American Family Radio believes religious freedom is about people of faith being free
>> Walker Wildmon: We inform religious freedom is about people of faith being able to live out their faith, live out their convictions, no matter where they are.
>> Rick Green: Sacred honor is the courage to speak truth, to live out your free speech.
>> Don Wildmon: We also rejoice in our sufferings because we know that suffering produces perseverance, perseverance, character and character Director. This is At the Core on American Family Radio.
As a reminder, please subscribe to the podcast. American Family Radio publishes a podcast each afternoon
>> Walker Wildmon: Welcome, to the Core here on American Family Radio. Walker Wildmon here with you on today's edition of the show. You're listening to American Family Radio. We're glad to have you with us on the program. As a reminder, please subscribe to the podcast. We would love for you to subscribe to the podcast wherever you listen to podcasts. We upload the show in the form of a podcast each and every afternoon. You just type in at the Core in your podcast library, whether you're on an Apple device, Android, Spotify, whatever app store you use or podcast store you use, just type in the name of the program and you can subscribe to the show. And one of the added bonuses or benefits to the podcast is you do skip a lot of the breaks. So we trim out a lot of the breaks. There are a couple underwriting spots in there for some of our ministry partners, but you, skip, you know, some of the two, three, four minute breaks and, and get, a lot of content in that 50, 55 minute window with the podcast. So there are some added benefits there by subscribing to the podcast and, that being one of the benefits. All right, let's turn our attention to the scripture. And we do have guests in the second and the third. You'll, not want to miss those interviews on some of the news and stories of the week that we'll talk about.
Proverbs, chapter nine, verses 7 and 8 address correcting unwise people
Proverbs, chapter nine is where we are this week, looking at verse seven and eight, verses seven and eight. He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself. And he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself. Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you. Rebuke a wise man and he will love you. So, what I want to point out, a truth that I want to point out in verses 7 and 8 is this seems, seems almost counterproductive to, because the writer here is basically. Well, he is. The writer is saying, do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you. And what I want to point out here in this passage is the reality of trying to correct unwise people. The reality of trying to correct, in this case, a wicked man or a scoffer. And how many times have you tried to correct someone, tried to give wisdom to someone, try to give correction to someone, and all you get in return is wrath. All you get in return is wrath. All in return you get is hatred. And that's what this proverb is talking about here. And that's why it's very difficult for, man to. Man can't change the heart. Ultimately God has to change the heart. And this is also a good gauge, this is a biblical gauge on whether someone possesses wisdom or not. How do they respond to criticism, how do they respond to, in this case to correction? Do they lash out? Do they become hateful? Or do they respond with patience and with understanding? And so verses 7 and 8 here, he who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself, and he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself. Verse 8 Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you. Rebuke a wise man and he will love you. So the point being here is that man, can't control the heart. Man can't control other, other people's hearts. And that's why oftentimes we get frustrated because lost people or unwise people don't heed instruction that maybe you're trying to give. well, this proverb says that, that's what happens. Unwise men often reject wise counsel. And you can also tell a wise person by how they respond to, correction or challenges. That's Proverbs, chapter nine, verses seven and eight.
Tennessee state troopers arrested dozens of illegal immigrants over the weekend
All right, this story I came across, over the weekend around the Nashville area. And that is a, Tennessee state troopers decided to basically, run a traffic operation in which they arrested dozens of illegal immigrants in the Nashville, Tennessee area. And anybody who is familiar with local law enforcement, state law enforcement, and the sheer number of run ins that they have with illegal immigrants, this is no surprise here. Local law enforcement, state law enforcement agencies, they have run ins with illegal immigrants every single day. And the majority of the time these illegal immigrants get let off because these local agencies don't know what to do with them. There's not enough room in the jails. And so they don't know what to do with them and it's not worth their time. And then you have the feds not wanting to cooperate. Well, that's changed under the Trump administration. So let's listen to this clip. This is about Tennessee state troopers running a pretty big crackdown on illegal immigrants in the Nashville area.
>> Speaker C: Well guys, what THP tells us is troopers conducted around 150 traffic stops over the weekend. And some of them did involve this immigration activity with ice. That is what troopers do confirm to us.
