Transcript

Rick Green: When a woman is told abortion is her only option

>> Bobby Roza: We are living in a time when truth is under attack. Lies are easy to tell, easy to spread and easy to believe. But truth, truth is costly. And nowhere is the cost greater than from others in crisis. When a woman is told abortion is her only option, silence and lies surround her. But when she walks into a pre born network clinic, she's met with compassion, support, and the truth about the life growing inside her. That moment of truth happens through a free ultrasound, and it's a game changer. When a mother sees her baby and hears that heartbeat, it literally doubles the chance she'll choose life. Preborn network clinics are on the front lines, meeting women in their darkest hour, loving them, helping them choose life, and sharing truth. Friend, this is not a time to be silent. It's a time for courage, for truth, for life. Just $28 provides one ultrasound and the opportunity for a mother to see her baby to help her choose truth and life. Donate today. Call £250 and say baby. That's £250, baby. Or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com forward/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.

>> Bro Don Wildmon: We also rejoice in our sufferings because we know that suffering produces perseverance, perseverance, character and territory.

>> Rick Green: This is at the Core on American Family Radio. Welcome to at the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green I'm Rick Green, America's Constitution coach. Thanks for joining me today. Lots of headlines to get to. Lots of good things happening in the last few days. there's of course, bad and ugly as well, and we'll probably hit on some of those. But, but I'm just. Man, I'm kind of.

Several items in the last few days have been decades in the making

It's a little bit surreal for me today because there's been several items in the last few days and we touched quickly on this one, on Thursday. but there's just been several items that have been quite literally decades in the making. So it's kind of like, it's just a little bit weird to watch something that you've worked on and wanted to see happen and prayed would happen and, put a lot into and paid a heavy price for and, and 25 years of working for that thing. And then it finally starts to happen. You finally start seeing the shift in the culture and in public opinion and certainly in the powers that be. See that item start to move. So I'm going to talk a little bit about a couple of those today. And I'm reminded, oh, about two months ago I went to a dinner in Indiana and my friend Mike Ferris was speaking. And Mike of course is a giant in the conservative movement. I mean this is a guy that did so many major movements that shoved the culture, didn't nudge, shoved the culture in the right direction. Homeschool movement, I mean fought for that for decades and talked about it at that dinner. He talked about how that was a 20 something year fight to get homeschooling legalized in all 50 states. And talked about overturning Roe v. Wade, 50 year fight to get Roe v. Wade overturned. And just how it takes, it takes time for a lot of these major, major issues. Of course, Mike founded Patrick Henry College and you know, very involved with the founding, and now the, you know, working on the convention of states to get our constitution restored. And it really helped me, I needed to hear that speech that night because you know, he did a great job of basically saying to all of us that care about the country and are involved in major movements, be patient, you know, not patient in terms of sitting on the sidelines, doing nothing, but be patient in terms of staying in the fight, not growing weary in well doing and just continuing to push, continuing to be faithful wherever God's planted. You. it was just a really, really good talk.

