Preborn needs your help to provide ultrasounds for pregnant women
>> Bobby Roza: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, preborn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection and the majority of the time she will choose life. But they can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside them. One ultrasound is just $28. To donate, dial pound250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr.
>> Rick Green: 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. We equip sacred honor is the courage to speak truth, to live out your free speech.
>> Charles: We also rejoice in our sufferings because we know that suffering produces perseverance, perseverance, character and character hope.
>> : This is at the Core on American Family Radio.
>> Rick Green: Welcome to At the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green.
Rick Green: Federal government should not have anything to do with healthcare
Rick Green, America's costumes coach. Thanks for joining me on this Tuesday. Got a lot of headlines to get to as well as your phone calls. 8885-8988-4088-8589-8840. of course, a lot going on, including the continued, war with Iran and, yeah, call it a war. I mean, I don't know people have their different names. Constitutionally, it doesn't really matter. I mean, I know people say, well, Congress has to declare war. Eh, kind of. That certainly is listed in Article 1, Section 8. But we have a rich history of, presidents waging war. And, sometimes Congress declares it, sometimes they don't, but as they fund it, they are approving it. So anyway, we could debate that constitutionality if you like. Phone number 888-589-8840. Also watching a lot of this, you know, continued push by RFK to, really just bring sanity to our health policy in the country. Now, if you listened very long to at the Core or you've taken any of my Constitution classes [email protected] then you know that, not only do I not believe, but the founding fathers of America did not believe that the federal government should have anything to do with healthcare. It's not a proper function of the federal government. And our design of federalism. Federalism specifically spreads out the power to different entities. And as much of that power as you can get at the local level, the better for the people. We can hold them accountable. Much better. And when it comes to health policy, you're talking about literally engaging in policy that invades the, Personal space of an individual, the body of an individual, what most people would consider to be one of the most important things in their life, their health and, certainly the health of your children. And so it's a significant, important subject. And the founders weren't foolish about this. It wasn't new to them. They dealt with viruses and diseases and yellow fever and massive epidemics and nothing new under the sun. Solomon had it right. And they were wise, I believe, in saying, these are policies that should be left to local governments and sometimes to state governments. And we'll let you decide in each state how much of that you want at the state level or the local level. 10th Amendment, very specific about that. If the Constitution does not list it, if it's not specific to the federal government, then it's left to the states and the people. So anyway, this, this, this, quite frankly, revolution in Washington, D.C. that RFK has led with regard to health policy and getting some sanity back at the, federal level continues. and so there's a fight over this, and I've mentioned this on the program a few times, that I've been surprised at the success. I'm an optimistic person. Normally, I'm very much a let's charge the hill. So, let's go for it. Even if success isn't guaranteed, duty is ours, results are God's. I mean, that's definitely m. My mindset. But I just, I have been amazed at the last 13 months, the success RFK has had at going after the sacred cows of Big Pharma. And you have to understand, when I say health policy, health policy has been written by, and completely, you know, taken over by Big Pharma. So they, they get to write the policy that will put the most money in their pocketbooks. This is why they do insane, literally insane. And I think evil things like mandating vaccines for babies that aren't necessary for babies. you can make arguments for some of the vaccines to be, you know, vitally important to prevent a horrible disease from spreading across the. The country and, or, you know, something that's going to kill millions of people or whatever. I understand all that. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about mandating things like Hep B, mandating things like even the measles. You have more, you know, children that have died from the measles vaccine than have died from measles in the last, you know, years. Same, with Hep B vaccine, it damages more children, than it prevents the Disease. And there's, there's many of them like that. They got it up to, you know, well over 70, 75 do, that these were pumping into these babies in their first few years. And it just doesn't make any sense unless you're following the money, unless you're looking at the pocketbooks of Big Pharma, then it makes sense. It's no longer for the good of the kid or the good of the health of the country. It's not health policy for what's good for the health of the country. It's health policy for what's going to line the pockets of big Pharma. So that's what RFK was taking on. And I have been on the receiving end of trying to fight that battle, believe me. Lost my, my seat in the Texas legislature over it. You know, criminal investigations have my, you know, they tried to ruin my life over it. And, I didn't have the deep pockets of a, of a Donald Trump, an RFK or an RFK to fight that. and so I have been thrilled 25 years later to watch the victories for RFK. Now the battle continues, and now it moves in some ways to the court.