>> Speaker C: They say, some drivers were found without a valid driver's license or ID and there were some illegal drugs found, illegal guns found, and some suspected gang affiliation as well. So troopers contacted ICE when immigrating immigration status was in question. Then Sunday here at the Department of Homeland Security, groups fighting for immigrant rights say there were dozens of people being bussed out by ICE officials.
>> Walker Wildmon: All right, well, there you have it. That's a local report on the, the bust in, the Nashville area just by running simple traffic violation interdictions. And this is what I want to point out. You know, I said a couple of weeks ago, we've got to get out of this mindset that only the gang bangers get deported. I mean that is, that is not a legal constitutional viewpoint that only those who murder American citizens are eligible for deportation. I mean, what kind of immigration system is that? President Trump ran on mass deportations. And I've got to be honest, the deportations have been everything but mass deportations. And I'm just being honest with you. I'm m looking at the numbers, folks. Obama and others, have deported more people than President Trump. Now do. I think his team is probably doing what they can. I think at the highest levels, yes, but I think at the lowest levels, no. And here's why this mass deportation should not be problematic. Here you have Tennessee state troopers running. He mentioned roughly 150 traffic, interdictions or traffic, stops. And they got dozens of illegal immigrants that they handed over to ice. This is just over a weekend. And can you imagine the numbers of deportations if every single illegal immigrant that was tied up in a traffic stop for whatever reason, no license plate, no insurance, DUI was if every time the local law enforcement called up ICE and those illegal immigrants were deported. I mean, there's no talent. It's probably into the tens of thousands, if not thousands every week of illegal immigrants that are tied up in traffic violations. I mean, this stuff happens all the time. Talk to anybody in local law enforcement and they will tell you how many times they run across when either investigating crimes or traffic violations, whatever type of crime you're talking about, gang units, they run across these illegal, illegal immigrants all the time. And this is why it's no problem getting to the numbers of deportations that President Trump wants. It should not be that difficult. It should not be that difficult. Now, President Trump's at about roughly 150,000 deportations over the last few months. But that's really not impressive. It's really not impressive when you think about the fact that Biden permitted upwards of 9 to 10 million illegal immigrants in the country over a four year period. Now, President Trump is working, his Department of Homeland Security is working on some creative alternatives to lower the cost associated with deporting illegal immigrants. And this is a travesty that our country has to pay somewhere between $15,000 and $20,000 per deportation. That's how much it cost our government to deport illegal immigrants throughout the whole process. And the Trump administration actually recently announced that they're willing to give illegal immigrants the opportunity self deport and do so with some financial incentives, which, I'm split on whether this is a good idea or not. The math definitely adds up here and we'll explain why.
DHS to start paying for commercial flights of illegal immigrants who self deport
But let's listen to this Fox News report on what it cost to deport illegal immigrants and what we could possibly save by incentivizing self deportation. Let's listen.
>> Speaker D: Fox News can report exclusively that DHS will announce today that they're going to start paying for the commercial flights of illegal aliens who self deport from the US and on top of that, they're going to pay them an additional $1,000 stipend once they're confirmed to have left the country. Now, DHS says doing this is going to be significantly cheaper for the American taxpayer. They tell us that right now it costs on average about $17,000 to arrest, detain and deport someone they say paying for self deportations. And the stipend will only cost about $4,500 per person. That's about 70% cheaper. Aliens are going to have to register to self deport on the new CBP home app to access that DHS financial assistance, as well as announce their intent to leave the country. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem tells Fox in part, quote, if you are here illegally, self deportation is the best, safest and most cost effective way to leave the United States to avoid arrest.
