why you should care about this story. Freedom of religion, the freedom to exercise the dictates of our own conscience is at stake. You may have to participate in compelled speech. That's not good.

You may have to participate in things that you have a deep feeling and a deep belief that it is wrong. We are talking about at the level of, if you're a pacifist and you're a Quaker, do you have to go and fight? Well, yes. You do. Because it's for the country, and we're all citizens.

Well, but that goes against the dictates of my spirit, my conscience.

You lose conscientious objector. You lose the right of your own conscience. And you are no longer in control.

Now, let's look at the facts. Here are the things that we absolutely know: A gay couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited the Masterpiece Cake Shop in 2012, along with Craig's mother. They wanted to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception.

Now, Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages were legal at the time and then hold the reception in Colorado. But Philips said, "I'm sorry. My religious beliefs, I can't make your wedding cake for same-sex marriage." He said, "There are other bakeries that will be happy to accommodate you. I just have these religious feelings that I cannot move past." Now, here is something important in the fact category: Gay marriage was still prohibited by Colorado law in 2012, meaning that the Colorado civil rights commission determined that Philips' action violated state law, even though gay marriage violated Colorado state law at the time.

So they're both apparently breaking the law. Even so, the ruling was upheld in Colorado state courts. Now, those are the facts of the case.

The contested facts are Jack Philips is a bigot. We don't know. He's a homophobe. We don't know. He's violating the rights of the gay couple because he's a religious zealot. Well, when did religiosity become something that you had to shed?

His -- he believes his religious sensibilities and his conviction are being violated. He believes it is against his religion to participate in their ceremony, and that is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Now, here's what I believe: This is what this story means to me. What you should take away. If this were the other way around, if a gay baker were being asked by a Christian couple to make a wedding cake that said marriage can only be between a man and a woman, there is no way the state of Colorado would be forcing the gay baker to make that cake. No way.

If the baker were Muslim, try to imagine the scenario where the court would be forcing him to deny the tenets of Islam. But because Christianity is our major religion, it seems as though it is perfectly acceptable to limit, discriminate against, and totally disregard the convictions of those who practice it. Why?

Because Christians have been the oppressor. Forget about the oppression that is happening in Islamic states. We are a bigger oppressor, as Christians.

Now, how can you possibly violate the First Amendment by forcing the baker to participate in something that is a violation of his religious convictions? This is a slam-dunk in a sane world.

The Supreme Court needs to rule in favor of the First Amendment and every American citizen's right to free expression of religion.

Now, if it's a sham, that's something different. And that's why we didn't accept conscientious objectors from everybody. You had to show that that is what your faith taught and you were a good member of your faith.

If this is still America, there is no other way to rule. And the court will rule on this soon.

Yesterday, the court did make four decisions, some of them good, others, not so much. But there's good news here. In religious liberty, the Supreme Court made a ruling yesterday that flies in the face of the nonexistent separation of church and state.

This is a -- this is a big win for people of faith. Until now, Christian-based abstinence organizations have been denied funding, and pro-life organizations have been denied participation in governmental programs. While at the same time, an abortion mill like Planned Parenthood will receive half a billion dollars a year in government spending. Until now.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 7:2, that the government cannot exclude churches and other faith-based organizations from secular programs simply because they have a religious identity. 7:2. This is a huge surprise. Because it -- it means that reliable progressive judges, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, both joined Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and our new judge, Neil Gorsuch. And they join them on the side of the religious organizations.

The case involved the state of Missouri denying a church a partial reimbursement grant for rubberized playground surface material made from recycled tires. And the reason why they rejected it because the church runs the preschool, even though the only purpose of the grant program is to improve children's safety. It sounds like no big deal. But it is actually a very big deal. Thanks to that playground, Christian organizations can no longer be discriminated against. It is a step towards restoring sanity and the constitutional principles. Now, me personally, I have a problem with a tax exempt organization getting tax dollars. But I would say that about any organization, not just churches.

This is, however, in my mind, overall, because it means that if you're Christian, you can get the same services at everyone else. The court has taken a step towards ensuring you, you and your children, will be allowed to continue to exercise your faith the wait you see fit and you are not excluded from the rest of society. This is a rare victory for, not Christians, but the Constitution, and strengthens a core American principle.