Federal judge temporarily blocks CDC vaccine schedule that made more sense
So now we've got judges blocking the, the new vaccine schedule that, made more sense. Still has some things in there that I would think, should change. But let me just ask you, from a practical perspective, what is a judge doing weighing in on the vaccine schedule? What makes a federal judge qualified to have any say in what a vaccine schedule is? I mean, I don't think the federal government should have any say either. It should be individual states. But, but if our, if our current national policy is to let the federal government do that, and you can make an argument for why it's better to have the same policy nationwide or whatever, fine, do a constitutional amendment if you want to do that. Don't just have, you know, the Congress, create some new agency like the center for Demented Confusion, or I, like to call them the center for Disease Creation. but that's what we've done, and that's what's there. Certainly the wrong way to tell someone you can't reform. Bad policy being made at that level would be for a judge to say, not. Not have a judge say, hey, it's unconstitutional for us to even have a Center for the Demented Confusion. That would be a proper decision of a judge, because now the judge is ruling on constitutionality, not on whether or not a vaccine works. Because how does a judge know what makes them the expert in whether or not a vaccine makes sense. so anyway, there's just a lot of insanity going on. Apparently this judge. Let's see, what's the judge's name? It's a. federal judge has temporarily blocked the new Centers for Disease Creation. I'm sorry. Control and Prevention, vaccine schedule for Children. The judge stayed Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. S appointments to the CDC vaccine advisory committee as well. Wait, what? What? Now the judge gets to decide? So think about it. Okay, Just little civics lesson here. Let's just all go back to our middle school class where we learn that there are three branches of government, and those three branches of government are the executive, the legislative. Wait, I'm going to pull an AOC here. what's the other one? Oh, the judiciary. Yeah, most people can't name the three branches of government. It's that bad. But anyway, so let's go back to middle school, and we learned that there are three branches of government. Now, the job of the executive is to. Sounds familiar. Execute the law. Executive executes the law. So the executive is over all of these agencies that were created by the legislature, but then you had to have somebody run it. And it's really hard to have 535 octogenarians in Washington, D.C. that have to be wheeled into the House floor to even vote, and then their staff has to tell them how to vote. It's kind of hard for that body to manage the agencies, especially now that we have four or five hundred of these agencies. So what we do is we say, okay, Congress, you make the law, and then President, you execute it. And you can't do it all by yourself. So you're gonna have to appoint these Secretaries of war. Secretary of. Or Secretary of War, Secretary of Agriculture, which shouldn't exist. Not constitutional. Secretary of, You know, the Interior shouldn't exist. Not constitutional. Secretary of the. Well, actually, there are some things you. That are constitutional under the Interior. I should back up. I don't want to get the weeds on that. But anyway, Secretary, of. Of, Health and Human Services. Not constitutional. But Congress created it, and the president is the one that has to run it. Okay, so the president appoints Robert F. Kennedy to be the health secretary, and then tells rfk, go clean up this message. Our CDC vaccine schedule is way overboard. We're given way too many vaccines. And, it's not good, it's not healthy. Let's at least look at what the rest of the world is doing and what kind of results they're getting in their nations, because clearly the health of our nation is horrible. So, RFK did that and does exactly what the President told him to do, which is in executing the law. So this isn't going outside. Congress doesn't set the vaccine schedule. Congress tells the CDC to do these things and the Secretary of Health is supposed to guide that. And so yes, you have an advisory committee, but by the way, the advisory committee doesn't make law. They're certainly not the elected representatives of the people. And so you have an advisory committee that is supposed to be put in place by the President and the health secretary. So this judge now is going to come out of left field, which is where this third branch of government is, the judiciary, and decide that now they're going to make law and execute law. Now does anybody think that's a good idea? Do you really want an unelected, unaccountable lawyer that's been appointed to the federal bench? Unfortunately for life. Now they're technically, according to the Constitution, appointed for good behavior, but we treat it like it's for life. So now you have this rogue judge who's not accountable to anyone and you're going to give them the power to make health policy for the entire nation. It's just, just absurd, absolutely absurd. No one thinks, no one that I've actually make an art. Heard make an argument before thinks that that's a good constitutional process or that that's good for the society, that you would let one judge make policy on anything for the whole nation. They're not elected, they're not empowered with that. The founders have all kinds of quotes on how this doesn't make. You'd never do that because the judiciary is ill equipped. It's not designed to make policy. Its job is to apply the policy, apply the law to the facts and the circumstances that come before it. So the only reason the judge is there is so that once the Congress makes a law and the president is out there executing the law, if someone believes it's being executed in the wrong way, in other words, you're applying the law to something that it shouldn't be applied to, then you sue. Or if the if the agency needs to sue, a person or a corporation or whatever in order to execute the law, then you go to the judge and the judge gets to decide whether or not the law is being applied appropriately to that fact circumstance. That's the job of a judge literally to basically say who's guilty or innocent, who's right or wrong under the law. Well, what's this judge doing, this judge is deciding that the very people empowered by Congress, by the law, to now go execute the law, that he just disagrees with their policy. He disagrees with their, which vaccines are gonna be on the schedule and not on the schedule. He disagrees with who's gonna get appointed to the, vaccine advisory committee. Again, who made this? Judge? Oh, here it is. Brian Murphy.
