Transcript

Religious freedom is about people of faith being able to live out convictions

>> 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 quit. Sacred honor is the courage to speak truth, to live out your free speech. We also rejoice in our sufferings because.

>> Speaker B: We know that suffering produces perseverance, perseverance, character and character.

>> Rick Green: This is At the Core on American Family Radio.

Rick Green: Courts should not tell the president how to do his job

Welcome to at the Core with Walker Wildmon, Rick Green, America's Constitution. Coach, thanks for joining me on this Thursday. A lot of headlines to get to, and, and some, of course, courtroom drama. I just. I gotta tell you, folks, I'm gonna try not to sound as annoyed today as I am, but I am. I am just up to here. If you. If you can see me. If you can't see me, I'm up to. I'm way past up to here with the courts telling the president how to do his job. I just, you know, we've talked about the, you know, little district judge guys and gals around the country. They're at the lowest level of the federal judiciary, and they think they've been elevated somehow to make national and international policy decisions. And it's absurd. It's just absurd. And so we've got to get back to a constitutional republic where the proper jurisdictional lines of not only the feds versus the states and states versus the local and that sort of thing, not only where that's understood, but where we also understand the difference between the branches at the federal level or at the state level or at the local level. there's supposed to be clearly defined boundaries so that you know what your job is, you know, you get elected to president, you know what your job is. You get elected to Congress or you get appointed to the court, you know what your job is, and you don't go beyond that job. You don't go beyond your responsibility. One of the first things I teach in Constitution classes around the country, and that we've had over a million people go through, is the proper jurisdictional lines. In fact, one of the best lessons we've ever done. I'm sitting there with David Barton in the museum, the Wall Builders Museum. And David and I are sitting there, we're chatting about this whole jurisdiction thing, and David says to me, he says, you know, Rick, what happens if we're neighbors? And, I come over to your place and I just, I decide that your white pickup truck is just too boring. You know, it's just too dull. I mean, you need a little pizzazz in your life. You Know, you need to spice it up a little bit. And so I just go to the hardware store, buy me a bunch of spray cans of some bright orange or bright green. I don't remember what his comparison was. And I show up at your house, and middle, of the night, I just paint your truck for you, you know, because I think it needs to be a brighter color. And you wake up the next morning, walk out to your truck, and there it is, you know, totally different color, lousy spray paint job. And, would you thank me for that? Would you come knocking on my door, bringing me breakfast or whatever it might be, and say, hey, David, thanks for, you know, for the beautiful paint job and deciding for me what the color of my truck would be? Of course you wouldn't. You'd be like, hey, that's not your jurisdiction. That's not your truck. you have no say in what the color of my truck's gonna be. Well, jurisdictional lines for us as neighbors are no different than jurisdictional lines for authority, in decision making, for government, for our, personal lives, for our church. I think one of the coolest things David Barton lays, out in our biblical citizenship class. He talks about the spheres and how there's a little bit of crossover, but for the most part, you make individual decisions about your health, about your family, about the upbringing of your children. And the government is not supposed to tell you what to do there. That's why in the Constitution of the United States, there is nothing about healthcare. There should be no CDC. There should be no FDA. There should be certainly no Department of Education or any of these other entities that have gotten into the parenting business and trying to tell parents how to raise their children. And he lays out in that video these spheres so that you answer the question, who decides? to every question of, okay, whether it's, who decides whether or not your child's going to have an experimental vaccine? Who decides where your kid goes to school, what kind of education they're going to get? Who decides which job you want to take? Should that be you or the government? Who decides how much you're willing to work for? Right. Think about this one for a second. Who should make the decision about what your paycheck ought to be, or if you're the employer, what your paycheck to your employee ought to be? Well, right now, unfortunately, instead of that just being a meeting of the minds between you and the employer or you and your employee, now it's, government's all over that, man. Government's all up in your grill, telling you what the minimum is you can make. Sometimes the maximum you can make taking big chunk of it, micromanaging, the relationship so that when you get crossways with your employer or your employee, now you got to go to the department of labor or go to your state workforce commission, and then it gets drawn out. It cost everybody money.  And now you got to employ all these bureaucrats to be making decisions about whether or not something was a fireable, offense or whatever. you see where I'm going with all this? I know I'm going down the rabbit hole here, but it's like, it doesn't make sense for someone else to make decisions about your life, whether it's the color of your truck or how much you're willing to work for or any of these other things. Those are jurisdictional lines. Okay? Same thing. When it comes to government, we have to also say, my buddy Ken Ivory says it this way. If government. Which government? So if it is a government decision, and I would say absolutely, it is a government decision whether or not to deport someone that is a jurisdictional, that is within the jurisdictional lines of government making that decision. In other words, you and I should not get to individually go door to door and deport people. That's a proper government role. Now, we are the government, and we should be involved in the decision making of. What are the terms? Like, what types of things should you deport for? Or what types of things should we allow people to immigrate for? what would asylum actually cover? I mean, those are all policy questions that we should get to weigh in on, get to talk to our congressman about it or our state legislator. But at the end of the day, once that policy's in place, it is not our. We do not bear the sword. Government bears the sword. And the Bible even says that, right? Government doesn't bear the sword in vain. It has it for a reason. And so if government is the one to decide, while we're on it, let's just stick with the deportations. If government is to decide whether or not to get someone out of our country because they're a danger, then which government? So should it be the local county sheriff? Well, I would actually argue that the sheriff should have some say in that. Maybe not final say, but certainly some say, should it be your state Department of Public Safety or, in my case in Texas, the Texas Rangers? Well, I think they should have a voice in that. I think they should be involved. But at the end of the day, the Constitution of the United States gives immigration policy to Congress. So Congress sets the policy as to what is going to be allowed to be done or not done. But then who executes the law? Is it the district judge? Is it the Supreme Court of the United States? No. Who faithfully executes the law? Got my handy dandy pocket principles here.