The Hep B vaccine recommendation is just absurd

And so I'm thinking about that because a couple of these issues, the number one I mentioned, last week that rfk, I think I mentioned this on the program, but RFK had announced that they were going to remove the Hep B vaccine from the CDC recommended schedule. And of course when I say recommended, it's recommended, but it's essentially forced on most parents. I mean anybody out there that's listening, that's had that conversation with their pediatrician, you know that it's a, they make you feel like not only you're gonna kill your kid, but you're gonna kill every kid within 100 mile radius unless you do all of the jabs that they're recommending on the CDC schedule. And one of those being the Hep B vaccine at a day or two old, is just absurd. It's just, it's one of the most ridiculous and they've done a lot of ridiculous things. but it's one of the most ridiculous because as the President tweeted out last Thursday, it's only you're only susceptible to it through blood transfusion or sex. And so unless you're getting a dirty needle or you're getting a tainted blood supply or you're getting, you know, having sex at one day old, you're not likely to get hepatitis B. And when I say likely, I'm talking like one in millions and millions and millions and millions. So it was always absurd to require this, or to recommend that, this at that, at that stage. And it's all about the money. It's all about the money and it's all about the immunity for the vaccine manufacturers. That's what really drives the now 72 doses that they quote, unquote recommend. But this one, never made sense to me. I remember standing on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives arguing against, you know, the lack of choice and arguing for parents to be able to decide and to make the decision on which vaccines they wanted to do was never, you know, a quote, unquote anti vaxxer. I always recognized and acknowledged the benefit of inoculation and how many lives it saved and how when it's scientifically proven and there's, and you can do your scientific analysis and you can actually do your personal cost benefit analysis for whether or not it makes sense that everything's gonna have, have costs and benefits. There is no magic bullet medical treatment that does not have some downsides. there is no, there's hopefully no medical, treatment that is, you know, doesn't help anyone. It's going to help someone. And so you always have to do a cost benefit analysis and say, okay, for me, what's the cost and the risk? What, what am I, what am I risking if I, if I take this treatment? If you've, if you've ever had a major disease, if you've ever had cancer, any of those things, you go get the second opinion and you get, get all of that data and all that information and you weigh the pros and cons and you weigh the cost and the benefits and you say, okay, here's based on what they're telling me and what I'm researching myself, I got a 70% chance of it going this way, or if I don't do it, I got a 10% and you take all of that info and then at the end of that, you know, output side of that equation you go, yep, makes sense to do this. I'm gonna do this procedure or I'm gonna take this medicine, or I'm gonna take this jab, whatever it is, or you say, you know, what could be wrong? But I'm not gonna do it. I'm not gonna take that procedure. I'm not gonna do that thing because I'd rather take my chances on this other side of the equation. That's what sane people do. Not just with health, with everything, but certainly we should do it with health. We kind of stopped doing that because we started buying into safetyism and buying into government infallibility and started thinking, well, if the government experts are saying it, then we have to do it. And so there's several Supreme Court decisions in the last few days that, number one, are striking at the heart of this expert idea that government can't be wrong and that you can't fire these supposed government experts. Now Ketanji Brown Jackson thinks you shouldn't be able to, to, to fire any of them. That the president's. Oh, president's only elected by the people. Why these, why these expert PhDs and, and economists and scientists at, at whatever federal agency. Why they're, they're practically many, you know, demigods. I mean, they, they, they don't get anything wrong. They're smarter than these politicians or the American people. And we need to do whatever they say. I mean, that's literally the mindset of Katanji Brown Jackson. This woman is on the U.S. supreme Court. Crazy. so there's a case at the Supreme Court that, that is dealing with, with that issue. Can the president flee, fire the quote, unquote experts? I would just say, can the president fire the employees that he is over? And of course he should be able to do that. so that's a big one that's coming into play. And I've been Talking about the fourth branch since my first constitution class was recorded in 2010, and how the fourth branch, the bureaucracy, the swamp, as people call it today, is made up of all of these supposed experts. They're not, but they're supposedly experts. And that you can't fire them because of these civil service laws. And so they end up running the country instead of the people that we actually elect. So it's nice to see the Supreme Court not only take this case, but based on the questioning during the hearing, it sounds like it could go the right way. And the right way being that the President of the United States, the chief executive officer of the executive branch, actually gets to do his or her job and hire and fire anyone and everyone in that branch. Anyone and everyone in any of those agencies should be subject to, being fired. If you're not. You're not going to do your job. Well, anybody that is guaranteed to keep their job, no matter what they do, is going to do a lousy job. So that's just market forces at play. Okay, that's a big one. The one, though, that is. I, think maybe. Nearest and dearest. Is that the right way to say that? Nearest and dearest to my heart. Is this vaccine issue in light of parental rights. we could talk science all day long. my wife could run circles around virtually all of these experts when it comes to the research and the data and the studies on almost every single one of these vaccines. and we could debate that all day long. But at the end of the day, the real issue is who decides? Does the parent decide? Or does some nameless, faceless bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. with no accountability. No. Doesn't have to take care of the, if your child is injured by the vaccine, they don't have to take care of the child. They don't have to do any deal with anything. They don't have to go through the pain of seeing your child injured or any of that. And we're gonna let them decide. That's ridiculous. You're gonna let the pharmaceutical companies decide when we've given them immunity with no. No downside to putting a product on the market that they're gonna make billions and billions of dollars on but not be held accountable for it? I mean, that's insane. Of course the parent should decide. That doesn't mean that every parent is going to go do the research like my wife did. That doesn't mean every parent is going to be knowledgeable about every single vaccine. Most parents are going to take the advice of their pediatrician. They're going to go in for that appointment, and whatever shots the pediatrician says they should get, they're going to get. That's just to be most people that. And to be fair, most people don't have the time to go research 72 different doses that they're trying to inject your child with. They don't have the time to do it. or they don't have the bent towards it, the skill set towards that. I mean, I don't, I don't enjoy reading all those studies like my wife does. so most people are just going to take the advice of their pediatrician, but all people in the United States should have the right to say no. Every parent should have the right to say, I want to do this or I don't want to do this for my Child, I've done the cost benefit analysis and it could be that you just from a scientific perspective, which if you got, you know, few brain cells to rub together, if you study hep B, you will come to the conclusion that it does not make sense to inject your one day old baby with that. but if you just also, not even if it's just on the quote, unquote, scientific basis or what we would call in the law here in Texas, conscientious objection on a religious objection, you should be able to say no to that kind of thing. And that's one of the decisions that is huge. As of today. It was decided yesterday, it's not done. This issue's not over. But the Supreme Court has vacated a ruling that upheld NewSong York's banning of religious exemptions and vaccines.