Federal government says this is not subject to judicial review
Whoever this Brian Murphy guy is. Guess what, Brian? Your Honor, you are not empowered under the Constitution to make these kind of policies. You should be held in contempt. You should actually be impeached. You should be removed from the bench for overstepping your power and deciding that you are somehow going to be the trier of fact on what babies, are going to have injected into their bodies. Now, I agree with the federal government, that feels so weird to say this, but I agree with the executive branch of the federal government who is saying this is not subject to judicial review. What do they mean by that? It's not subject to the judge's whims. The judge, the judiciary. In fact, not even the Supreme Court has the power to review this and make these decisions. The authority, in fact, you've, heard me say this on the program all the time. All of these questions come down to a simple two word question. Who decides? And in this case, who decides based on what the law says is in fact the Secretary of Health and Human Services and who they want to appoint to this or who the president wants to appoint, to. To these committees. And then what they want the policy to be. Now, if you don't like the policy, throw the bums out. Isn't that what we always say? I don't think RFK is a bum or President Trump, but, you know, throw them out. You win the election, you get to make policy. You win the election, you get to execute the law. You win the election, you get to make law over in Congress. But if you win the election on the president's side, you get to execute the law. So, anyway, this is just such a over, overstepping of the boundaries of what the court should be able to do. So anyway, I didn't intend to take the whole segment on just that news item. As you know, I'm pretty passionate about this particular subject though. We're gonna take a break. Your thoughts. 8885-898840-88858, 98840. You're listening.
>> : The AFR app is a powerful tool, but it does have limitations. You can't use it to change the oil in your vehicle or get rid of carpet stains. It won't walk the dog, won't pick up the dry cleaning or take the kids to practice. But while you're doing those things, you can listen to your favorite AFR content through the app on your phone, smart device or Roku. Just go to your app store or visit afr.net Listen to AFR wherever you go with the AFR app. This is at the Core on American Family Radio with your host, Rick Greene.
Rick Green: CDC vaccine committee is going up against medical industrial complex
>> Rick Green: We're back here on at the Core with Walker Wildmon of Rick Greene. I'm Rick Green, America's Constitution coach. Phone number is 8885-8988-4088-8589-8840. And, looks like, you know, I gotta switch subjects here from the, from the CDC thing. I can spend all day on that one, by the way. I mean, I did read a little further into the article. Let me just say one thing then, then I'll move on. I said I was gonna move on. I just can't help it. Dr. Robert Malone, who. I respect the guy. I mean, he was one of the inventors of the, you know, the technology that was used in the COVID vaccines and became actually an advocate against it. Definitely, you know, felt like it had been, abused. And, you know, the American people have been lied to. So he's been very outspoken. And rfk, he's one of the ones that RFK appointed to this, this committee, this vaccine committee. You would think a guy that invented some of the technology that's being used would be a good appointment. You'd kind of want their input. but he's one of the ones that they're, that they're objecting to. So anyway, it's, it's just, it's. It's messy, but it is, it is what I've said all along. You're going up against the medical industrial complex. Like, they want all of their people on this committee so that they can make the policy again that lines their pocket. And, and, and it's a revolving door at the fda, the cdc, you get these people that, you know, they, they, they make tons of money from these pharma companies after they, you know, do the, do the, do the. Do the game. Play the game and get the right stuff on the schedule so that these people can make a ton of money. and it's so unfortunate because people genuinely are harmed by it. And obviously there are very real medical issues and needs and there are Diseases, obviously. And there are some vaccines that work well and are worth the risk. Every vaccine has a risk, every medical procedure has a risk. Everything that you do has a risk. Life is full of that. And, everything's a cost benefit analysis. And so if you're being rational and truly scientific and doing the cost benefit analysis and, and want to recommend a particular vaccine because you believe the benefits outweigh the risk, then do that. But key word there, recommend. And then the decision, ultimate decision, at the end of the day, who decides whether or not to actually take the vaccine, actually have it injected into your body or injected into your baby or whoever, that comes down to you, the individual or the parent. Those are the only two people that you for your body, for yourself, and the parent for the child, at the end of the day, should be making the decision every single time on every single vaccine, no matter what. End of story, period. No matter how bad the outbreak is, no matter what the negatives are that you want to stack up for that particular vaccine, at the end of the day, it ultimately should be you deciding whether or not to put that into your body. and obviously there are caveats to then if you choose not to, perhaps where you can go if there's a massive outbreak of a particular, you know, again, very deadly, it's got to be something that's really bad. Not this stuff that's like, you know, you're going to be sick for a few days or, you know, you might have an, your skin might break out or whatever it might be. I mean, if it's that kind of stuff, you know, or the rotavirus, literally diarrhea, I mean, come on, people, you know, that, that's insane that we would say, if you don't get this, if you don't inject this into your body, that we're not going to let you go to school or we're not going to let you, you know, hang out in a public place or whatever for something like that. I totally get it if you're talking about the Black Plague. Look, if you got something that's killing 20% of the people that get it, which we haven't seen in our lifetimes, but if you get something that bad, totally understand government having a role in trying to stop that. And actually at that point saying, if you don't have, you know, whatever this treatment is, then we don't want you to go into these, crowded places that has not happened in our lifetimes, to do that with the measles or, chickenpox or rotavirus or a bunch of these other ones that they're doing it with. Just. Just ridiculous. So thank you to RFK for bringing some sanity back and. And, for continuing to fight this. And thank you to President Trump for being willing to take on this fight. That's a huge deal, folks. You know how many people he hacked off, you know how much money came against him, and how much of the hatred he gets right now is because of. Specifically because of that. Oh, man, it's big. It's big. Okay, man. I was gonna go to something else. I had another topic I was gonna jump into back on the CDC thing. This is what happens. This is how my brain works, people. It's a. It's a. It's a. It's a jungle up there, man. I'm telling you. All right, we'll go ahead and go to the phones. 888-589-8840. And then I'll come back to some of these other articles. I do need to talk a little bit about Iran, and I need to talk about some of these traitors in our own government that are, starting to sell out the president and, give fodder to the enemy.