What does the law give the President the ability to do with regard to illegal aliens

Let me just, flip over here to Article two. and let's see. Yeah. Oh, it is. It's the President of the United States that is supposed to faithfully execute the laws. Okay? So if the President has the authority, the jurisdiction, gets to paint the truck the color they want. In other words, that's within. In their sphere, in their jurisdiction. If it's the President that's supposed to faithfully execute the laws, how far does the law go? What does the law give the President the ability to do with regard to dangerous illegal aliens inside America's borders? And, this is what you've been hearing a lot about over the last few weeks, because someone on President Trump's staff brilliantly went back and found this 1798 alien. Alien enemies act that's still on the books, hasn't been removed by Congress, still gives the President not just the. Not just the authority or the sort I'm looking for, not just the right to do this, not just the opportunity to do this. It gives the President the responsibility to do this, the duty to do this. In other words, a president that is not doing this is violating the Constitution because they're not faithfully executing the law that Congress passed and that at the time President John Adams signed, and that is still on the books today. And it just makes sense, right? Let's just look at it from a common sense point, of view. If bad people are in our country and they came across the border illegally, and when I say bad people, I'm talking rapists, murderers, gang members. I'm talking the worst of the worst. We're not even getting to just those who broke the law, coming in illegally because they wanted a job or seeking asylum or whatever. You know, that's a whole other subject. We'll get to those. But right now, we're talking about rapists, murderers, gang members, really bad dudes. We're talking about people you do not want in your neighborhood and you do not want your state, and we do not want in our country. So if those people are to be removed, and the President of the United States is not only not removing them, but inviting them in, facilitating their entry into the country, working with them to not just get them across the border, but allow them to go into the deepest parts of our country. That's treason. Joe Biden should be put on trial for treason for doing that. Mayorkas should be put on trial for treason for doing that. So that's one side of the coin. That's what we had a year ago. Now we have a President who not only is saying, I'm not going to be derelict in duty, I'm not going to refuse to execute the laws. I'm looking at Article 2 in the Constitution and here's what I'm supposed to do as President. I'm gonna faithfully execute the laws. And here's the law and here's a responsibility of the President to get rid of bad people, get them out of our country. And I'm gonna go do that. And so now he goes and does that clearly within his jurisdiction. It's in black and white. It's right there in the statute. He is absolutely authorized to do this by Congress and the Constitution. And so now he goes out there and he starts doing this and he's saving American lives. He's, he's, he's making our communities safer. He's doing what the previous President should have done. He's cleaning up the previous President's mess. And we have judges at the district court level that are going to suddenly jump out of Article 3 into Article 2 and say, oh hey, guess what? I'm, I'm the executor now. I'm the one that's going to execute the laws. I'm the one that's going to decide who gets to leave the country, who gets to be removed from the country, who gets to do the removing from the country. And even though, even though the Alien Enemies act specifically positively accepts this statute from judicial review, I'm going to do my judicial review anyway. And I'm not only going to just judicial review, I'm going to judicial activate. In other words, I'm going to be a judicial activist and I'm going to make the decision for who get, who is going to be removed from our country or not. That's what's happening right now, folks. Now that's just one example. That's the most obvious, blatant, ugly example. And we're all, you know, watching that one unfold. But that's just one of many. I mean, there are dozens of district court decisions overriding the President's decision making power when they are not the ones supposed to be deciding what the color of the truck is. They are crossing the neighbor line, going to the neighbor's house or neighbor's parking, driveway and changing what the neighbor has decided. They want their house or their car to look like. They are absolutely violating their jurisdiction. And I realize you may be listening to this and going, yeah, but Rick, isn't the court there to protect us and to keep us from unconstitutional things happening and keep us from having a rogue government? And aren't they supposed to save the day? No, they're not. It is extremely rare that the court should step in and say something's unconstitutional. And they should only do it when it's on its face unconstitutional, not when it's a policy debate and question of what should be done. Several of the founders had really good quotes on this where they talked about how the court is ill suited, it is not equipped. I forget all the different language they used to make policy decisions. They just aren't, you know, judges aren't policymakers. They're literally supposed to say, you're the plaintiff, you're the defendant. Here's the law that I'm reviewing and I'm going to apply the law to this plaintiff and defendant that's in front of me. That's all they're supposed to do. The decision about the law itself and what it's going to be, that's up to Congress and the President. And so we have a man. I do not like using this phrase. I don't know if you. I shouldn't even say constitutional crisis because it's not a constitutional crisis from the standpoint of it's not clear what the Constitution says. Like, I would argue that when it comes to what do you do with, multiple sets of electors, that's a constitutional crisis because the Constitution is not clear on what we should have done in 2020, dealing with those electors. This is not a constitutional crisis. It is clear that the President has the power to do this. So what do we do? Well, you know, we're getting ready for a break here and I'd love to hear from you. Maybe you've got some ideas for what President Trump should do in this situation. You've got a split Supreme Court. You've got, the only, you know, the really great Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito agree with me. They're saying exactly what I'm saying right now. But then you got these sellouts and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Barrett and Roberts that have joined the three leftists to try to tell the President what to do. So what does the President do in this situation? I would suggest channeling Andrew Jackson and saying, nice opinion you got there. Now let me see you enforce it. I would suggest this is a moment, an inflection point where the president should stand up to the court and say, that is not your job. That is not your authority. I am the one that's responsible for this, and I'm gonna do my job. That's what I think you should do. We'll see what happens. Hey, stay with us.