>> Walker Wildmon: All right, well, there you have it. That's the Trump administration incentivizing what they're calling self deportation. Now, the math adds up here. I mean, the math adds up, no doubt, because the federal government can save over 10, close to probably $15,000 per illegal immigrant by incentivizing self deportation. So from a, from a physical perspective, this makes perfect sense. I mean, this makes perfect sense. You allow self deportation, you give them A stipend, you cover their airline ticket out of the country. To me, from a financial standpoint, it's a win, win. Now, part of me is cringing at the fact that we're giving a stipend or a thousand dollars to an illegal immigrant under any circumstance. But I understand the fact that this could save our country millions of dollars, millions of dollars, if, we could get folks to self deport. Now, speaking of, earlier, I talked about the number of illegal immigrants that are, that are interacted with on traffic stops. And to prove my point here, let's not forget the El Salvador man that was apprehended and deported in Maryland, that had a pretty, pretty lengthy, connection, to gangs and other activity and had a previous deportation order, on his record. He, was actually stopped in November of 2022 in Tennessee. And that's why I brought in this whole Tennessee state trooper story, because the, illegal immigrant, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, he was stopped in 2022 in Tennessee by state law enforcement there, State highway patrol. And they knew at the time when they ran his record that he was an illegal immigrant. And see, this is the problem I have. Why. Now, this was under Biden, so this, this might explain it. But why do we have state law enforcement, even local law enforcement, interacting with known illegal immigrants and then they're getting released? I mean, why are they not not being immediately apprehended by ICE and deported? And so I think the Trump administration is going to have to lean into state and local law enforcement. I think that's the only way to get to any level of quote, unquote, mass deportations is you are going to have to have state and local law enforcement call up ICE every single time they run into an illegal immigrant. Whether they're breaking a crime or not, it doesn't matter. They're in the country illegally.
Podcasts are available @afr.net now back to. At the Corps on American Family Radio.
>> Walker Wildmon: Welcome, back to The Core here on American Family Radio. Glad to have you with us on the program. Well, just to put a bow on the topic from the last segment, you know, right now, what we're seeing coming out of the Trump administration is the worst of the worst from the deportation standpoint. All right, so when you're looking at the rap sheets of the illegal immigrants that are being deported by President Trump, it's the worst of the worst. It's the rapists, it's the murderers, and many of these are convicted by the way not just indicted or not just charged. Many of the illegal immigrants that are being deported have actually been convicted in US Court over some of these criminal charges. but the, the issue that you're going to run into is over time, you're going to get to a point where in large part you've deported most of the most egregious actors, if you will, from an illegal immigrant standpoint. And then if you don't ever have the conversation and make the plan to begin deporting others who are also in the country illegally, but maybe their rap sheet's not as long as the others, then you're just not going to get to a mass deportation level. You're just not going to, and also you're not going to incentivize the self deportation plan because if illegal immigrants think that they can come here and as long as they don't commit additional crimes while here, then they're safe from deportation. Well, there's no incentive to self deport, right there. So you've got to really create this expectancy that anybody in the country illegally is eligible for deportation. And that's when you're going to create really a rush to self deport that President Trump is trying to do here.
Congressman Michael Guest talks about upcoming tax and border legislation
Speaking of illegal immigration and the border, Congressman Michael Guest is on with us. He represents District 3 in the state of Mississippi in US Congress and he's on with us now. Congressman Guest, welcome to the program.
>> Congressman Michael Guest: Yeah, thanks for having me back again. Good to talk to you.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah, absolutely. Well, we've been talking about the reconciliation bill, which is basically the upcoming tax bill that President Trump's been talking about, where the tax cuts from 2017 are hoping to be extended, or permanent, made permanent in the tax code. But there's also other subject matters that are, that are talking about being included in this legislation. So bring us up to date on what President Trump has called the one big beautiful bill. Give, us an update on some of the items that Republicans are looking to include in this legislation. Yeah, you're right.
>> Congressman Michael Guest: I mean it is a bill that is multifaceted. you've got the tax relief, the extension of the Trump tax cuts, which is really the primary focus. But in addition to that, we've got a border focus where we just marked up last week in the Homeland Security, committee, where we are going to invest an additional $69 billion to secure the border. much of that money is going to wall border construction as well. As new facility construction along the Southwest border. But, there's some additional funds going for personnel, going, investing in technology. We're going ahead and making an early investment to make sure we are prepared for the 2026, FIFA, World cup games that are going to be played, many of those being played in. So we're looking ahead to the 2028 Olympics. And so we're going ahead, we're making down payments on those, large sporting events that are going to be bringing in hundreds, of thousands of people into the United States. And so, we were able to mark up our portion of the bill last week. Mark Green and staff, wrote a very tight piece of legislation again coming in under budget. We were actually, allocated to spend up to 90 billion. we spent just over 69 billion, so 20 billion under budget, which I think is amazing. and this is going to go a long way to helping President Trump, continue, the great work that we've seen on the southwest border. I mean, we've seen border immigration numbers drop by 95%. I mean, we've basically cut off the spigot of new immigrants coming into the country. And, so this legislation will help make sure that that is permanent, and then will allow us to reallocate resources into the interior, to begin, apprehending, some of those individuals who are in the country illegally who need, to be deported back to their country of origin.