Joanne in Texas calls in...
But let's go ahead and go to Joanne in Texas. Joanne, go ahead. You're up first today. 888-589-8840. Joanne, you're up first. Hey, Rick. Hey. Hey, Rick. Thanks for taking my call.
Impeachment is the proper tool for reining in rogue federal judges
Okay, What I want to know is who needs to do what to stop the rogue judges? That's what I want to know. Yeah, it's very clearly laid out, in both the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. The founders talked a lot about this because they kind of, you know, they didn't have a lot of experience with, being able to have a judiciary that would not be just controlled by the king. But they definitely had complaints about these kinds of things in the Declaration of Independence. So they kind of saw some of this coming, and they knew that they would need to have some safeguards. And so, let's see. It's federalist, I believe, 51, by Madison, where he talks about, the. That impeachment is a, quote, bridle in the hands of the legislature. Now, I say quotes because I think the word picture there and the metaphor is really good. I think he was masterful in this. and I could be wrong. That could. It could be Hamilton in 81. I get those 2m mixed up all the time. but, anyway, bottom line is the phrase is accurate. That impeachment is a bridle in the hands of the legislature. What that means is you're literally able to rein in, I mean, picture that as I say that. Just, just picture someone pulling back on the reins of a horse that is trying to get out of control, that's going the wrong direction, that's gotten off the trail, whatever it might be. It's a bridle in the hands of the legislature. You're literally able to get that entity back on track, whether that entity be the president. If the president is, is completely out of control and gone rogue and doing unconstitutional things, doing something that's an impeachable offense, then it's a bridal. Okay, but most of the time it's the courts. And most of the impeachments, there haven't been that many. I think we're, I think we're 20, 21, something like that, that have been convicted of impeachment, judges that have been thrown out over, going outside of their, their authority. Most of the time it's for, for really bad behavior, which is, you know that the phrase, you know, they're appointed for good behavior. And then, and then of course impeachment for, you know, we use that phrase high crimes and misdemeanors. but it's actually even the founders said even immoral behavior, being drunk in public was one of the ones that a judge was impeached, for, years ago. Sorry, long answer to your question, Joanne. I apologize. The short answer is impeachment. Impeachment is the proper tool for reining in these judges. And I think a lot of these, especially district judges, these out of control, low level, I mean this is the lowest level of the federal judiciary. And, and they're trying to make policy for the whole country. They're the district judge over a particular district in the country and they think that their injunction should be policy for the whole nation. the Supreme Court slapped them down a little bit on this and needs to do more, but frankly the impeachment process would do a whole lot more. Because once you impeach a couple of these judges for getting outside of their authority and doing these things and being, unconstitutional, a lot of the other ones will, they'll get in line. They like their job. Look, it's a cushy, cushy job. Being a federal judge pays, really well. you get treated like a king. You have almost no accountability other than being overruled and reversed by an appellate court or the Supreme Court. you are treated, you know, I think, way too well. And, and so they don't want to lose it. They don't want to lose this gig. They've, they've, they've spent their, you know, a lot of their life, kind of structuring their career to get that, get that appointment. Believe me, I've been around a lot of these guys and gals, and, so if you impeached a few of them, then the rest, not all of them, but most of them, would start following the Constitution, start doing their actual job instead of trying to be the legislator on the bench. So that is the answer. Now, how to do it? a little bit more specific on that. Articles of impeachment have to be filed in the House, in the U.S. house, and then you have to have a 51% vote in the House to impeach. Now, that is not a conviction. That is just like an indictment. So that's kind of like going to the grand jury and saying, here's all the evidence against this person. If all of it's true, then they would be guilty. Now, we don't know if all of it's true until we get into an actual trial and you give the defendant a chance to state their case of why they shouldn't be convicted. And so the impeachment happens in the House. It's just like with the president, just like what we saw with, with what they did to President Trump twice. And we'll, we'll see a whole lot more of that. He'll probably be impeached 47 times if the Democrats get, if they win the midterms here in a few months. So people, please, please get involved in the midterms. This is critical. I don't want to digress on that. Okay, so you impeach in the House, and then it goes over to the Senate, and then the US Senate has to have an actual trial for whether or not to convict this person of impeachment, whether it be, you know, federal judge. It could be a, it could be a secretary of whatever on the executive side of things, and then again, could also be the president. So they have a trial, and then in the trial, you get all the evidence, and then you got to have two thirds. So it's really hard to convict on an impeachment unless it's pretty egregious. I think the last guy to be impeached was the one that had, there was one that had $70,000 cash in their freezer. Literally cold, hard cash. I'M sorry, I shouldn't chuckle at corruption, but the things these people get away with, it's insane. actually, I think if I remember my stories right, there's too many. I get all these confused when I'm not looking at my notes. But if I remember my story right, this was Alcie Hastings. He was a federal judge convicted of taking a bribe and the cash in his freezer. But here's what happens when you