AFA Stream is your source for inspirational informational, educational and entertainment video content

888-589-8840 is the phone number 888-589-8840? Quick break. You're listening to At the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green.

AFA Stream is your source for inspirational informational, educational and entertainment video content from American Family Association. You'll find documentaries like Culture Warrior, Don Wildmon and the Battle for Decency. Television in those days would be considered.

>> Speaker B: Extremely mild as to what's available today.

>> Rick Green: You can access educational curriculum like Body of Evidence.

>> Speaker B: And there the Lord says, the hearing ear and the seeing eye. The Lord hath made even both of them.

>> Rick Green: You'll find titles like Life is a Civil right from the AFA Cultural Institute. If you're Martin Luther King Jr. S niece and you were tricked, my goodness, how many more were tricked? much of the content is free to everyone. Great Commission partners can see even more and content is being added, so your options are increasing. Visit stream.aca.net and see what you like. AFA stream streaming video from American Family Association. This is at the Corps on American Family Radio with your host, Rick Green.

Rick Green: Courts are ruling against President Trump on transgender military policy

Welcome back to at the Core 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. We're talking about these court, these judges, completely outside the bounds of their authority. And just from a common sense perspective. Okay, I've already given you the one example of, the president has the constitutional and statutory authority to remove dangerous illegal aliens from our country, and that's what he's been doing. And now you have these district judges saying you can't. And even a Supreme Court, now that is pausing, this protection of our country. So that's one example. Completely absurd that the court thinks it should make that policy decision, should entirely be the president. But then you got this. Let me give you one more before we go to the phones, because this one, too, just from a common sense perspective, I don't even have to go to the history of the constitutional phrases or any of that Kind of stuff. Just listen to this headline. Trump administration asks the Supreme Court to allow prohibition on troops with gender dysphoria. Okay, let that sink in for a second. Let's break that down. The President of the United States, the Commander in chief, the person that is constitutionally and statutorily given the responsibility to oversee our military, to appoint the people, and to make the final decisions on how to protect this nation, on how to have a ready military, the commander in chief. Now, listen, I get it. Congress absolutely has shared authority here to make all kinds of policies. Article 1, Section 8 is full of clauses of how the Congress can call up m. the, state, militias and all this stuff. Right. There's a lot of, congressional power here. Absolutely. But then there is delegated power and an obvious constitutional power for the president to be the one over the executive branch and over the military, to maintain the readiness of our military. And that person, the person that's responsible for that is having to go on bended knee and beg of his overlords, the US Supreme Court, to allow him to implement a policy that says if you have a mental illness, you shouldn't be serving in the United States military. Can we just think about this for a second? Why should the President of the United States. I know, when the pitch goes up in my voice, you know, I'm, about to lose it. Why should the President of the United States have to go beg a bunch of people who've never served in the military, who have no clue how to run the military, who have no responsibility on the policy of the military or what makes a good fighting unit? Why should the President of the United States, after consulting with his military generals and leaders and the Secretary of Defense and all these others, have to go on bended knee and beg of these nine unelected, unaccountable lawyers in Washington, D.C. to allow him to implement a policy that makes perfect common sense to anyone with a brain that has not been brainwashed by this absolute crazy transgender agenda to have to go beg of these nine justices to simply say, hey, you know what? If you're a dude and you think you're a girl, you're probably not fit for being in the barracks of our military or being in a. In a combat situation with bullets flying over your head. You probably don't have the mental toughness to be able to handle that. If you're a lady that thinks you've got extra body parts that you don't have, you're probably not mentally fit to be flying the helicopter or in any other form or fashion in a combat zone. I mean, I know you that are listening to me right now. I know I, I think I've got enough common sense to know that's probably good military policy to not have those folks in the military. In fact, just so happens that was the military policy for the entire history of our country up until 15 seconds ago. And, and, and Donald Trump, when he first came in office, had enough common sense to say, that's crazy. We're not going to do that. And of course, Joe Biden reversed that policy. Now, who should make this decision? The President. With the Sec. Def. With the, with the Chiefs, Joint Chiefs of Staff. The President of the United States, at the end of the day, should be making that decision after the advice that they receive. Not. I mean, can you. I'm sorry, Amy Coney Barrett is not qualified to make this decision. Ketanji Brown Jackson is not qualified to make this decision. And yes, my favorite judge, probably the best judge in the history of the United States, Clarence Thomas, is not qualified to make this decision. None of them are. They're not there. They're not out there in the, you know, working with the troops and training the troops and working on the policy. It is insanity to think that the President of the United States has got to go beg of