Is there a plan to include some permanency to Doge savings in reconciliation pill
>> Walker Wildmon: Let me ask you before we get into kind of a timeline, and maybe the implications on the economy, because a lot of the market is looking forward to this reconciliation bill, because of the tax, code updates or the renewal of the Trump tax cuts. But before we get into that, the, Doge has been finding, billions of dollars that, is either wasteful spending, fraudulent spending, somewhere in between, and a lot of the Cabinet members and agency agencies have been cooperating with Doge, to save money where money can be saved. But is there a plan to include some permanency to the Doge savings in this reconciliation pill? Because that's concern. There's a lot of concern out there from people who've been doing this a while that think, well, if, you know, it's one thing for Doge to save money now, but if you get a different president in there, they'll just go back to the old way of doing things without Congress weighing in here. So is there any plan to include, some more permanent fixes to the stuff that Doge has Found in this legislation.
>> Congressman Michael Guest: Yeah, the intent of leadership is not to necessarily include that, in the reconciliation package, but to see a package that, is recommended by the White House, known, as rescissions. And so there is a mechanism where, after Congress appropriates dollars to certain programs, if the executive branch then comes back to Congress and tells Congress that that money is no longer needed, then we can, by simple majority vote, so it would only require 50 votes in the Senate, we can claw that money back, that was previously, appropriated or funded for those agencies.
>> Walker Wildmon: All right. I think we just lost the Congressman there. Congressman Michael Guest was on with us, and hopefully we'll get him back on the board. But I think this is important because, to me, the border security funding is good. Don't get me wrong, it's good. but it's not necessarily moving the ball down the field. It's more so, maintaining the, border enforcement that President Trump has brought in with his powers as the president, as the Commander in Chief. and I think the tax cuts will get extended, probably made permanent, which is a good thing. Once again, a good thing. But that's more so maintaining the status quo, not necessarily moving the ball down the field. And so I think a lot of voters want to see the ball move down the field. And if we could get some, as the Congressman mentioned, there some rescissions, as they call it, or some pullbacks on some of this wasteful spending that was authorized by Congress, I think that's a big, big deal. And I think that would go a long way to ensure voters, that Congress is taking this issue very, very seriously. On the Trump, tax cuts that were passed in 2017, there is talk of expanding those to include no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, and even some more business friendly, tax cuts. So, that is all, being negotiated now. We really won't know probably what makes it in the final bill until both the House and the Senate work together to iron out the differences. And then we get basically one final bill, for review, final, before, Congress votes on it. So that's the latest on that. We're probably talking about the next few months here. As far as timeline goes. We're probably talking about the next few months. And along this track or along kind of the same timeline, you have the tariffs that have been put in place by President Trump. You have the, plan to negotiate permanent trade deals, over the next several months. And so I stick to the notion the idea that between this tax bill, this reconciliation tax bill, and the trade deals that are going to get worked out over the next few months, I think between those two things, once we get past that, I think the economy and the markets will respond very, very well. I think they'll respond very positively. We're already seeing the market do very well over the last eight to 10 days, set actually a couple records as far as the s and P500 and the number of positive, days, consecutive positive days. So I think once we get past this tax bill, we get past the tariff negotiations, I think the economy and the market will be kind of in the clear, if you will. and in a place to flourish. And we have President Trump is bringing in record levels of domestic investment. I mean, you look at some of the major multibillion dollar packages that he has negotiated with these companies that want to reshore manufacturing, they, want to reshore their supply chain. That is going to help bolster the economy. So there's a lot of upside over the next, few years that the Trump administration is going to bring. And I think in due time, things, will go well. I think we'll see a revitalization in America's economy in the manufacturing industry. And one of my favorite quotes from the White House and from Scott Besant is that it's Main Street's term, it's Main Street's turn. I mean, he said my favorite quote, and maybe I ought to get this framed. He said, you know, Wall Street's had their time, they've had their turn, and now it's Main Street's turn. And there's a lot of truth there. That's not just a talking point, that's not just a political slogan. But there's a lot of truth underneath that. Because as we, as we, we've seen in recent years, the market isn't the economy and the economy isn't the market. Because under Biden, and you'll, you should be able to relate to this. Under Biden, the fundamentals of the economy were actually poor. The fundamentals of the, of the economy, they weren't very good. You had record, levels of inflation. You had wages real, wage declining. You had housing unaffordability, interest rates at a 40 year high. You had government subsidizing the GDP numbers and the jobless numbers, pumping up the economy artificially. And the stock market had one of its best runs in 30, 40 years. And so you look at the stock market and you look at Main street and the economy and those Two things are not always in sync, and that's what we saw during, the Biden administration, where maybe the stock market did well, but the underlying economy wasn't very well at all.