There was another case involving a same-sex couple. Two female couples petitioned the Supreme Court to review their case, which fought the Arkansas Department of Health Insurance, or issuance of birth certificates, bearing only the birth mother's name and not the female spouse.

It would have said birth number and then, you know, the spouse of the -- the father. This is something that is always done, even if the father isn't the father. And it's -- it's done for other groups. It's just being held back, not allowing to have a female spouse.

They ruled yesterday and adhered to a provision of the Arkansas law, which was rejected by a trial law. Kept in place by the Arkansas Supreme Court. The high court reversed and remanded the Arkansas high court's judgment. They found that until -- until now, opposite sex couples were being treated differently than same-sex couples in similar situations.

Now, here's what's interesting about this: Neil Gorsuch issued a blistering dissent from the Supreme Court's decision that Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both joined. So it appears as though Gorsuch is ruling in the way he was advertised to rule, conservatively. We wondered if he would do this on social issues. He certainly did on this one.

Gay rights, an issue that has absolutely now been resolved in America, the battle is over, according to the courts and in large part the mindset of the American people. Gay couples have all of the same benefits and rights as opposite sex partners. There is no longer any differentiation. Your children are growing up in a world now, where it is possible, if not likely, that parts of the Bible could be considered hate speech soon.

Now, gun rights. Strangely, the court refused to hear an important California case, whether the Second Amendment gives people a right to carry handguns outside of their home for self-defense, including concealed carry, when open carry is forbidden by state law. Clarence Thomas, again, Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the court's decision not to hear the case. Thomas wrote, in part, quote, for those who work in the marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think that we should stand idly by while a state denies a citizen that same right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it, end quote.

If you have been holding your collective breath on Neil Gorsuch, wondering if he's going to turn out like Thomas or Scalia or he be co-opted by the leftist on the bench and wind up like Souter and Kennedy. The early results -- we have some interesting facts about this later on in the broadcast -- the early results show that Gorsuch is everything as advertised. This is encouraging news from him. He seems to be the justice that everybody hoped he would be.

But because the court as a whole refused to hear the Second Amendment case -- and I think this one is critical -- not only did they squander the opportunity to strengthen the Second Amendment, but for now, gun owners in California are mostly unable to obtain a permit to carry a gun. So they have no protection. And California is more and more dangerous in the cities.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is still not understood by many in the United States. For whatever reason, court failed to act on behalf the Constitution.

Finally, the travel ban. President Trump's travel ban was surprisingly mostly -- mostly allowed by the court. It's -- it's not entirely allowed. It's just mostly allowed.

Maybe we can get Miracle Max to take it all the way home. They will give a full -- this issue a full hearing later in the fall. The Supreme Court, however, yesterday removed the injunction issued by lower courts on refugees, without a close tie to the United States.

Meaning that for the vast majority of refugees, the ban is now being upheld in the interest of national security. It seems like Donald Trump, at this point, is just asking for time to figure out what's going on. And, you know, it's not hard to figure this one out. But, you know, I believe there are extremists out there that want to create chaos and kill innocent Americans. And by allowing our government and this administration time to decide how best to secure our nation in a time where it's very difficult to discern who the good guys are and the bad guys are, Americans, many of them are somewhat relieved by this ruling. None of us want to see what's happening in Europe. But, again, none of us want to see a repeat of anything like the Japanese internment camps. This is not a permanent situation, and none of us want our children and our wives, our husbands placed in undue peril. We don't have to accept everybody in our country at once, and we do have an obligation to be discerning about who we allow in. And so far, the court is siding with Donald Trump.

Today is the 75th anniversary of D-Day, the largest amphibious invasion in history.

The Allied invasion force included 5,000 ships and landing craft, 11,000 planes, and almost three million allied soldiers, airmen and sailors. Despite such numbers, the location and timing of the invasion was still an enormous gamble. The Nazis fully expected such an invasion, they just didn't know precisely when or where it would be.

Despite the enormous logistics involved, the gamble worked and by the end of June 6, 1944, 156,000 Allied troops were ashore in Normandy. The human cost was also enormous – over 4,900 American troops died on D-Day. That number doubled over the next month as they fought to establish a foothold in northern France.

There were five beach landing zones on the coast of northwestern France, divided among the Allies. They gave each landing zone a name. Canada was responsible for "Juno." Britain was responsible for "Gold" and "Sword." And the U.S. had "Utah" and "Omaha."