40 states had conscientious objection to vaccines; New York removed religious exemption

Now, to get, I don't want to get too far in the weeds, only got a couple of minutes here before we get to go to break. But typically, most states, back when I was in the legislature 25 years ago fighting for parental choice on this, it was 40 states that had conscientious objection. Not just they had religious, but they also had conscientious, which meant if you did the studies for whatever reason, as the parent, you get to decide you can object to certain vaccine, to any vaccine that you want. You pick which one makes sense for your kid. And then, some states only had a religious objection. And the way Texas worked, Texas had a religious objection. But it had to be in the tenets of your faith, which meant Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witness, I think, are the only two that actually have it in the tenets of their, of their faith. So if you're Baptist or you're Catholic or whatever, you had to lie and say on the exemption form that it was in the tenets of your faith. And so anyway, that's why I fought for conscience, conscientious objection, or blanket religious objection, regardless of whether it's in the tenets of your faith. You could, you can make that. Well, NewSong York had a religious exemption until 2019, and they took it out. And so this lawsuit before the Supreme Court that my friend Kelly Shackelford argued was, really important for parents to be able to have that objection. And, so they vacated the court of appeals and basically said, yeah, you've got that objection, that religious objection. Now I think that it is, it's one of these things where they basically vacated and they say, go reconsider your decision. In light of some of our Other Supreme Court decisions. There was a decision this June that had to do that impacted this. so NewSong York is now going to have to go back and, potentially reinstate or where for now they definitely are. But even at the end of this case, a religious objection for vaccines. So that's, that's a big, big victory that, you know, 25 years later, I'm enjoying watching this.

Rick Green: President's decision to remove Hep B from babies' vaccines huge

But the last one over overarching. I don't know if I can get this in before we go to break, but is, is the president's decision and RFK and the CDC's decision, or, the committee that advises on the vaccine schedule to actually remove Hep B from the schedule for babies. That's huge, folks. Now, you may not realize how big that is. Big that is. I've been fighting that for 20, 28 years. 28 years. And I got beat in the, I got kicked out of the legislature. I lost my third race, barely 200 votes out of 45,000 over this issue. This is why the medical industrial complex came after me. And so I am just feeling a sense of vindication today and an, excitement that we're turning the corner back to common sense and most importantly, back to parental rights. Who decides? The parent should decide. Quickbake. We'll be right back. You are listening to at the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Reenbolt. This is at the Core on American Family Radio with your host, Rick Green

