Privacy   |    Financial   |    Current Events   |    Self Defense   |    Miscellaneous   |    Letters To Editor   |    About Off The Grid News   |    Off The Grid Videos   |    Weekly Radio Show

Would Patrick Henry Use Drones? with Nick Huizenga – Episode 147

There seems to be a lot of bad news out there today. If you read any of the headlines you see such things as sinkholes swallowing up large swatches of land and homes (and even people!), taxes going through the roof, job availability going down, and North Korea itching to nuke us. But there was a bright spot in the news feed… Rand Paul’s drone program filibuster which showed us how the checks and balances in our system are supposed to work.

Paul asked a very simple question… does the government have the right to target American citizens on United States soil for execution if they are suspected of working against the country but pose no imminent threat to life or property at the moment? It’s a good question.


Off The Grid Radio
Ep 147
Release Date March 7, 2013

Bill:      And welcome to another exciting episode edition of Off The Grid News. I’m Bill Heid and with me today in the studio, Nick Huizinga and Jeramy Jennings. Jeramy normally doesn’t say a lot but he is going to be saying a lot today because we’ve got a lot to discuss. We’re going to be talking about the news a little bit. And you know, guys, if you look at the news today it just seems to me that the news seems a little down. South Korea, Kim Jong Un. I mean everywhere you go… I go to Steve Quayle’s websites—sinkholes. Sinkholes. Sinkholes are appearing all over. So I’m just… I mean I’m not kidding you. Look at the news.

We had the drone… We had the Rand Paul drone-filibuster combination and that was an amazing piece of work that he did—a piece of work that I think was really akin to something that Patrick Henry might have done—a good number of hours. But look at the implications. Look what he is saying—Obama wants the ability to kill people who are members of a family—potentially—use the same sort of approaches—tactical, strategic approaches—that we use overseas back here. And so he wants to take that and the one that—the piece—that Rand Paul spoke about was al-Awlaki’s son, who a month later had really nothing to do with terrorism because he fit a profile. There was no cause. There was no reason—at least that was mentioned—but he just ends up getting killed as a result of all this too.

So Rand’s thing is you bring this baby back home. You bring this same set of stuff—of ideas—back home and apply them here and you can say, “Well, who are we going to…?” What’s the…? How do you determine who is on the bad guy list and who gets killed and how many of their families? What’s your Tea Party look like? Can we drone a Tea Party here?

Nick:    We can… Everybody is on the bad list then suddenly, right? If you have any association with somebody who has done something like that you’re not allowed to associate with your friends and neighbors because suddenly you’re fearful that the government will make the connection, like Google would and…

Bill:      And you know how they make that connection, Nick? I think you hit something. You know how they’ll make that connection?

Nick:    Google.

Bill:      Facebook and Google. Right? Facebook—who are your friends? So they have access behind the scenes to all this data anyway.

Nick:    A lot of it is stored in the Library of Congress, with Facebook and Twitter. That’s one of the things we learned in one of our classes was that everything you tweet or put on Facebook is stored in the Library of Congress.

Bill:      So just think of the library that they have and I’m sure that they have giant computers that are able to grab stuff faster than even Facebook and Google, with the technology that they have. They can sort of align you with that group very easily and as you say, Nick, who wouldn’t be on some kind of group, you know?

Nick:    It’s the classic witch-hunt. I mean this is… You know?

Bill:      It’s a Star Chamber. It’s the old, Elizabethan Star Chamber, where a certain number of people… And what I was thinking about too is chronology would even play into this and I’m saying Obama, prior to what’s going on now, was—when he was a senator—was against waterboarding. He was against sort of these issues of privacy, of the government getting too much and so if you just took his profile a couple years ago, he would be on the bad guys list today under his own criteria.

Nick:    Well, he’s got a sketchy past anyway so he’d be… Google would pull that one up before the government computers even went through the Library of Congress.

Bill:      He does have a little bit of a sketchy past there so…

Nick:    I’m not even sure what his real name is. Is it Barry Soetoro or…?

Bill:      That’s what Alex Jones says—that that is his name—is Barry Soetoro. I think that’s probably what his real name is but we can choose to make—in the president’s defense—if I want to call myself Pepe Escobar I would hope that you guys would call me Mr. Escobar.