The Nazis were dug in with bunkers, machine guns, artillery, mines, barbed wire, and other obstacles to tangle any attempt to come ashore. Of the five beaches, Omaha was by far the most heavily defended. Over 2,500 U.S. soldiers were killed at Omaha – the beach so famously depicted in the opening battle sequence of the 1998 movie, Saving Private Ryan. The real-life assault on Omaha Beach included 34 men in that first wave of attack who came from the same small town of Bedford, Virginia. The first Americans to die on Omaha Beach were the men from Bedford.

amp only placement

America has a national D-Day Memorial, but many people don't know about it.

America has a national D-Day Memorial, but many people don't know about it. Maybe that's because it wasn't a government project and it's not in Washington DC. It was initiated and financed by veterans and private citizens. It's tucked away in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, in the small town of Bedford, Virginia. Why is the memorial for one of the most famous days in modern world history in such a tiny town? Because, as a proportion of its population of just 3,200 at the time, no community in the U.S. sacrificed more men on D-Day than Bedford.

There were 34 men in Company A from Bedford. Of those thirty-four, 23 died in the first wave of attacks. Six weeks after D-Day, the town's young telegraph operator was overwhelmed when news of many of the first deaths clattered across the Western Union line on the same day. Name after name of men and families that she knew well. There were so many at once that she had to enlist the help of customers in the pharmacy's soda shop to help deliver them all.

Among those killed in action were brothers Bedford and Raymond Hoback. Bedford was the rambunctious older brother with a fiancée back home that he couldn't wait to return to. Raymond was the quieter, more disciplined younger brother who could often be found reading his Bible. He fell in love with a British woman during his two years in England training for D-Day. Like in that opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan, Bedford and Raymond barely made it down the ramp of their Higgins Boat in the swarm of bullets and hot steel before they were cut down in the wet sand.

Bedford and Raymond Hoback's mother, Macie, learned of both their deaths from two separate telegrams, the first on a Sunday morning, the second the following day. Their younger sister, Lucille, remembered her mother's devastation, and her father walking out to the barn to cry.

The day after D-Day, the killing field of Omaha Beach was already transforming into the massive supply port that would help fuel the American drive all the way to Berlin over the next year. A soldier from West Virginia was walking along the beach when he saw something jutting out of the sand. He reached down and pulled it out. He was surprised to find it was a Bible. The inside cover was inscribed with: "Raymond S. Hoback, from mother, Christmas, 1938." The soldier wrote a letter and mailed it with the Bible to Raymond's mother. That Bible, which likely tumbled from Raymond's pack when he fell on D-Day, became Macie Hoback's most cherished possession – the only personal belonging of her son that was ever returned.

Of the 23 Bedford men who died on Omaha Beach, eleven were laid to rest in the American cemetery in Normandy.

These men, many of them barely out of their teens, didn't sign up to march to the slaughter of course. They had hopes and dreams just like you and I. Many of them signed up for adventure, or because of peer pressure, and yes, a sense of honor and duty. Many of the Bedford Boys first signed up for the National Guard just to make a few extra bucks per month, get to hang out with their buddies, and enjoy target practice. But someone had to be first at Omaha Beach and that responsibility fell to the men from Bedford.

Over the last several years, the D-Day anniversary gets increasingly sad. Because each year, there are fewer and fewer men alive who were actually in Normandy on June 6, 1944. The last of the surviving Bedford Boys died in 2009. Most of the remaining D-Day veterans who are still with us are too frail to make the pilgrimage to France for the anniversary ceremonies like they used to.

It's difficult to think about losing these World War II veterans, because once they're all gone, we'll lose that tether to a time when the nation figured out how to be a better version of itself.

Not that they were saints and did everything right. They were as human as we are, with all the fallibility that entails. But in some respects, they were better. Because they went, and they toughed it out, and they accomplished an incredibly daunting mission, with sickening hardship, heartbreak, and terror along the way.

So, what does the anniversary of D-Day mean in 2019?

In one sense, this anniversary is a reprimand that we've failed to tell our own story well enough.

In one sense, this anniversary is a reprimand that we've failed to tell our own story well enough. You can't learn about the logistics of the operation and above all, the human cost, and not be humbled. But as a society, we have not emphasized well enough the story of D-Day and all that it represents. How can I say that? Because of an example just last weekend, when common sense got booed by Democratic Socialists at the California Democrats' State Convention. When Democratic presidential candidate John Hickenlooper said during his speech that "socialism is not the answer," the crowd booed loudly. When did telling the truth about socialism become controversial?