Congressman Guest: I think we will see a rescissions package soon
And it looks like we do have the Congressman back with us. Congressman Guest, Sorry about that. Glad to have you back on the program.
>> Congressman Michael Guest: I'm sorry.
>> Walker Wildmon: That's all right.
>> Congressman Michael Guest: I know we were talking about kind of the rescissions package and that kind of being the vehicle in which we are looking at making some of these DOGE cuts permit. And I do think that we will see a rescissions package once the reconciliation, package gets, complete sometime, I guess, probably between now and, you know, I think more realistic timeline is the timeline set forth by, Chairman Jason Smith. You know, he talks about July 4th as being a reasonable date for us to get that, bill out of the House, out of the Senate and to the President's desk. And I think once we do that, then, the permanency of some of these DOGE cuts through the rescission, I think that will be come about a priority of leadership.
Michael Guest: We don't want to continue to add to national debt
>> Walker Wildmon: Let me ask you this on that, and then we'll move on. But with that rescission provision, there is a time window, if you will, like, that's not on the table forever, right? So is it like 12 months that you guys basically have to act on that? Do you know what that timeline is?
>> Congressman Michael Guest: I think it's going to be within this budget year. So that would put us, into the fall.
>> Walker Wildmon: Okay, into September.
>> Congressman Michael Guest: I think as long as we do that within the FY25 time frame, which would be the end of September, and so we would still be well within our time frame, be able to get that accomplished, between now and that time. And look, that's something that is much needed. It's something that, myself and a lot of others members have really been talking about. Because you're exactly right. Just because this president turns off the spending, we don't want to allow another president to come in three years from now and be able to turn that spending back on. And the only way to accomplish that is going to be through the rescissions, package.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah, yeah. I think between renewing the tax cuts, maybe expanding it a little bit on that. Let me ask you this. We got about two minutes left. Do you think the tax, cuts are going to be expanded to touch on tips and Social Security? I know that's something the President has talked about.
>> Congressman Michael Guest: You know, we're going to have to look and make sure that if we expand it past what we're looking at doing now, which is going to be either the extension, the permanency of The Trump tax cuts, 1.0, you know, we're going to have to make sure we can pay for that. and that's something that, we've been very clear about, is we don't want to continue to add to the national debt. and so if we can keep spending under control, if we can keep things, that would be big items, packages, we can keep those down. I think you can look at expanding those. But we want to make sure that we're not, adding to, this growing national debt, that we have seen explode. I mean, just this year alone, the, service of the national debt is going to hit more than a trillion dollars. And so we're spending more money now servicing the national debt than we are, funding our military. And that's something that has to change. And, and so I think we want to get as much as we can in this bill. We, want to make sure that we make the tax cuts as broad and as permanent as possible, but we also want to do so in such a manner that we're being good stewards of the taxpayer money and we're not leaving trillions and tens of trillions of dollars in additional new debt to our children and our children's children.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah, I agree 100% on that. Michael Guest, Congressman from Mississippi, representing the, Congressional District three. Thank you so much for coming on the program. Appreciate your work.
>> Congressman Michael Guest: Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Have a great day.
>> Walker Wildmon: All right, thank you so much.