Nick:    Mr. Escobar…

Bill:      When we walked in in the morning. So I’m not really mad at him for changing his name to sort of a… I would have never changed my name but look at it—it worked for him—that must have been a name that worked from a marketing standpoint. Anyway, your point is well taken. There is almost no way to get out of this thing. So Rand Paul decides he’s going to take a stand and say, like Popeye and the spinach thing and “I can’t stands no more” and he does the “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” thing and he does a really good job. And I think what we learned from that, if we learn nothing else from watching him, is here is a guy—here is a patriot—here is a guy that probably is a presidential candidate because he can stand up and he can do free form chatting, right? He can talk intelligently. He is very articulate. He has got a grasp of history in this country. He talked about Montesquieu. He talked about the origins of this country. So I think we’ve got ourselves the possibility of someone that could run for office.

Nick:    Absolutely but the people are going to have to back that. But going back to this Obama thing and people ending up on lists, isn’t really the problem—what this country was founded on—is that all of us will end up on a list? The problem that we’ve developed recently—and I’m not old enough to say when exactly this started to happen but it would be my guess that it was post-World War II when we got a big head—we’re developing a hierarchy. Now there are people who are exempt from being on this list of “sinners.” That gives them the right to be “the punishers.” So does Barack Obama belong on a list? Well, absolutely. We all belong on a list of some sort. The problem is he is exempting people now.

Bill:      Good point. Good point. So he is saying you almost have to prove… If you’re going to… If you’re sort of on the list to be… If you’ve got a friend with a Muslim name, which could be… There is a lot of Muslims that aren’t for terrorism in the country. I hope our listeners know that. And you could be friends with somebody on Facebook. Are you then part of some…? You’re part of that list. Then the way it’s shaping up, you actually have to prove that you don’t have intentions to do something. So rather than the old law system that we used to have where if someone accused you of something—a crime—and then there would be evidence brought into it and maybe evidence against whatever it would be and there would be a judge and attorneys and a jury of your peers, now you’ve got some situation where you just end up being part of a Power Point presentation that some guys inside the military are doing and that’s justice in this sense.

And I know we’re always—in this country—we don’t want terrorism and so there is this sense that we’ll do… we’ll let the pendulum swing too far. But boy, you set a precedent when the pendulum swings too far. What Obama is saying is that “I want the right to kill people with drones in this country but I don’t… I’m not… I’m probably not going to use that power.” Now here’s something that we talk about. You mentioned things that we talk about at the 7:30 meeting every morning. For our listeners, we have this kind of a round table in the morning. And here is something that we talk about. The problem is here is a religious issue. I think what’s… what is painfully wrong with Rand Paul’s speech and painfully wrong with Obama and Eric Holder’s conversations is they think that there is no religion going on.

Religion, to me, is a function of what you hold in ultimacy. What’s your highest ultimacy? That’s… Those are religious presuppositions. If you say that man is the measure of all things, like the folks during the Renaissance, then that’s your principle of ultimacy and man is the measure of all things. If you take more of a Puritan or more of the Pilgrims that came to this country and you say, “Look, God is the measure of all things and He has revealed Himself through the Bible,” that gives you a different type of government.

So here is what I would have done different if I would have been Rand Paul. I would have attacked at the point… right there at that point because you’ve kind of got two people talking in secular terms so how can you ever have good versus evil? Because if Obama says something is good, Rand Paul says it’s evil, guess what—based on what? It’s pragmatism. And they’re arguing on the periphery of something, where if Patrick Henry were here he would say… He would introduce the concept of sin. He would certainly introduce—because of his affiliation with Samuel Davies, as his mom took him to listen to those sermons for those 11 years—Davies talked about depravity, certainly a Calvinistic concept. People don’t have to be Calvinists to get this but that’s what it was called. And so you had the concept of depravity. So here, Barack—what’s missing from this debate is the religious premise of depravity—and so he’s saying, “Well, I would never use this. I’m a good guy. I would never use this power that I’m asking you to give me,” which is a little bit crazy for someone. If you’re never going to use it why do you want it?

Nick:    Slightly confusing.

Bill:      Slightly confusing. I would think a child could probably call him on that somehow and he would give a teleprompter response to that, that someone else wrote for him. But I’m saying look, if there is no God, isn’t what Rand Paul saying—as much as I like Rand Paul, as much as he has sounded like our guys, John Adams and those guys—isn’t what he’s saying very similar to what Barack Obama is saying?