convict on impeachment and it goes over to the Senate. I mean, in the Senate, when they convict, they have options on what they can do in terms of punishment. So they can quote in the Constitution there, it says, remove them from office, and then they get to decide whether or not to, quote, bar them. And I'm saying, I'm quoting this off top of my head. I don't have it in front of me, but bar them from any office of honor and trust. and so they can prevent them from running. So they can literally say in the sentencing, essentially, the conviction of the impeachment, they can never, hold federal office again. and so with Alcy Hastings, they didn't do that. They removed him from the bench, but they did not prevent him from running for office. Here the dude runs for Congress and gets elected and goes and serves. Represented the great state of Florida in Congress for years after being impeached for taking a bribe. Can you believe that? Unbelievable. Unbelievable. But anyway, there's been several federal judges that have been impeached and convicted and removed for sexual harassment for, various things. But this one. What you're asking, Joanne, is what do you do with judges that are going rogue, that are being unconstitutional in their actions? It's the same thing. You impeached them. There was a. There was a Supreme Court justice actually impeached for this, not convicted. I don't think, if I remember right, in the founding era, that was an original.
Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas have been outspoken on constitutional issues
I think one of the original six, if I remember right. and it was foregoing outside for issuing opinions that were outside the scope of the judiciary, outside the authority. In other words, not the right person to be making that decision. The court was doing things they shouldn't be doing. I will give you a glimpse of hope, Joanne. And to the rest of the audience there, Sam Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, those two justices have been, without impeachment, reigning in the court in a lot of good ways. They have started saying they've always done this, but now they've been in the majority and they've been able to do it. With majority opinions instead of minority opinions that don't have any weight of law. But they've been constantly saying, what's the proper role of the court? And they've been willing to say this particular question, this decision is outside our purview. It's outside our authority. Literally hearkening back to this McArdle case all the way back, in the Civil War dealing with habeas corpus. And. And, the court actually said, this is outside our purview. We don't have the power. This is a decision for the executive branch. We're not the ones that made that make this decision. And Alito and Thomas have been doing that a lot. They've been. They've been making that argument for when it's within their authority and. And when it's not. And. And that's the right thing to do. That's the proper constitutional thing to do. Everybody should do that. The president should do that. The members of Congress should do that. The court should do. Every time they're going to make a decision, the first question should be, do I have authority? Is this in my purview? Is this in my lane? Or is this somebody else? And if I don't have authority, I should punt. I should hand this off to somebody else and say, this is not for me to decide. That takes some humility. It takes some, statesmanship. It takes some constitutional, wherewithal. You got to know what's given to which part of government. So that when you say, if government's supposed to make this decision, then which government or which branch of government, and, you know, Thomas and Alito certainly have that. I don't think any of the other justices, including what are considered to be the conservative justices, have that. They don't ask that question. and so there's not enough of that being, done. But anyway, frankly, that's what we teach in our Constitution classes. So if you haven't done Constitutional Live or Biblical Citizenship in Modern America, or our new course, Rebuilding Liberty, go to patriotacademy.com today. Get signed up. They're free. Get signed up as a coach and host that. Can you imagine if you had three or four, five, ten people in your living room and you watch these videos that are, frankly, entertaining, they're fun, they're not boring. and I teach the Constitution in Independence hall, so I'm standing in the room where they framed all this stuff, and you learn this, you actually get to learn what's the proper function of each branch of government, what's the Proper function of each level of government, federal, state, local. And then what do you do when they get outside their lane? So Joanne's question gets answered all throughout that course. How about if you were able to answer that to your friends and your family and the people in your church? If you learn these things, then we can raise the constitutional literacy of the country, which needs to be done. It's actual, frankly, it's biblical and constitutional or civic ignorance that has gotten us in this mess. So how do you solve it? Biblical and constitutional or civic literacy? Teach people truth and they won't fall for the lie. Make sure they know what the proper function of government is, and they'll stand up and say no when government tries to get outside its lane. Make sure they know what the Bible actually says, what it teaches, and then they'll know when to stand up against the heretics out there. Like this Talafrico guy. I know it's Talarico, but John Amachuku said that the other night on one of our shows in, Idaho, and I think I'm going to steal it. Talafrico. That's pretty. That's pretty descriptive of the. This guy, he is. He is a heretic, absolute heretic. He takes God's word and he twists it into a pretzel for evil. And we should call it what it is. And if you know truth, if you have biblical literacy, then you recognize those lies and you call it out. And we've got to be doing that at every step of the way, both constitutionally and civically. but also biblically. We're going to take a quick break. Eight, 885-89-8840 is the phone number. 888-58-9840. Will be back with your calls in a moment. You're listening to.