the United States Supreme Court to be able to implement a policy that says, if you've got a mental illness, you cannot serve in the United States military. And for those of you that might be saying, oh, it's not a mental illness, it is, it has been for all of human history. It's been a mental illness until 15 seconds ago when we lost all common sense in this country and literally went into a Romans 1 situation where we lost our, lost our minds. But we're coming back. We're coming back, we're getting our common sense back. People are thinking again, they're actually adding one plus one and saying that's two, and two plus two actually equals four. So we're getting our common sense back. But these crazies, these attorneys that are arguing right now that the President should not be able to do this. Listen to this. I'm just going to read this one line to you. So, this attorney that's arguing on behalf of these, folks with a mental illness, men that think they're women and women that think they're men, actually, I'm sorry, I'm. This. What the judge said, the, the, the US District judge, again, these low level, lowest level of the federal judiciary judges who are over a very small area making policy for the entire country. This U.S. district Judge Benjamin Settle, whoever that is, said all transgender service members are likely to suffer the irreparable harm of losing the military service career they have chosen. While otherwise qualified, a session plaintiffs will lose the opportunity to serve. Can somebody please show me the constitutional phrase? Maybe somebody could call in with this. Could you point out which article, which clause is the transgender right to serve in the military clause? I seem to. I've got my. I've got my pocket principles here. I'm kind of scanning through. I mean, there's a lot of stuff in here about the military. I don't remember seeing that. I don't remember seeing if you have a mental illness or you can even call it nice things like gender dysphoria, which is a mental illness. you have a constitutional right to serve in the military. That's nuts. That's absolute nuts. That's insanity. And we're arguing that. We got a United States federal district judge making that argument and now arguing before the Supreme Court that they have a constitutional right to serve in the military. I don't have a constitutional right to serve in the military. I, hey, when 911 happened and I went and put in my application, I was already an old dude at 30. What was I at that point? 30 years old. And they said, you know, you're kind of old, but we'll give it a shot. And did my hearing test, and like a dummy when I was younger and go deer hunting, I'd, you know, not wear ear protection. So, you know, you shoot a 30 out six enough times close to your ear, you're going to have hearing problems. Well, I do. So they said, sorry, I don't have a constitutional right to say, hey, you have to let me serve, even though I've got that hearing problem.

There are dozens of district judges trying to stop President Obama from doing his job

And in this particular combat situation, it's gonna prevent me from being able to hear what I need to be hearing, to fight. Well, I don't have a constitutional right to that. You don't have a constitutional right to serve in the military. This is just...it's beyond the pale, folks. So that's just two examples. I forget. There's dozens of district judges trying to stop the President of the United States from doing his job. And I just think we're at this point where, first of all, you and me, we need to know what the Constitution says. We need to know what the power of the presidency is, what the power of the court is, what the power of the legislature is. And what the power of the states are, what the power of the individual is, what the power of the local government. You see what I'm saying? There's all these different areas of jurisdiction, and we need to know where those lines are. So if you haven't taken biblical citizenship in modern America, you need to get into that course. You need to study how the Constitution works in America. First of all, as a Christian, you, you ought to know what the Bible says about how to treat your neighbor, how to form a society, how to govern biblically. And to know that, you gotta study it. And so come do biblical citizenship, and you'll know what the Bible says about how government should work and what your role is as a citizen. Biblically, but then also constitutionally, how do you do this in the United States, Constitutional republic, in our particular form of government, how do you live out your biblical duty to be a good disciple of Christ in every area of your life? You have to know both in order to do that effectively, you have to know the biblical view, and you have to know the constitutional process for how to do this. So if you want to know what the proper role of each of these levels of government are and the individual and all that, you got to take biblical citizenship in modern America. Patriotacademy.com to do that. Okay, you know what? I need to go to the phones because otherwise the temperature in the studio here is going to get so high that the sprinklers are going to go off or something. So I got to, I got to find a topic here with the, callers to try to calm down. I just. Folks, I'm a justice lover. I'm telling you, I am a lover of justice. I think that's biblical. We're supposed to do that. We're supposed to do justice. I love the Constitution. I love the rule of law. I think you have liberty as the song of America the Beautiful says, liberty in law. As my mentor, Zig Ziglar said, God's best blessings are found within his boundaries. When you don't have those boundaries, you lose the blessings because you move into chaos, which leads you to tyranny. So I do not like seeing our system of government turned into a pretzel and the empowerment of judges who are tyrants in their black robes, making law without the authority to do so. I get, yes, I get hot under the collar about these things because I'm passionate about upholding the rule of law and restoring the Constitution.