Nick:    Well, there is just no cornerstone. There is nothing you’re measuring the rest of the structure off so…

Bill:      So the conversations… Work the conversation… Work the debate out. Why is it wrong to drone kill somebody in this country without any kind of trial? And at some point you have to be able to say, “Well, we are interested in justice,” right? That would be… Rand Paul would say back “Look, we’re interested in justice here. We don’t want things to be unjust.”

Nick:    What’s justice?

Bill:      Thank you. And that’s exactly where it goes. Who gets to decide what justice is? And you know Jesus had a different concept of justice than Leonardo Medici, right? There is a different set of what is right and wrong. And so if you stand there with a plumb line and you have a plumb line of, again, some of the people during the Renaissance who basically say, “What is, is right,” how can you…?

Nick:    How did that work out? How did that work out?

Bill:      Well, it ended up kind of bloody for everybody.

Nick:    Yeah.

Bill:      A lot of people got hurt and it turned out badly, as we say. So yeah, I mean I think the real thing that I’m trying to get at is without any introduction—this is the state of our country right now—without any introduction of any moral concepts—any Biblical concepts—regarding being able to introduce the Bible… You didn’t hear Rand Paul talking about the Bible once. So his appeal to morality is going to be based on his personal opinion, right? Or whether it’s Constitutional. Well, the Constitution wasn’t meant to be a moral statement. The assumption of the Constitution was that the people in this country were moral people. That was the presupposition going into it. And so I don’t think we have that anymore so you just… It creates a dilemma when you take this concept of Trinitarianism away, where you’ve got sort of separation of powers, you’ve got oneness and you’ve got manyness equalized through the trinity, which is… Our founders built our government based on that premise and…

Nick:    That we all belong on one of those lists.

Bill:      That we belong on a list. During—and this would make a lot of liberals mad—but during the Constitutional period, up to that Constitutional period, even in a state like Virginia you could have your kids taken away from you if you didn’t believe in the trinity. So you couldn’t believe anything you want. Each state had sort of religious ideas about what were in their charters, their documents and you had to sort of ascribe to that. You could live in Virginia and not sort of meet that criteria but you were on a different list, as you would say, Nick and you probably couldn’t vote, you probably couldn’t become a magistrate during that period of time and people probably recoil at that today, thinking, “How uncivilized is that?”

But that was the world—the Trinitarian world—of the founders. They thought people were depraved so when they spoke in these terms they spoke in terms of “Well, we need to separate power because more than just what Lord Acton said—because of what the Bible says”—and they quoted Lord Acton but they quoted the Bible more—“and here’s what the Bible says about power and says about man’s depravity.” And so you’ve got President Obama right in the crosshairs of this idea. Where is his moral…? Where is the moral authority coming from on his side? What’s he going to use as his moral plumb line to make a decision of whether you can kill somebody or not—kill your enemies or not—and who are your enemies? And on and on.

Nick:    There’s really nothing to… There is nothing to tell him where he ends up except for a bunch of guys sitting on his cabinet who happen to be most of the same guys from Bush’s cabinet, thinking in the very same way and doing the very same things, not… maybe pull some troops out of somewhere just for some token appreciation—maybe we’ll throw them a parade or give them another peace prize or something. But nothing is… Nothing is solid. So what happens if all these guys decide tomorrow that this little company in Thomson Illinois has got to go? Then it just… They just make it go. They just revoke this license and revoke that license. They can do that to anybody. But the problem is they haven’t put anything in place that says, “What happens if we get out of control?” and that’s what the Constitution, I think, was meant to do—to say, “Hey, wait a minute. This certain area has gone too far. It’s time for this organization—because you belong to this list—this organization is now going to shut you down.” And then…

Bill:      Yeah, that’s the way it was designed. Yeah. And now they’re buying bullets and weapons to be used and armored trucks to be used against the people because the people are on a different list…

Nick:    Well, it’s necessary for the security of a free state, right? Oh wait, that’s not…

Bill:      That’s what they’ll say.

Nick:    Yeah.

Bill:      That’s what will be read in the public relations pieces. Certainly.

Nick:    That’s a well-regulated militia right there.

Bill:      Yeah. Yeah. But that’s not obviously what they were… what the founders were talking about with well-regulated militia.

Nick:    Right.

Bill:      They had just come from a country that really gave them a hard time and they saw that centralized power and they thought guns ought to be in the hands of people in case they had to take things back. And the founders were smart enough to look at history and say, “Look, history is like a rollercoaster and it goes up and down with this concept of liberty and things tend to decay. Empires fall because of the lack… “The center doesn’t hold,” as Yeats would say, that thing just doesn’t stay. Weeds grow and you’re going to need these tools.