Sure, socialists, and communists and other anti-American factions have always been around. America certainly had socialists in 1944. But the current socialists trying to take over the Democratic Party like a virus don't believe in the D-Day sacrifices to preserve America, because they don't believe America is worth preserving. They are agitating to reform America using the authoritarian playbook that has only ended in death and destruction everywhere it is followed.

Ask a Venezuelan citizen, or an Iraqi Christian, or a North Korean peasant why D-Day still matters in 2019.

The further we move away from caring about pivotal events like June 6, 1944, the less chance of survival we have as a nation.

At the same time, the D-Day anniversary is a reminder that we're not done yet. It's an opportunity for us to remember and let that inform how we live.

Near the end of Saving Private Ryan, the fictional Captain Miller lays dying, and he gives one last instruction to Private Ryan, the young man that he and his unit have sacrificed their lives to rescue in Normandy. He says, "Earn it."

In other words, don't waste the sacrifices that were made so that your life could be saved. Live it well. The message to "earn it" extends to the viewer and the nation as well – can we say we're earning the sacrifices that were made by Americans on D-Day? I cringe to think how our few remaining World War II veterans might answer that.

Honor. Duty. Sacrifice. Gratitude. Personal responsibility. These used to mean a lot more.

Honor. Duty. Sacrifice. Gratitude. Personal responsibility. These used to mean a lot more. I don't want to believe it's too late for us to rediscover those traits as a nation. I want to believe we can still earn it.

The challenge to "earn it" is a lot of pressure. Frankly, it's impossible. We can't fully earn the liberty that we inherited. But we can certainly try to earn it. Not trying is arrogant and immoral. And to tout socialism as the catch-all solution is naïve, and insulting to the men like those from Bedford who volunteered to go defend freedom. In truly striving to earn it, we help keep the flame of liberty aglow for future generations. It is necessary, honorable work if freedom is to survive.

The end of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is remarkably relevant for every anniversary of June 6, 1944. This is what D-Day still means in 2019:

"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Letter from Corporal H.W. Crayton to Mr. and Mrs. Hoback – parents of Bedford and Raymond Hoback who were both killed in action on June 6, 1944

Álvaro Serrano/Unsplash

July 9, 1944 Somewhere in France

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hoback:

I really don't know how to start this letter to you folks, but will attempt to do something in words of writing. I will try to explain in the letter what this is all about.

While walking along the Beach D-day Plus One, I came upon this Bible and as most any person would do I picked it up from the sand to keep it from being destroyed. I knew that most all Bibles have names & addresses within the cover so I made it my business to thumb through the pages until I came upon the name above. Knowing that you no doubt would want the Book returned I am sending it knowing that most Bibles are a book to be cherished. I would have sent it sooner but have been quite busy and thought it best if a short period of time elapsed before returning it.

You have by now received a letter from your son saying he is well. I sincerely hope so.

I imagine what has happened is that your son dropped the Book without any notice. Most everybody who landed on the Beach D-Day lost something. I for one as others did lost most of my personal belongings, so you see how easy it was to have dropped the book and not know about it.

Everything was in such a turmoil that we didn't have a chance until a day or so later to try and locate our belongings.

Since I have arrived here in France I have had occasion to see a little of the country and find it quite like parts of the U.S.A. It is a very beautiful country, more so in peace time. War does change everything as it has this country. One would hardly think there was a war going on today. Everything is peaceful & quiet. The birds have begun their daily practice, all the flowers and trees are in bloom, especially the poppies & tulips which are very beautiful at this time of the year.

Time goes by so quickly as it has today. I must close hoping to hear that you receive the Bible in good shape.

Yours very truly,

Cpl. H.W. Crayton

It's not as easy as it used to be for billion-dollar entertainment empires like The Walt Disney Company. It would be more streamlined for Disney to produce its major motion pictures in its own backyard. After all, abortion in California is readily available, as well as a protected, cherished right. And since abortion access is critical for movie production, right up there with lighting equipment and craft services, you would think California would be the common-sense choice for location shooting. Alas, even billion-dollar studios must pinch pennies these days. So, in recent years, Disney, among other major Hollywood studios, has been farming out production to backwater Southern lands like Georgia, and even Louisiana. Those states offer more generous tax breaks than Disney's native California. As a result, Georgia for example, played host to much of the shooting for the recent worldwide box office smash Avengers: Endgame.