John Hancock: Four quick housekeeping points on national debt

Okay, let's go to the phones. We're lit up all over the Place here we're going to start. I think Ron was first in Tennessee, so heading over to the Volunteer State first. Ron, you're up. Go for it, man.

>> Speaker B: Good afternoon, sir. Just four quick housekeeping points I'd like to make and I'll let you comment. The first thing is there's I.

>> Rick Green: Feel like I need to take notes. If you got four of them, man, I got to take notes. Go ahead, man. I'm kidding. Good.

>> Speaker B: Just quick points. I mean number one, all the back channel traffic direction from the third Obama presidency. Okay? We can sniff that through the NSA records. Every IP point, every access point, every email and phone call that's trans, that's transconducted through the NSA. I really hope that the Musk brothers were able as network engineers to copy that and forward it to the proper authority.

>> Rick Green: Your point being though, Ron? Let me, let me, let me just make sure I understand your point. Your point being? Everybody knows Joe Biden wasn't making decisions he didn't have the mental faculties to do so. That the Obamas were still pulling strings behind the scenes.

>> Speaker B: Yeah, that's Rice and her Tehran buddies and Obama obviously.

>> Rick Green: I mean from my original. Point one. Well taken. Point two.

>> Speaker B: Point two is, a military tribunal with three panel judge can decide, ah, an issue of insurrection or sedition or treason in about an hour and a half. You can't, you can't tie it. It's a three panel judge. Why is Hillary Clinton and her gang and her network of thieves still, still out of Leavenworth prison? I don't understand this.

>> Rick Green: You know what, Ron? I just had a conversation last night with some good friends over dinner about the fact that you know all this, what do you call it? Saber rattling, is not enough. We need to see some actual trials and some actual convictions and some people going to jail and potentially even for treason put to death. If we don't see those kind of things happen where you actually have justice, then we're going to end up right back in the mess that we were in. Go ahead. Point two is good. point the.

>> Speaker B: Point three. Okay. Point three is we don't have time to dither between technocrats and the banksters to say, oh, well, the Federal Reserve, you know, we saw our president back down the next day after threatening Jerome Powell, and this is deeply disturbing, that Jerome Powell and his bankster buddies who we don't even know because the Federal Reserve isn't even federal at all. It's European banksters that are holding our dollar hostage, for the printing of the money. They get 6% right off the top, and then we have to pay that, and then we have to pay the interest. We're getting screwed here. Why is that, still enabled? And I understand it takes time, but there's not time do we have. The clock is ticking on the national debt.

>> Rick Green: Okay, yeah, yeah, totally agree. Okay. Point. So point three is get rid of the Fed. I think if I understood you right.

>> Speaker B: Well, there's not time.

>> Rick Green: We.

>> Speaker B: Our dollar is about to collapse. And I see the Trump.

>> Rick Green: Give me point four, because I got a ton of other callers. I can't give you the whole show. I appreciate you, man. I like it, though. Four points. Go ahead. Point number four.

>> Speaker B: Point number four is, every man, woman, and child should be on their knees praying that this country doesn't collapse.

>> Rick Green: Yes. Amen to that. All right, Ron, good stuff, man. Thanks for calling in. And, yeah, just to put an exclamation point on Ron's last point, you know, look, we can do all the political stuff we want. My pastor says it every Sunday, and he's right. Every time. We don't have a political problem. We have a spiritual problem. The political symptoms and the sickness that we've got in this country is downstream from the spiritual problem. And so the prayer part is absolutely essential. National day of prayer coming up. I hope everybody's gonna participate in a National Day of Prayer. Close to them. incredibly important, and it takes both. John Hancock, I urge you by all that's dear, by all that's sacred, by all that's honorable, not only to pray, but to act. So we gotta do both. But I think if you leave out one or the other, it doesn't work. It's certainly not gonna last for sure. So, yeah, good points.

Ron Lee says judges should let Trump do what he does

All right, Ron, good stuff. Let's go to Mississippi. Lee is up. Lee in Mississippi. Go for it. Yeah. how you doing? I just want to tell you that I think you're spot on with everything you said. And those judges need to mind their.

>> Speaker C: Own business, and Trump just needs to.

>> Rick Green: Go and do what he does, because.

>> Speaker C: Those judges, they don't have a dog in this fight. They need to let that man go.