Preborn Network offers women what abortion industry will never offer
At the core.
>> Bobby Roza: abortion moves fast. And right now in our communities, women are being pressured to make irreversible decisions. In moments of fear and panic, they're told to act quickly or risk losing support. Many feel they have no other option. But because of you, they do. At PreBorn Network clinics, a woman who receives what the abortion industry will never offer. Compassion without pressure, clarity about the life growing inside her, real support to welcome her baby and the hope of the gospel. She's given a free ultrasound and space to breathe. And more than 80% of the time, when a mother sees her baby on a preborn ultrasound, she chooses life. This March, PreBorn is believing to save 6,800 babies, but it will take 124 partners saying yes every day. Here's my ask. Pause your busy day for just a moment. Become a yes right now. Just $28 provides one ultrasound. $140 helps five mothers. Every dollar helps save babies and share hope. To donate, dial pound two five zero and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby. Or visit preborn.com afr that's preborn.com forward slash afr.
>> : This is at the Core on American Family Radio with your host, Rick Greene.
Rick Green: Senate has finally taken up the SAVE Act
>> Rick Green: Welcome back that to corps with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green. I'm Rick Green, America's Constitution coach. Phone number is 888-589-8840. That's 888-589-8840. The Senate has finally taken up the SAVE Act. I think it's shell game though folks. I don't want you to get too optimistic here. I'm an optimistic guy, but this is Washington at its worst. So what they're going to do I think is they're going to debate the Save act for a little bit and then they're going to vote not on the bill, they're not going to vote on the SAVE Act. They're lying to you when they say we're going to vote on the Save Act. They're going to vote on cloture. They're going to vote on whether or not to stop, and take a vote. And that's the whole 60 vote shell game. Now I have never changed my tune on this. Our system of, of, of a constitutional republic requires that majority rule. Every founding father agreed on this. For most of our history we agreed on this. And the Senate implemented these goofy rules where the minority rules were 41 votes, which is not. I mean if my math is correct, I'm no genius or anything, but I do have a finance degree and I'm pretty good at math. I, I don't think 41 is a majority of a hundred. unless you're doing new math, which I guess is what these people do to get whatever they want and get the outcome they want. 41 is not a majority of a hundred. If you get 50 plus you have a majority. So if 50 US senators plus the vice president as the tie breaking vote constitutionally say that they are for this bill and going to vote for this bill, you should take a vote. And if anybody wants to stop the vote, they should do exactly what Jimmy Stewart did in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, the talking filibuster. Now we're using this terminology, talking filibuster versus zombie filibuster. But the talking filibuster is the actual filibuster. The whole thing about turning in a piece of paper to say that you would do a talking filibuster and being able to stop debate on something or prevent a vote on something is a made up thing. This is a, this is a, this is a Senators being lazy and pulling the wool over the American people's eyes thing. So as Mike Lee has, has, has done made the point over and over and over again, great senator from, from Utah, and said we don't have to change the rules, we just have to enforce the rules. The president of the Senate, well, the Majority leader, the President Senate's actually J.D. “AT THE CORE” | Walker Wildmon & Rick Green
Government and Healthcare | Rogue Judges | The SAVE America Act and the Senate Vote Postulation
https://ivoterguide.com/
https://x.com/RickGreenTX
https://tours.afa.net/
https://afr.net/podcasts/at-the-core/
https://www.patriotacademy.com/donate
https://www.patriotacademy.tv/series/NlzmnklZ9LO7-the-tavern?channel=shows
https://www.patriotacademy.com/institute/
https://www.patriotacademy.com/build/
https://www.patriotu.com/pages/home/d/patriot-academy
https://www.patriotacademy.com/the-patriot-experience/
https://wallbuilders.com/
https://preborn.com/
https://eightdaysofhope.com/
https://afn.net/
https://afaaction.net/
Vance, J.D. Vance should actually walk over to the Capitol right now and take over as, as the, as the President of the Senate. If he would do that and enforce a talking filibuster, then he would probably, probably lock in the nomination to be president. And 2028, if he doesn't do that, I guess not enough people know, if enough people knew that he could do that and the pressure was on and he chose not to do it. Rubio's probably the president next or the nominee for president. I don't know who's going to win in 2028. But anyway, so right now they are, they're doing a shell game. What they're going to do is they're going to debate the SAVE act and these, these Republicans that, that are selling us out and selling out the Constitution of the American people will act like they're for it. They'll get up and rant and rave about how you ought to have voter ID, you oughta 80, you know, 2% of the American people agree on all the stuff that's in the SAVE act, so of course it should pass. But you're gonna have Mitch in the wheelchair. Octogenarian has no idea where he is or what he's doing. McConnell and Lisa sell out the entire American people. Frozen Murkowski and probably Thom Tillis. That's probably the three that will not vote, ultimately vote for the bill because they won't. They'll be able to say they're going to vote for it or that they would be for it, but they're not willing to vote for, for our support doing the actual real life filibuster instead of the paper filibuster. So again, I got to make sure I'm clear on this because I'm probably not being clear. The paper filibuster the zombie filibuster is not a real filibuster. It's where, if, if, if a handful of these senators say that they're going to filibuster, then, then the majority leader takes that as a filibuster and doesn't go to a vote and sticks with this, you know, cloture. 