Congressman Michael Guest says Congress needs to rein in spending to offset tax cuts
That's, Congressman Michael Guest from the state of Mississippi talking about the reconciliation bill coming up being negotiated, and dealt with in the House. Now to go over to the Senate to where the two chambers will work together to get that final package done. But, you know, it's a good point. Tax cuts sound great, but if they're not offset and we're already running a massive deficit, that's just going to make matters worse to a degree. Some of it will spur growth. But I think the onus is going to be on Congress here. I mean, because you. The. I, I agree with the, no tax on Social Security. I mean, the, the double taxing of Social Security payments is Social, Security income is just patently absurd. It doesn't even make sense. But Congress is going to have to reign in the spending. I mean, that's all it boils down to. Congress has to Rein, in the spending to offset the tax revenue loss. We'll be back in a few.
This is at the Core on American Family Radio with your host, Walker Wildmon.
>> Walker Wildmon: Welcome back to the program. Walker Wildmon here with you. Glad to have you with us for this last segment of the program. Well, if you weren't convinced on why to download the podcast. Well, if you missed my interview with Congressman Michael Guest in the last segment. Well, there you go. That's a reason to download the podcast. Subscribe and you can catch full interviews. Maybe you're in and out of your car or in and out of your kitchen and you're not able to get the entire interview. You can subscribe to at the Core podcast and, get the entire interview there, wherever you listen to podcasts. do we have the guest on the phone?
Brett Farley is executive director of the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma
Okay, great. Brett Farley's joining us now. Brett's executive director of the, Catholic Conference of Oklahoma, and he's on with us now to talk about an important case, before the Supreme Court. Brett, welcome to the program.
>> Brett Farley: Glad to be back with you.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah, absolutely, Brett. Well, tell us first, about, your work with the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma, and then we'll, segue into this litigation, into this very important case. Sure.
>> Brett Farley: Well, the shorthand version is I'm the lobbyist for the Catholic Bishops here in Oklahoma. So I'm for the executive director for the Catholic Conference here in Oklahoma. And I'm one of about 45 similar, organizations around the country. And we represent the Catholic Church in our state at, the state capital, largely, on, matters that you might expect religious liberty and sanctity of life and family policy and things of that nature. So obviously this case falls squarely within, those categories, and it's, been quite a historic event for us.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah.
Case involves whether state can deny a charter school because that charter school is religious
So, let's talk about. Let's talk about this case that. That's making its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. And this is a pretty, pretty big, big case. And you have the Attorney General's office. that's. That's gone, two directions here over the history of the case. But bring us up to speed on it. Kind of give us the backgrounder and bring us up to speed on this case, the name of the case, and some of the, litigation.
>> Brett Farley: Yeah, well, the formal. There are actually two different suits, so it gets a little convoluted. and I can explain that. But the primary case, that the U.S. supreme Court consolidated both cases into a single oral argument, Last Wednesday. And so the formal case is Drummond versus, St. Isidore Virtual School. And, the gist of the case, is that in 2022, both of the dioceses from Tulsa and Oklahoma City together formed a school, a, ah, charter school, via an application to the state of Oklahoma. and that application ultimately was approved by the state virtual charter board by, a vote of 3 to 2 to move forward to contract with the state in what did become the country's first religious charter school. the state Attorney general, Gintner Drummond, objected to that and, shortly after the approval of that contract, filed suit both against the charter board itself and also the school. So hence the two suits, that both of those suits were appealed to the state Supreme Court, which ruled against the school seven to one. one of the justices recused. And so that's the, that's the reason for the eight vote, total there. and of course then we appealed to the US Supreme Court requesting that they would take up our cause, which they did. And so last Wednesday was the formal oral argument in those cases before the U.S. supreme Court.
>> Walker Wildmon: Let me kind of ask you this or, kind of explain it from a layperson's perspective, and then you tell me what I'm missing here. In essence, this case has to do with whether the state can deny a charter school because that charter school is religious.