Nick:    It’s the second law of thermodynamics, isn’t it? Entropy?

Bill:      Well, yeah, it is. And that’s… Real interestingly enough, Nick, Patrick Henry knew that well. Patrick Henry walked out of the ratifying convention because he didn’t think this Constitution would last. He thought it ought to be… it ought to have a lot more in it that helped it stay. And again, you have a Trinitarian response from Patrick Henry, who is thinking in terms of depravity and thinking of “What’s the Bible say? How can we make this work?” Jefferson hated his guts for that and I remember later in life, reading a letter Jefferson wrote, saying that… trying to put him down—I don’t know if a time he had gone nuts or something by that time—but he said, “Yeah, Mr. Henry never really had any law clients and he never really practiced any cases in his life and I think his problem is that he likes to hunt too much. He likes to go up into the lodge and wear the same shirt for a week and hunt” and what the reality was that Patrick Henry had tried lots of cases and had more than Jefferson in his belt, in terms of… under his belt in terms of just how much legal practice he had. But that just gives you an example.

He… They hated Patrick Henry the same way people hated… We had spoken earlier about Athanasius. There is something about people like that that the outside world—and “world” using in that Biblical sense—just hates and they’ll do anything to shut them down, to shut them up and we talked about Athanasius and his trials that he went through. They were all spurious, right?

Nick:    Of course.

Bill:      They were all spurious. He was accused of interrupting the grain supplies to Alexandria. He was accused of raping a virgin, who ended up being a prostitute and identified the wrong man in court. He was accused of murdering Arsenius, a fellow bishop. Athanasius went and found Arsenius, who was in hiding, in order to frame him and actually drug him to the trial. And so just… and bureaucracies do that, don’t they? Bureaucracies try to destroy their enemies—the people on the other list, as you…

Nick:    Yeah.

Bill:      That’s kind of the theme that we’re having. What list are you on? Because the opposition… There is no neutrality in the world and I think that’s the principle that sort of we learned from Christ is that if you’re not for something, you’re against something. So this kind of government that we have—this centralized government that I think really Bush put the pedal on and Obama is taking it to a whole new level as well—I think it’s only a matter of time until that comes into direct conflict with the people that don’t believe what they believe. And I think in Rand Paul’s speech what you saw was just people saying… or you saw a guy saying basically “Here is the line of demarcation. Here is the line in the sand and you’ve crossed it.”

Nick:    But there are still people out there saying, “Why? Why is it there?”

Bill:      Yeah.

Nick:    “How did you come to that conclusion?” And certainly a lot of those people are going to agree with him because there is something inside you that says, “Yeah. You know we shouldn’t be droning our own people and we shouldn’t be droning the relatives of relatives of terrorists” and things like that because it makes… kind of makes sense, right? But “Why?” at the same time—why? Where? Where did you come up with that idea that…?

Bill:      And how does it ever end too? That’s another thing that’s interesting, right? When is enough…? When do you have enough drones? If you want to play the terrorist game and say that this is an imminent threat, how many drones is enough? Because can’t somebody pull some kind of trigger against you at any given point? And how many other countries…? Just think about Pakistan, for example. How many countries are flying drones in their…? Just think—China has got drones. They’re flying them. Iran’s got drones. They’re flying them in there. Just like drones just… back and forth. I don’t know if they get Pakistan’s permission. I just… I’m kind of ignorant of that so I’d like to know at some point if… If you go in, I assume—you’re using someone else’s airspace—so you have to get permission. Maybe they charge. Maybe the Pakistani government says, “You can kill the people in our country but it’s going to cost you. Get out your wallet, Obama. You’ve got to pay us big.” So…

Nick:    I’m sure some of that stuff goes on under the table.

Bill:      Well, I think it does, in terms of we give a lot of money out to other countries and so I think it can be sort of tied to conditions that we have certain rights to hunt terrorists down and I think maybe they want the people they consider to be terrorists to be hunted down too. I don’t know. But that doesn’t work out in, for example, Afghanistan or Pakistan too, where the government’s official position runs contrary to the sort of tribal positions, which lean more towards the terrorists. You might not be a terrorist but as you said, Nick, you might be a relative of a relative of a terrorist and if they kill somebody that was in your wedding, you don’t spend too much time thinking about American foreign policy or something. It’s almost like the Hatfields and the McCoys—“He killed my friend.” And so do we…? Are we, at the same time—I think Rand asked this question—are we building up more and more people that hate us by trying to have this level of imperialism, “the sun never sets on American drones”? Is that the new reality?