60 votes and 41 get to Will win. And everyone in the entire world knows that you don't have 60 votes for the Save Act. The Democrats, the only Democrat that might possibly vote for the Save act, and I think he's already said he's not going to his veteran. So there's no question you have 47 Democrats that are not going to vote for the SAVE act. Well, that's okay. 53 Republicans. We should win. Now, apparently McConnell has made some excuse why he's not going to vote. Okay, that's okay. 40, 47 Democrats and Mitch McConnell. But I repeat myself. 48, 52 means we still win. The American people win voter ID. We get our elections back. We get to know that whoever wins the seats for Congress and president actually won the seats for Congress and President. It only applies to federal election, not to state election. It's 100% constitutional. It's following what the Constitution says Congress should do in these situations. Okay, well, Thom Tillis wants to be, you know, whatever he thinks he is, and so he decides he's not. Okay, fine. He's not gonna vote for it. All right, now we got 4,951. We still win, okay? Even if they get Murkowski. Okay, 50, 50 plus J.D. Vance. We win. But not if they don't do the talking. Filibuster. And require a vote. Don't forget when they say today or tomorrow or whenever they're going to take this vote that they're voting on the Save Act. They aren't. They aren't voting on the Save Act. They're voting on their ridiculous rules to say that it's going to take 60 votes in order to pass the SAVE Act. And then, and then you never get an actual vote on the SAVE Act. So the only solution here is an actual filibuster. Now, you want to know why some of these? Well, it's the uniparty in Washington. It's the sellouts. That's why, these, these three or four, Senate Republicans are refusing to do what needs to be done here to get it passed. But the other reason they're claiming is that it's going to take too much time. It'll Just take too long. if we do an actual filibuster, if we do this, like, Mr. Smith goes to Washington and 8 or 10 or even all 40 of those who are, 48 of us or 49 of them that are against us, if they all do a talking filibuster, it could take a month, it could take two months. Okay, all right, fine. I don't care. It took two months to pass the Civil Rights act because of filibusters. Actual filibusters.
Rick: Let Democrats make their stand on SAVE act
By racist Democrats standing up and. And saying no. okay, fine. Make them show that they're racist. Make them show by getting up and saying why they're against the SAVE act for hours and hours and hours. Make them make their stand and then run right over them. Let them stand up and make their stand. Let them do it for two months and then cast the vote. And 50 plus JD Vance means we win and we actually get elections we can count on in this country. And insane that it would only be 50 plus 1, but so be it. But no, no, we're gonna hand it to the Democrats. John Thune is gonna sell out to the Uni Party machine in Washington, D.C. he's gonna sell you out and sell me out. He has a chance to be a hero. He has a chance to save. Literally. That's why it's properly named the Save America Act. But I don't think he's going to do it. It's going to be a shell game. So President Trump, Vice President Vance, the only option is for JD Vance to walk over to the Capitol right now and take the gavel. Or the little. What do they call that little rock thing that they use? They don't use a full gavel in the Senate, but take it and say, I'm President of the Senate and I'm, I'm calling the shots here. Here's how we're going to do this particular debate. Do what John Thune will not do and let. Let them squeal, let them whine, let them say all those old US Senators that stood for all these things, they're going to roll over in their grave if we do this. Let them twirl, baby. Let them roll over in their grave. I mean, it is. It is time to do what's right. Mike Lee has. Has led this charge and done such a great job of articulating why the SAVE act should be passed and why the talking filibuster is the only way to go. That's the only real filibuster. the fact that they, you know, that, that anyone would, even any Republican would make an argument against doing that is, Is just disgusting. I will say I love, I love Mike Lee's humor, too. I just saw a few minutes ago he posted on X. I'm never going to give. Save up. And we aren't going to let them. Rick roll us. This fight is just starting. And then he has a picture of Rick Ashley singing, you know, never going to give you up. too funny. All right, let's go, Mike. Mike Lee. Keep it up, man. Keep the fight up. This is so important for us to do. If you're as frustrated as I am, with politicians that sell us out, you need to be paying attention to this and you need to be demanding that the talking filibuster happen. Be demanding that, that, that the Senate do its job and, and actually have a real filibuster actual debate. Wouldn't it be nice? Wouldn't it be. I mean, I'm a, I'm a fan of civil discourse. I love seeing really good discussion, like really good intellectual warfare from, from the left and the right. I want to see. I want to see these leftists, these liberals in the Senate make their case. I want to see that. Let them pontificate, Let them, Let them make their arguments. Let them spew their lies. Let them, you know, play on emotions. They don't have any facts. They're gonna, they're gonna say, they're gonna lie, and Chuck Schumer's