>> Rick Green: To work and do the cleanup. He needs to do. I like that. Go to work, do the cleanup, get to get the work done. And look, we're not saying that a president should just ignore every court decision or every court opinion it should weigh. It should have a place in this. And there's absolutely Clear constitutional violations, that if the president does that and the court says you're violating the Constitution, here's what it clearly says, or that's you've made up a law on your own without Congress, that executive order is unconstitutional. I mean, obviously we want a president or, a court to do pushback on that kind of thing and the president to have to, you know, respond to that. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the courts doing things they should not be doing. So who tells them no? You know, I mean, that's, that's essentially where we're at. They have become this, this unaccountable, fiefdom where they get to, they get to do whatever they want and nobody gets to push back on them. you know, listen, if you've taken our Constitution classes, you know that I call it not. We don't live in our Constitution right now. We live under a "courtstatution". And that's got to stop. It's got to stop. We've got to put the judges back in their proper place. And therefore there should be pushback against them. And I think the president has to be careful. He has to be wise. He has to be discerning about this. Pick the right fights. Ah, I think clearly, if you're deporting rapist murderers and gang members and the court tells you you can't, that's the right fight. That's the one where you say, thanks, but no thanks, the plane has already left the airspace of America. And just like he did with that first planeload, but I start sending more. Anyway, we gotta take a quick break.

Preborn offers God's love and life to protect hurting women and preborn babies

I'm Rick Green, America's Constitution coach. You're listening to at the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green. Have you ever wondered why our society is so ravenous to abort babies? Well, according to a former Satanist, the demonic forces have a bloodlust for the innocents. They sickly believe that the blood sacrifice empowers evil. Make no mistake, we are fighting a spiritual battle as we protect the most innocent among us. Babies in their mother's womb. Preborn stands on the front lines of this battle. Their network of clinics are positioned in the highest abortion areas, often next to abortion mills, where unspeakable evil takes place every day. Preborn offers God's love and life to protect hurting women and precious preborn babies. Please make your most generous gift to empower good and rescue precious souls. Every time a baby is Saved, which happens 200 times a day, good conquers evil. For just $28, you can sponsor an ultrasound that doubles a baby's chance at life. Donate securely today. Dial pound250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound250. Or go to preborn.com preborn.com this is at the Core on American Family Radio with your host, Rick Green.

Robert Romano: Congress should expand scope of expedited deportations

Back here on At the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green, America's Constitution coach. Thanks for staying with me today talking, about these out of control judges and what the President should do in response to this. And I was just coming across, article. Let's see. This is, Robert Romano, executive director of Americans for Limited Government. good folks over there. I love being on their email list. They send out a lot of great stuff. but I think he's absolutely right in this article that he wrote. Here's the headline. Congress should expand scope of expedited removals to include mass deportation. That the majority supports. What he's arguing is, so we've got the presidential authority under this Alien enemies Act from 1798. we've also got presidential authority, you know, to remove aliens under. There was a 1996 law about this. I mean, everybody forgets that. You know, listen, Obama removed a couple of million as well, and the Clintons and others. So Democrats and Republicans alike have removed a lot of illegal aliens. Anyway, his argument is under these different statutory laws and Justice Alito talks about this in some of these decisions that, that what would be a quick fix. Because right now, if he's not, if. Let me back up. If President Trump is not using the Alien Enemies act, where he doesn't have to take them through court, if he, if he can't make the argument under that, then he's got to go under this 1996 law. let's see, what was it called? Make sure I get this right. the, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. If he does that, then they've got to have these trials. Okay? And so that's what President Trump was, was arguing over the last few days is saying, if I have to do a trial for every single one of these illegal aliens, it's going to take 133 years to remove 20 million illegal aliens that need to be deported. So it's obviously absurd. And so what Congress should do what this guy's arguing. I think it's great. I'm gonna study this a little bit more and maybe, start talking about this around the country. But, what he's arguing is that Congress should amend, and make it clear that the president doesn't have to go through trials on this, that these are expedited removals, that these people do not have Fifth Amendment constitutional rights, and that he has the right because they get to establish the uniform rule of naturalization under Article 1, Section 8. That's what I was talking about at the top of the program. then they can empower the president to remove them without a trial. If you came into our country illegally, why should you get a trial on whether or not we remove you? And by the way, I'm greatly bothered by the fact that we have a Supreme Court that is coming to the aid of these illegal aliens and requiring due process for them while they ignore due process for these j. Six defendants that sat in solitary confinement for years, that sat in jail for four years. Some of them. It's greatly offensive to my sensibilities as a patriot and an American and a constitutionalist that they would care more about defending illegal aliens who came into our country breaking the law than they would care about defending the very people that were trying to defend the Constitution and demand that the Congress follow the Constitution. that should offend anyone that loves their country and make you question whether or not these people on the US Supreme Court should be making these kind of decisions instead of the president. United States. Okay, I'm going to call. I'm going to calm down. Going to calm down. Okay, let's go back to the phones. We got one from, let's, see. Texas. Texas. Hook of horns. Go for man.

>> Speaker C: Hey.

>> Rick Green: Hi, Rick.

>> Speaker C: Local judges and justices are, disrespecting the will of the people.

>> Rick Green: Amen.

>> Speaker C: Our President Trump. I will disrespect them to ignore them and proceed with all the deportation and deal with all this low faith later.