Nick:    I think it’s a little… I think it’s got a lot to do with that.

Bill:      And what does that build up in other countries?

Nick:    Hate.

Bill:      Yeah.

Nick:    We didn’t have a real good rapport over in the Mid-East—except for with Israel, of course—before all this 9-11 stuff started. One of our biggest friends was a guy that we gave some guns to to fight the Russians, you know?

Bill:      Good point. Good point.

Nick:    And I just think that these things always backfire at some point because we are building up enemies and that’s what… You can say what you want about the events on 9-11 but Osama bin Laden hates the United States and I think he did a pretty good job spreading… evangelizing through Afghanistan and Pakistan those things and into Saudi Arabia obviously.

Bill:      He became a hero.

Nick:    Yeah. He’s a hero.

Bill:      He became a hero.

Nick:    He’s a multibillionaire who is leading a nomadic life and going around… They see him as a hero, just plainly.

Bill:      Yeah. And so he’s… He’s probably created a lot of mini-mes for the sake of their cause and I think… Really guys, this is the same way that what’s happened historically to the church and I realize there are some differences here because if a terrorist tries to kill you, that’s different than the church trying to just have a service on Sunday morning and someone trying to make that illegal but it seems like the more… There is probably some universal law that says the more you try to compress something, the more it wants to bounce back. There is something inherent in the nature of the universe—the fabric of the universe—and people in general. That’s true with my wife, right? I mean if I say, “Don’t do a lot of this,” that’s the wrong tact because it usually kind of goes the other way on me. So… And I’m sure that’s the case with a lot of husband and wife relationships, really, just that…

Nick:    Well, it’s not just husband and wife. I remember when you were on your way to Chicago to board the plane for London and we were having trouble with a certain guy here and you gave me a duty to fulfill while you were gone and I called you and I was kind of foaming at the mouth, didn’t know how to handle it and I said, “Can I just yell at him?” and you said, “No, no, no. Don’t give him anything to push off of” and it was…

Bill:      Sort of a judo experience where it uses the weight of your anger against him back at you somehow.

Nick:    Right. Yeah—Steven Seagal style.

Bill:      Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, like I said at a 7:30 morning, we drift occasionally but I think what we’ve got… If we want a good response to this thing—to this drone thing, especially—if you want a good response we can’t keep the Bible as a plumb line out of it. And the Bible doesn’t speak to every specific instantiation. It’s a generalized principle book but I think that there is enough generalized principles that need to be introduced in terms of what is true freedom, just like the founders went through this thing themselves. What is it to be free? Those are questions that we have to… Is freedom just getting… having a sort of… being able to do anything I want to do? Is that how we define freedom? Certainly extreme Libertarians would define it that way—“No one can tell me what to do.” Is that what freedom is?

Is there any kind of harmony between the one and the many, between our government and the individual, between the total surveillance state that they want and my privacy? And how do they harmonize this? What’s the right approach? The case I’m trying to make is the right approach is Athanasius’ approach, which is a Trinitarian approach, which harmonizes the one and the many. So is the government droning more important than the citizens? No. Is the citizens’ privacy more important than our total security? No. There has got to be a harmony spot someplace in the middle. That’s what the founders tried to do. That’s what we had early on. That’s the proper response on how we need to argue this thing. I think it’s the only way it can go to give a response. Otherwise you’ve got two guys talking about what’s more pragmatic for them, each giving their “Here’s how I feel.”

Nick:    Yeah, that’s the problem.

Bill:      Some people like the Constitution. Good for you. I like the Constitution but you have no real basis for knowing the foundation behind the Constitution. Our founders did. So you’ve got to keep reading. What’s it take? Well, we’ve got to keep reading. And you can’t just read Jefferson because Jefferson did not believe in a Trinitarian response. He hated the Athanasian Creed. He hated that.

Nick:    Or Franklin. Yeah.

Bill:      Yeah.

Nick:    Franklin was the… a lot the same way.

Bill:      Those guys, as we spoke about, Nick, earlier—those guys wanted the god of Arius. They wanted a god that… They wanted… I wouldn’t consider them to be deistic gods. They wanted a god that would be providential over American victories in the battlefield and prosperity but they didn’t want a god…

Nick:    But otherwise aloof?

Bill:      Yeah, they didn’t want a god telling them that they couldn’t have an affair.