gonna get up there and say things like, millions of people are gonna be disenfranchised because why? Because they don't have an id. Are you kidding me? Millions of people don't have an ID to go vote and can't get. Get one. Don't have the ability to get. It's an absolute farce. It's a total lie. How many people do you know in your life that don't have a photo id? If you know someone in your life that doesn't have a photo ID, please call in 888-589-8840 and tell me who this person is. And let's figure out how to get them a voter ID or a picture id. Let's talk about the ways to get picture ID these days, whether it's a driver's license or it's just a. Quite literally an identification. I remember, I think it was my oldest son, Trey, one of them getting a. What did they call it? It wasn't a driver's license, but you still went to the same office and it's literally just an identification card so you can go to class, so you can get on a campus, so you can get. How many different places do we require a picture ID to take place? And so I just, I can't think of a single scenario where it would be impossible for you to get a picture id. And so if you've got one, please call in, make your case. I want to hear, I want to hear of these real life examples of real life Americans that are legal citizens because that's the only people that should be voting, that are of voting age, that are mentally capable of voting and can't get a picture ID to be able to show up and vote. If you've got one of those scenarios, Please call in 888-589-8840. I'd love to hear from you and hear what that, what that scenario might be. I'm probably not going to get a chance to watch much of this debate. I got a packed day today and tomorrow. so I'm just going to have to watch clips on X later tonight and see what they actually get up and say and see what they what the Senate ends up doing. but there's, it looks like, Lisa Murkowski that I was talking about earlier from Alaska and Thom Tillis from North Carolina. What a disappointment this Tillis guy turned out to be. You know, I thought he was going to be pretty good, but he's turned out to be just a media hound and loves to be the no vote anyway. He and Murkowski are reportedly planning to vote no on proceeding with the SAVE Act. So, so think about what states these people come from. So, so, Lisa Murkowski, Alaska. When's the last time a Democrat won in Alaska? So this is a Republican, it's a red state. And Lisa Murkowski, supposedly representing her people back home, is going to vote no on requiring a voter ID and only legal citizens voting in an election. How do you think the people of Alaska feel about that?
Do you think North Carolinians are for or against requiring a picture ID
How do you, how do you think the Republican voter base that votes for her feels about that? Thom Tillis, North Carolina. Do you think North Carolinians are for or against requiring a picture ID when you show up to vote? If nationwide it's like 80, 85%, I think it is, of Republicans and 75% of Democrats, what do you think it is in North Carolina? I'd love to know that. I'd love to see those numbers. Insane that this guy would stab his own voters in the back like this and leave Us to stolen elections. because he, for whatever reason, whoever he sold out to, I don't know, Pennsylvania. I wonder what they're saying about this. Charles is up in Pennsylvania. Charles, what do you think, man?
>> Charles: So what do we do with the Pennsylvania Amish? And they have been awakened by what they've done to the Amish farms.
>> Rick Green: Yeah.
>> Charles: And the individual. So there's a huge disenfranchised voter block because.
>> Rick Green: Why.
>> Charles: They do not take photos.
>> Rick Green: Okay. But they, but if they want to vote, they, they would take a photo so that, a, ah. Photo. So they haven't. They haven't voted. Yes. So most of their, most of their life they haven't voted. I mean, I have friends that are Amish that. That and some that are former Amish that, that change that, you know, decided that they, they want to vote. And so they got a, they got a voter id. They got a picture ID so that they could vote.
>> Charles: So you don't require. There's not a photo ID required currently in Pennsylvania. And they are. A lot of the Amish around here do vote quite regularly.
>> Rick Green: Well, they've been, they've been enacted in the last few years to do so by some of my friends actually up there. So. But why. Why would they not. Why would they. Is there. No. In Pennsylvania you're not required right now. So if we pass this and you're required to have a voter ID to vote in federal elections, they could still vote in the local state elections because of the things they're dealing with, with the farming and the, and the agriculture and the. All of that. Right. So it wouldn't prevent them from voting. That not. Right. I know that to be the case. But if they want to vote in the presidential election, then they do have to get a voter id. And if they, if they choose not to get a voter id, then don't vote. I mean, that's, that's simple. They didn't vote for years and years and decades in most of their history. So I know they're conservatives. I know they, they would vote with us. But you know what? You're not willing to get a picture id. You don't get to vote. I mean, that's. That's okay. That's okay. They're. They're. It's not that they're not able to get a picture id. They are choosing to not get a picture id. That's different. I'm looking for the people that cannot get one that would truly be disenfranchised because it's not possible for them to get a photo ID And. Photo ID I don't know of anybody. All right? I'm out of time. Hey, thanks for listening. Today you've been listening to at the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Greene.
>> : The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family association or American Family Radio.