>> Brett Farley: No, you're, you're spot on. That's exactly it. And, we are relying on three different Supreme Court precedents over the last few years. The, last of which was the Carson v. Macon case, out of Maine, very, similar case in which the state created a program where they said, look, we're going to give, state dollars, to a private school. In the case where a student, is unable to attend a public school for whatever education needs they may have. Ah, and that's perfectly fine. The problem is that when a Christian school applied to participate in the program, they say, well, no, no, no, you can't because you're Christian. you know, our point in that case, our side, I would say, was that you can't tell religious groups they're not allowed to participate because they're religious. And the Supreme Court agreed with that argument. And they said very specifically in that case, in the two previous cases, they sort of repeated themselves. The, state's not required to create a public program of, private benefit, of private participation. But if they do, you're not allowed to tell religious groups they can't participate because they're Religious. If they don't qualify for some technical reason, they're unable to meet state education standards or something of that nature, that's perfectly fine. But you cannot prohibit their participation on the grounds of their religious status or activity. That, was very explicit in that case, and that's been our contention in our case as well. and we think for that reason that we're very. I'll say we're very optimistic that we will prevail because the arguments are very clear.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah. And our Founding Fathers. This is where modern kind of law and lack of constitutional understanding gets it wrong, is that our Founding Fathers never intended to. For the government to affirmatively discriminate against people of faith or organizations or churches. That was never the intent of, the First Amendment. The intent of the First Amendment was actually to prevent this, to prevent the state from punishing or interfering with the right of individuals and organizations to, exercise their faith. So this is a pretty textbook First Amendment case in favor of these Catholic schools that are charter schools or applying to be charter schools.
Oklahoma Attorney General is challenging religious charter school in Supreme Court case
Let me ask you this, and this may be getting a little bit into. Into the weeds here, but I think it's important for anyone listening in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is a pretty conservative state. I mean, with the governor, and I, believe Oklahoma, every county went towards President Trump, if I'm not mistaken. You've got a great. Yes. Your great Superintendent of Education, Ryan Walters, whom I know. What's going on with the Attorney General here.
>> Brett Farley: That is a really great question. it was. He wanted a very contentious Republican primary. Barely. And, then ultimately, you know, in a state like Oklahoma, the Republican nominee ends up becoming, sort of the de facto winner, in a general election. and so it was a contentious race, and, I think, frankly, the, incumbent just didn't run hard enough. And when you assume that you're going to win reelection, that's when a challenger is going to come up and sneak up behind you. And so that's what happened in gentler Drummond's case, and he ran as a conservative, and. And here we are.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah.
>> Brett Farley: he, you know, ultimately is running for governor in Oklahoma. And I think that plays largely into this case because you have entrenched, interests that are, let's say, not in favor of school choice, that are wielding their power in this situation. And I think that's. That has a lot to do with the way things have played out.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah.
>> Brett Farley: Right now, I mean, all of this is unfolding in the context of the 26 gubernatorial race.
>> Walker Wildmon: M yeah, and Drummond, you know, I don't know the Attorney General, but this isn't creating a good look, honestly, for him to, be going against the Catholic, charter schools or any religious charter schools in Oklahoma for this case. But, you know, if you guys win at the Supreme Court, I mean, this is a big deal. And so it very well has the possibility to come out and create further religious, freedom protections for charter schools and could really open the door, to, broadening of religious organizations applying to be charter schools. Let me ask you this. Generally speaking, is. Has this been litigated in other states or have there been other states? I know there's been, we had the playground, basically, let me just call it the playground case, where a state denied.
>> Brett Farley: Yeah, Trinity Lutheran.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah, they denied basically a grant to cover playground upgrades because they were religious playground, because people of faith played on the playground. So we're not going to pay for that, which is textbook discrimination on behalf of the government. but has there been other religious charter schools throughout other states? I mean, what's the background here?
>> Brett Farley: Well, so there have been many, many cases, and there are other cases currently being litigated across the country, of this flavor, I'll say that, just haven't percolated to the US Supreme Court yet. So there are a lot of cases out there that are all kind of litigating a similar question. Can religious schools and the government participate and collaborate with each other, without, you know, running afoul of the establishment clause of the First Amendment? this is the first case of its kind that deals with a charter school. And so that's why it's made so many headlines, is because, you know, there's just. There's never been before a case that has tested this specific question. but as to the precedent that it may set, I mean, it's really unknown at this point. We don't know what the future is going to hold if the Supreme Court ultimately decides in favor of the school. Because you've got at, least 45 and a couple others that are sort of starter, like I'll call them, but 45 states that have charter programs. what makes it difficult is that each one of them are different. And so, you know, you have, charter programs in California, for instance, where the charter schools are. One could make the argument that they are very much government entities because there's so much oversight and control by the state. whereas in Oklahoma, the state is essentially outsourcing to private entities, and it's a Contract relationship, much the same way it would be with any other contract relationship. and so it really depends on what state we're talking about. And so, you know, it's difficult to say, well, if we win this, then there's going to be sort of a, you know, a flood of new religious charter schools opening up. I don't know that you could make that argument easily.