But now it looks like it's Georgia's endgame. The state recently passed what is known as a "heartbeat" bill – a vicious, anti-woman law that would try to make pregnant women allow their babies to be born and actually live. It's a bridge too far for a major studio like Disney, which was largely built on creating family entertainment. How can Disney possibly go about making quality movies, often aimed at children, without access to unfettered abortion? It's unconscionable. Lack of abortion access makes it nearly impossible to shoot movies. So, what's a major studio to do? Disney might have considered migrating its business to Louisiana, but that state too has now signed a heartbeat bill into law. It's utter madness.

These monstrous anti-abortion bills, coupled with having to live under President Trump, has led Disney to seek a new home for its legendary movie magic. Last week, Disney's CEO, Bob Iger, announced that all future Disney movies will now be filmed on location in the Sub-Saharan African nation of Wakanda.

"Disney and Wakanda are a match made in heaven," Iger told reporters. "Wakanda was, until recently, a secret kingdom, much like our own Magic Kingdom. With this new partnership, we'll not only get to continue our legacy of making movies that parents and children everywhere enjoy together, but we'll get to do so in a safe space that reveres abortion as much as we do."

Wakanda is one of only four African countries (out of 55) that allow unrestricted abortion.

As home to the most advanced technology in the world – and with the planet's highest per-capita concentration of wokeness – Wakanda offers women painless, hassle-free abortion on demand. As the Wakandan health ministry website explains, the complete absence of any white-patriarchal-Judeo-Christian influence allows women in Wakanda to have complete control of their own bodies (with the exception of females who are still fetuses). As winner of the U.N.'s 2018 Golden Forceps award (the U.N.'s highest abortion honor) Wakanda continues its glowing record on abortion. That makes it an ideal location for Disney's next round of live-action remakes of its own animated movies in which the company plans to remove all male characters.

Iger says he hopes to convince Wakandan leadership to share their top-secret vibranium-based abortion procedure technology so that American women can enjoy the same convenient, spa-like abortion treatment that Wakandan women have enjoyed for years.

Wakanda is one of only four African countries (out of 55) that allow unrestricted abortion. Disney plans to boycott and/or retaliate against the other 51 African nations, as well as any U.S. states, that restrict abortion. Specific plans are being kept under wraps, but sources say Disney's potential retaliation may include beaming Beverly Hills Chihuahua into the offending territories on a continuous, indefinite loop.

When asked how Wakanda's futuristic capital city and distinctly African landscape would be able to double for American movie locations, Iger said, "I guess America will just have to look more like Wakanda from now on."

One potential wrinkle for the Left-leaning studio is the fact that Wakanda has an impenetrable border wall-shield-thing designed to keep out foreign invaders as well as illegal immigrants. Iger said he understands Wakanda's policy of exclusivity, adding, "After all, not everyone gets into Disneyland. You have to have a ticket to get in. Anyone is welcome, but you have to go through the process of getting a ticket." When one reporter pointed out that Iger's answer sounded like the conservative argument for legal immigration under the rule of law, Iger insisted that the reporter was "a moronic fascist."

What if the unthinkable happens and Florida also enacts its own "heartbeat" law? That would be problematic since Walt Disney World is located in Florida. Iger responded that Disney would "cross that bridge if we get to it" but that the most likely scenario would entail "dismantling Disney World piece-by-piece and relocating it to the actual happiest place on earth – Wakanda." As for whether Disney would ever open character-themed abortion clinics inside its theme parks, Iger remained coy, but said, "Well, it is the place where dreams come true."

With the Wakanda solution, Disney may have found a place where Minnie Mouse can finally follow her heart and have true freedom of choice.

When pressed about the cost of ramping up production in a secretive African kingdom that has no existing moviemaking infrastructure (which could easily end up being much more expensive than simply shooting in California) Iger said, "You can't put a price tag on abortion freedom. Wakanda Forever and Abortion Forever!"

With the Wakanda solution, Disney may have found a place where Minnie Mouse can finally follow her heart and have true freedom of choice. And that will be welcome relief to traditional families all over the world who keep the Walt Disney Company in business.

*Disclaimer: The preceding story is a parody. Bob Iger did not actually say any of the quotes in the story. Neither is Wakanda an actual nation on planet Earth.