>> Rick Green: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. No, that's, that's what I'm arguing now. Now I am arguing that he's got to be careful, he's got to be smart, he's got to be strategic. You gotta pick which decisions to ignore. Can't just blanket say, hey, I'm a, I'm. I'm the president. I get to do whatever I want. He. I don't think he would do that. I, I thought he would do that in his first term. Okay. I'll be honest. I thought it's part of the reason I didn't support Trump in the early part of the 2016 primary. I was Ted Cruz guy. I thought, man, this Trump guy's just gonna be Obama for the right in Other words, he's just gonna go make law on his own. He's gonna ignore Congress. He's a business guy. He knows how to get things done. I mean, if you can build skyscrapers in New York, you know how to get things done. And he's just gonna get frustrated with the system and say, I'm gonna do this on my own. So I thought he would do it in his first term, and he didn't. He didn't. He followed the Constitution. His executive orders turned out to be constitutional. He was, he was careful. And, and, and even now with how aggressive he's being, he's also being constitutional. That's why I had to pinch myself every day and say, man, it's Christmas every day, because four or five times a day something great comes out of this White House and they're actually following the Constitution. So he's being aggressive, he's getting things done, and he's following the Constitution. I didn't think that could be done by this guy. He's doing it in spades.

Congress should give Trump more authority to deport illegal immigrants without a trial

Okay, so back to your, comment on the call. He should ignore some of these decisions, but not all of them. I guess. I'm just saying he's got to thread the needle and be wise about how he does this. And Congress has got to have his back if Congress will do what this, Romano is suggesting and add, more authority for the deportations without trials. These are illegals. Let's not forget they came into our country illegally. We ought to be able to remove them without a trial. But, they need to do that statutorily. And it not just be the rapist murderers and gang members and the ones that are so easy to prove that they're dangerous to the country. It ought to be anybody that's here illegally. And that way you get them, get them all out and then start fresh. And we welcome. We should. What we ought to do is deport all 20 million of them and then have a fast track process for good people coming back into the country and say, we want you, we want legal immigration, we want people here, but you got to come and do it the right way.

About the Garcia case, how can legally Trump still deport him

Okay, I'm getting off track here. Let's go back to the phones. We'll just stick in Texas for a second. Karen in Texas is up. next goes. Go ahead.

>> Speaker B: Well, I think you've sort of answered.

>> Speaker C: My question, but I was still concerned.

>> Rick Green: About the Garcia case. Why are the liberals picking in? They say that he has not had due process for a court trial. So, how can legally Trump still deport him? Yeah, yeah, great question, Karen. And, and and listen, this could get into a sticky argument of, okay, when does a person have constitutional rights? Right? If you're a citizen, you obviously have constitutional rights. If you're visiting the United States, how far do we go with the Bill of Rights and your due process and that sort of thing. And then if you're here illegally, how far do we go? And this is a big debate, even to the point of terrorists, right? We've had big debates over what's the definition of torture and how do you treat non combatants. And all of this stuff comes back to that question of who gets constitutional rights and who doesn't. And so we could definitely argue that all day long. And there's definitely some gray areas and some muddy water. The extreme ends of that argument. Very easy to say, hey, you're an American citizen. Absolutely, you have constitutional rights. If you're here illegally, if you cross the border illegally and came into our country, I would argue you don't have constitutional rights. We can deport you without any due process whatsoever. That should be obvious, but it's not, clearly, because we have a Supreme Court now that's actually pausing and saying, you know, that even, even in some of these situations where someone came here illegally, we know they came here illegally, they admit they came here illegally, that we're going to give them all kinds of, all kinds of due process. now those are the extremes. Now I would argue, Karen, that there is, you know, if someone is seeking asylum and they come here and they get asylum, that they could get caught up in a dragnet that just grabs everybody and deports them and that, you know, we would like to have a process for trying to prevent that. And so having some sort of due process for that person that was granted asylum properly, so that they don't get caught up in a dragnet and sent off to wherever I get that from, a best case scenario, that sounds wonderful, but I also think, you know, life's messy. Making law is messy and justice is sometimes messy, and there, there's gonna be abuses of the system. And at this point, because of Joe Biden and because of Mayorkas allowing for this absolute invasion of 20 million-plus coming into the country illegally, unfortunately, because of that, it's going to be really hard to prevent the dragnet from catching some good people and that were here seeking asylum. And probably you're going to end up with some citizens that get caught up in that dragnet and get deported. And it may take Years to get those people back. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. There's no perfect system that is better than having a system where, you know, we let the muck up the works to the point that it takes 133 years to deport, which obviously would not, you know, it's insane. So the other end of the extreme doesn't work either. And it's unfortunate. But let's not forget who got us in this mess. The globalists got us in this mess. The people that decided it. We're gonna open America's borders and just let anybody and everybody come in here because we want to dilute the, the American value system and the American citizens patriotism. We want to dilute patriotism in America so that America no longer is the most powerful, most free, wealthiest, most benevolent nation on the planet. That's what got us in this mess, was these people that wanted to dilute both our values and our patriotism and our voting population, make it easier to cheat. All of the things that they've done also distort the representation in Congress, which right now is a problem because you've got 15 to 30 seats that Democrats hold right now because of illegal aliens being counted. That should be Republican seats. So they've managed to really mess up the system and it's not going to be squeaky clean, perfect to fix it. It's going to be messy. It's going to, your people are going to get caught up in it. Sort of like the casualties of innocent, casualties of war that's going to happen. There's going to be some of that. I wish I had a, a better answer. But to Karen's point, I think with this, you know, supposed Maryland father. He's not a Maryland father. He's an illegal alien that took up, you know, residence, in Maryland and apparently was a wife beater and did all these other things. and so in that case, I think no constitutional rights. He came here illegally. Send him home. Okay. And the idea, by the way, Karen, you raise a great point that you might have been getting to that I missed the idea that the Democrats would champion this guy. I mean, you, know, throw me in that briar patch, folks. I hope the Democrats keep making their poster child, the gang members and the rapists and the murderers and the other criminals that Donald Trump's trying to get rid of and send back to their home countries or anywhere else other than the United States. I hope the Democrats just keep blindly championing the cause of Ms. 13 gang members because they are losing votes every day, and I don't think they're temporarily losing those votes. I think these are. I think they have awakened a ton of people in the middle and that call themselves Democrats for the last, you know, maybe their whole life that are now saying, you know what? I can't, it's gone too far. This transgender thing. Guys and girls, sports and in showers and bathrooms, the championing of rapist murders and gang members. I'm done. I'm just done. There are millions of American Democrats that are saying, I'm done. I'm moving on. This is why you got Bill Maher and James Carville and all these other Democrats out there that are saying, guys, we got to stop this. They're trying to shake up, you know, shake their own party out of its insanity in order to try to save it. And, the longer it goes on, the harder it's going to be for them to be able to get back.