Nick:    Right.

Bill:      And so that was Tommy Jefferson’s big gig, right? I mean he wanted to make sure that nobody really told him… He wanted to use God like a vending machine and he wanted prosperity and liberty and you see a lot of Jefferson’s prayers and the things that he said kind of just follow that pattern. The providential thing—“You’ve made our nation great and we’re thankful” and all of that. But then what you see in his private writings is “Well you… I ought to… Don’t tell me what to do because I ain’t going to do it because you ain’t the boss. I am. But thanks for making us free.”

Nick:    That’s the biggest struggle though with anybody, isn’t it? The internal struggle between what you think is good for you and what God thinks is good for you?

Bill:      Oh, definitely. But someone like… Most people live lives of quiet desperation. Here is a guy that got in the seat of a Corvette. I mean he had a lot of horsepower behind him in terms of what he said, how he influenced the country—was man, multiplied, multiplied, multiplied. So… And people still quote him and people still think about him. Well, you need to read Patrick Henry a little bit too, to balance out your Jefferson. There’s nothing wrong with reading Jefferson but you need to read some Patrick Henry just to balance that out.

Nick:    Yeah, that’s… I can admit that that’s something… a person that I have not read much of. Franklin, I’m a big fan of—obviously is about as far away from Christianity as you can be at the time without being drawn and quartered.

Bill:      Well, let me… Can I make a quick statement about that?

Nick:    Yeah, absolutely.

Bill:      He was and he wasn’t. Here is… Again, here are these guys who… He loved to hear Whitefield preach and Whitefield had the orphanage in Georgia and so he knew Whitefield would get wound up. He was a wonderful orator and Ben was sympathetic to the cause and he would deliberately not take money with him to hear Whitefield because he knew that Whitefield would appeal to that orphanage and he knew if he took money, he’d give it. So he made a habit of not… at some point just not taking any money when he went to hear his friend Whitefield preach. So that’s what you get with him—a crazy man, in some sense.

Nick:    He was very crazy. And then he’d take off for France for a few months and have multiple prostitutes stay with him during his duration and then come back and take… What did he call it? An “air bath”—where he would sit in the window naked or something like that?

Bill:      He did a lot of crazy things.

Nick:    Yeah, he was kind of nuts. But he did develop the contact lens, bifocal glasses, discovered electricity by shocking his stupid self but really, really intelligent guy in a lot of respects. But like you’re saying, you had this disconnect between church and… between God and himself, I think.

Bill:      Yeah, which I think the point you’re making, lest we point too many fingers, I think it’s okay to go ahead and say… Look, here is where I think this guy went wrong. The Bible looks at Dave and said, “Here is where this guy goes wrong.” But lest we sort of say, “It’s all about him and not about me,” the thing that you’re saying, I think, is really paramount, Nick, that really that is the struggle more or less and it’s the very same struggle inside of us. You get this word, this Bible that tells us how to live our lives and then it’s a question of we don’t always like that.

Nick:    It’s the wall I kick off of sometimes.

Bill:      Yeah, we don’t always like it because our nature is something very different than President Obama thinks that it is. We have a potential to do some bad things. And even good, good people do bad, bad things on occasion and the newspapers are full of those stories, right?

Nick:    Yeah. Yes, they are.

Bill:      Well, what happened to him? You know? Lived a good life his whole life and the next thing you know he’s…

Nick:    He was a quiet fella. Didn’t say much.

Bill:      Sat in the back pew, minding his own business. Anyway, anything else? It’s your birthday today, Nick. Happy birthday.

Nick:    Thank you.

Bill:      It’s a special Nick Huizinga birthday episode, ladies and gentlemen. We hope you enjoyed it. Anything else you’d like to say before we…? You’re planting some seeds back there.

Nick:    We’re planting some seeds in the Heid tunnel, getting ready for the plant sale, happy to have all the customers that we do have buying seeds from us this year, just trying to keep our heads above water and get them out quickly and efficiently and all that stuff so…

Bill:      If you haven’t seen our new website, go to HeirloomSolutions.com and check it out. I think it’s a beautiful website so…

Nick:    It is.

Bill:      That’s something to do and we appreciate all you’re doing, Nick and again, we want to say happy birthday.

Nick:    Thank you, sir. Thank you for having me on. It’s always a pleasure.

Bill:      You bet. Have a great day.

Nick:    You too.

© Copyright Off The Grid News
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!