"Journeys of Faith with Paula Faris," is a podcast featuring conversations about how faith has guided newsmakers and celebrities through their best and worst times. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a much maligned religion so Glenn joined the podcast and took the time to explain what it means to him and how it changed his life.

From his suicidal days and his battle with drugs and alcohol, it was his wife Tania and his faith that saved him. All his ups and downs have given him the gift of empathy and he says he now understands the "cry for mercy" — something he wishes he'd given out more of over the years.

You can catch the whole podcast on any of the platforms listed below.

- Apple Podcasts
- Google Podcasts
- TuneIn
- Spotify
- Stitcher
- ABC News app

One of these times I'm going to go on vacation, and I'm just not going to come back. I learn so much on a farm.

You want to know how things work, go spend a summer on a farm. You're having problems with your son or daughter, go spend a summer on a farm.

My son changed. Over two weeks.

Getting him out of bed, getting him to do anything, is like insane. He's a 15-year-old kid. Going all through the normal 15-year-old boy stuff. Getting him on the farm, where he was getting up and actually accomplishing stuff, having to build or mend fences, was amazing. And it changed him.

RELATED: 'Human Wave Theory': Connecting the dots on the strategic attack on our border

Our society does not allow our kids to grow up, ever. I am convinced that our 15-year-olds could be fixing all kinds of stuff. Could be actually really making an impact in a positive way in our society. And what's wrong with our society is, we have gotten away from how things actually work. We're living in this theoretical world. When you're out on a farm, there's no theory here. If it rains, the crops will grow. If it rains too much, the crops won't grow.

If there's no sun, they won't grow. If there's too much sun, they'll shrivel up and die. There's no theory. We were out mending fences. Now, when I say the phrase to you, mending fences, what does that mean? When you think of mending fences, you think of, what?

Coming together. Bringing people together. Repairing arguments.

I've never mended a fence before until I started stringing a fence and I was like, "I ain't doing this anymore! Where is it broken? Can't we just tie a piece of barbed wire together?"

Let's stop talking about building a wall. Because that has all kinds of negative imagery. Mending fences is what we need to do.

That's called mending fences.

And why do you mend fences? So your animals don't get out and start to graze on somebody else's land. When your fence goes down, your cow is now on somebody else's land. And your cow is now eating their food.

We look at the phrase, mending fences as saying, hey. You know, we were both wrong. Mending fences has nothing to do with that.

Mending fences means build a wall. My neighbors and I, we're going to get along fine, as long as my cows don't go and steal their food, or their cows don't come over and steal my cow's food.

We're perfectly neighborly with each other, until one of us needs to mend a fence, because, dude, you got to mend that, because your cows keep coming over and eating my food.

You know what we need to do with Mexico? Mend fences.

Now, that's a phrase. You hear build a wall. That's horrible.

No, no, no. We need to mend fences.

In a farming community, that means putting up an electric fence. That means putting up barbed wire.

So the cows — because the cows will — they'll stick their head through barbed wire. And they'll eat the grass close to the road. Or eat the grass close to the other side of the fence. And they'll get their heads in between those fences. And they can't get out sometimes. Because the grass is always greener on the other side. You look at these damn cows and say turn around, cow — there's plenty of stuff over here.

No. They want the grass on the other side of the fence.

So you mend it.

And if it's really bad, you do what we do. We had to put an electric fence up. Now, imagine putting an electric fence up. That seems pretty radical and expensive.

Does it really work? Does it shock them? What does that feel like to a cow?

The cows hit it once, and then they don't hit it again. They can actually hear the buzz of the electric fence. There's a warning. Don't do it. Don't do it. They hear the current and they hit it once and they're like, "I'm not going to do that again."

So you mend fences, which means, keep your stuff on your side. I like you. We're good neighbors. You keep your stuff on your side and I'll keep my stuff on my side and we'll get together at the town hall and we'll see each other at the grocery store. Because we're good neighbors. But what stops us from fighting is knowing that there is a fence there.

This is my stuff. That's your stuff. But we can still trade and we'll help each other. But let's stop talking about building a wall. Because that has all kinds of negative imagery. Mending fences is what we need to do.

You can have a tough fence. It could be a giant wall. It could be an electric fence. But you need one. And that's how you come together.

The side that's having the problem, mends the fence.