Michael in Virginia says president should exercise his authority over rogue judges

Okay, let's see if we can knock out a couple more phone calls before we run out of time today. Michael in Virginia. Michael, you're up next, man. Make it quick, but go for it.

>> Speaker C: Hi, Ricky. Yeah, thank you. are doing a great job and touched on a number of points. I had three points. I'll be real quick.

>> Rick Green: Sure, go for it.

>> Speaker C: The first one is that, ah, God Almighty is a God of justice and he's not the author of chaos and the lawlessness we are experiencing from our courts. what I would like to suggest is the president should exercise his authority over the rogue judges and do what is right, as you have mentioned. Now, my reference. I gave you a screener there with a high percentage of Christians who know the Bible. I want to quickly with the, authority quote Jude, chapter one. It's only one chapter, verse six. If it's okay. Can I read real quick?

>> Rick Green: Go for it. You got about 60 seconds, though, and we're, we're going to be. We got a hard stop at the end of the show. Go for it.

>> Speaker C: Okay. It says, and I remind you of the angels who did not stay with the remnants of authority. And God gave them. God gave them, but left their praise where they belonged. And God has kept them securely chained in prisons of darkness, waiting for the great day of judgment. I will leave that at that. But as I believe the last thing is, we need to give the president more muscle. Support. Support from Congress. And as citizens, we take the citizens class. Thank you, sir.

>> Rick Green: Thank you very much. Michael. thanks for calling in.

Walker Wildman: God designed us to love justice and to want equality

you know, I think it's a great way to, close out the program today because it is when we say law and order. When I was talking earlier about loving justice and, you know, wanting rule of law and liberty in law and, you know, blind equal justice, I didn't talk about that part, but that's what, I, you know, that's what I'm talking. That's what I meant. This is a biblical idea. This is a God idea. This is not Jefferson's idea. This is not Madison's idea or John Locke's or, Blackstone or Montesquieu or any of that. This is a God idea. This is the laws of nature and nature's God. God designed us to love justice and to want to have this situation where in our neighborhoods everybody's treated the same under the law and that. And that a perversion of justice when that justice is perverted, that there would be consequences for that, and that we would turn around and correct that. So when you prosecute your political opponents, you pervert justice so that you only apply the law or you misapply the law to the people you hate, and then you give the people that are your friends a pass when they violate. That's a perversion of justice. That when that happens, that we would have something in us that wells up and says, that's wrong, man. I don't want that to happen in my country. I'm willing to stand up against that. And so that's why you've had all these people come out of the woodwork and go testify at school boards and go protest and get involved where they never got involved, before because of the perversion of justice in our country. It has awakened something in the church. And if we seize this moment, if we take advantage of this window of opportunity, then I believe we can restore justice in this land. We can rebuild liberty in this land for generations to come, should the Lord tarry and when no man knows the day. So, folks, we have to build like that. So let's rebuild liberty in this country. Let's restore justice in this country. Let's do our part. Every day you need to be listening to at the Corps with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green. We're going to help you do that. We're going to give you a lot of action items on how to do that. We're going to have guests talking about how to do that. Thank you so much for listening today. I appreciate you listening to my rants today. Go out there and do your part to restore justice and Rebuild Liberty. You've been listening to at the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green. The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.