>> Walker Wildmon: Right.
>> Brett Farley: There are going to be a lot of questions like this being asked around the country. What's next and who can do something similar. So we'll see.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah, and to your point, it all depends on how the, how the justices write the opinion. let's say the majority opinion is in favor of the charter school in Oklahoma. Then, it's all about how broadly they write that opinion or if they narrowly focus it, which they've done before. For better or worse, when they want to try to avoid scrutiny, they just narrowly write it. and in other cases they open the floodgates wide open on, on, on their rulings. Well, Brett, thank, you so much, for coming on the program. Appreciate your work there in Oklahoma and thank you for bringing us up to speed on this case.
>> Brett Farley: My pleasure. Anytime, all.
>> Walker Wildmon: Ah, right. Thanks so much.
A case involving a Catholic charter school in Oklahoma is headed to the Supreme Court
That's, Brett Farley. He's executive director at the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma talking about this case between a Catholic charter school and, the attorney General and the state there and the litigation that has made it to the Supreme Court. The U.S. supreme Court will rule on it most likely in the coming, let's say 60 days, usually by June. End of June is when they typically release the final rulings from the previous period, from the previous session, if you will. So we'll continue to keep an eye on that. But this has, has the potential, I mean, this could go south pretty quickly if the Supreme Court doesn't learn how to have a backbone, which it's not honestly looking very good there in recent months. But it could go, could go very well, for this cause around the country, could open the door pretty wide for religious charter schools around the country. And this just shows how deeply rooted this anti religion, anti God ideology is embedded in our society near our legal sphere, where you have, you have people and in this case you have an attorney general. And this is just bizarre in Oklahoma that thinks that the state ought to be able to discriminate against a, school that wants to apply for the charter school program and they get to be discriminated against simply based on their religion or the fact that they are religious and I'll guarantee you folks, this is not what our founding fathers envisioned. This isn't what they intended. And the reason I know that is because you look at the early, early founding of America and even just let's say the first hundred years of our country, the Bible was the central textbook. The Bible was the central textbook of America's first universities. It was required reading. You couldn't learn anything without reading the Bible. Read Stephen McDowell's writings, read David Barton's writings, read the Federalist Papers, read Alex de Tocqueville, read all of these early documents from our founding fathers and others, and religion and morality, specifically in the Christian context. It dominated America's education. Go to Harvard. Look at the Bible verses that are etched into Harvard's buildings. I'm not making this stuff up. If people, even people that don't believe in God, don't profess to be Christians, if they would go and truly study America's history, they would come out unable to deny Christianity's fingerprints on this nation. And, and just because you don't like it or, that's not how you would have done it, doesn't mean that it's not true. And does it mean that we have the right to completely wipe away the religious fabric of this nation? And as I've said over and over again, when we purge religion, when we purge Christianity, when we purge the God of the Bible from government, you get a paganistic, humanistic, secular government that doesn't know right from wrong. And a government that doesn't know right from wrong is a government on the precipice of committing great evil. We'll see you next time. If we learned anything from this election, it's how important it is for us to fight, fight, fight. We also learned how desperately the left wants to fight to take babies lives. Which is why every day PreBorn Ministries fights for the babies. PreBorn's network of clinics are positioned in the highest abortion areas, fighting for mothers deciding between life and death of their child. Preborn welcomes these women with God's love and offers them a free ultrasound to introduce their precious baby and hear the beautiful heartbeat. This amazing encounter gives her baby a fighting chance and the majority of the time she will choose life. Would you join PreBorn in the fight for life? One ultrasound is just $28 and $140 will sponsor five ultrasounds. Babies are worth fighting for. To donate, dial pound 250 in your cell phone and say the keyword baby. That's £250 and say the keyword baby. Or you can visit preborn.com afr that's preborn.com afr all gifts are tax deductible and PreBorn has a four star charity rating. Fight, fight, fight for the babies.
>> Jeff Chamblee: The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.