Rick Green: President Trump has changed his tune on childhood vaccines

Welcome back to the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green Rick Green America's Constitution coach, talking about some of these victories in the last few days that have been 25 or 28 years, in some cases in the making. Phone numbers. 888-589-8840. That's 888-589-8840. so clearly on the, on the health issue, on parental rights, those are big, big victories as a big shift in the mindset. Let's not forget President Trump was on the wrong side of this for years. Did not want to question the vaccine schedule and, and even called some of us crazy way back when. But, but he is totally on our side now. He has basically said, we're going to review every single one of these jabs. He even called them jabs. Andand, get in line with the science. Okay, so look, if science isisyou know, listen, you gotta keep testing, you gotta keep figuring out. And in most of these vaccines that they pump into the kids, they've never really done the studies on them. They, certainly never released It. And then they lied to us about the COVID vaccine. And let's not forget they added Covid to the, to the child schedule. Not for the benefit of the child, because there's no benefit to the child. Your cost benefit analysis is almost always gonna be if it's not worth the risk, for a kid, in that case with COVID and the COVID vaccine, because of the, you know, the results for kid that gets Covid is, you know, basically nothing. They're practically immune to it. It doesn't affect them. And for the small, small, small, small percentage that it does, it's usually minor. And of course there's the rare, rare, very rare example where the kid does, have a serious reaction to Covid. Okay, so you weigh that. That again, there's no, none of these things are 100%. So you have to make the decision yourself as the parent for your kid. Is it worth the risk of the vaccine and the dangers and the harm that comes from that? And there's always some these people that act like it's totally perfect and nobody ever gets harmed by a vaccine and that we're all crazy for thinking that that's ridiculous. Of course there's gonna be some percentage. Again, like I said earlier, it's not 100% either way. Not everyone is gonna be harmed by it. Not even a high percentage are gonna be harmed by, depending on your definition of high. and not everyone is gonna be helped by it. None of these vaccines work for everyone. Everybody's bodies are different. And so, yeah, you gotta look at the numbers and then you gotta decide which side of the equation you wanna be on. And I'm just so thankful that the President has changed his tune on this, is backing RFK's play on this and that we've really, really turned the corner on it. So that's a, that's a big one. That's been a long time. Of course, the fourth branch starting to get the swamp under control. Let's not forget, even the great President Reagan was unable to do this. Unable to reduce spending in any way or get the fourth branch under control. I must say, he's also unfortunately, the one that signed the immunity law for vaccine manufacturers. One of the few big mistakes he made. But that was a big one. but anyway, so the fourth branch case is essentially, you know, the one I talked about at the top of the hour. Just the idea that the president should be able to hire and fire anyone in the executive branch. That's part of being the CEO. That's part of actually executing the law and managing the behemoth that is our federal bureaucracies.

There's no such thing as taking politics out of redistricting

Okay, then, we've got this, this redistricting case. This is another one that is huge because, again, been fighting this since I was in the legislature 28 years ago. and it's always been. It's always come down to the first fundamental issue in. In redistricting and gerrymandering and all of this. Of course, whoever's in charge is going to draw the lines to favor their party. That's. That's just politics, okay? It's always going to be that way. There is no alternative that takes politics out of it. I. People, that say that stuff, they're lying to you when they say we just want to take politics out of this process. There's no such thing as taking politics out of this process. This is politics. This is simply how do we treat our neighbors? How are we going to govern our society? Who's going to get to make the decisions? Who's going to be elected? Who gets to vote for who? All of that, that's politics. And it's not, you know, it's. It's. It's not that. That it's, you can purify it, but it's also not that it's always, like, evil. It's not. It's not evil to understand that. If you actually believe that your party is pushing the best policies for your children and grandchildren in the future of your state and nation, then, of course you want your party to have the power. Of course you want your party to get more members elected so that they're pushing the agenda that you believe in. I mean, that's not like, you know, doesn't, mean that removes the nature of man and those who want power just for power's sake. And of course there's people like that. But it is not wrong or evil to say that you're trying to accumulate more power in order to push forth the agenda that you're for. I want my friends and the people that I support to win the elections. I want people that share my values to be in power. So, of course, if I was on a commission or I was back in the legislature and I was on the redistricting committee, I would want to draw the lines and in such a way as to get the most people elected that are part of my philosophy and that share my values and that are part of the party that I'm a member of. That's how politics works. So redistricting in and of Itself is always going to have gerrymandering and always going to have a power struggle to try to get the most seats you can for your particular party. The problem for the last 60 years has been that we. We tried to make a wrong, a right by doing another wrong. In other words, we said, you know what, the Democrats were so racist that they actually drew lines and they even passed laws to prevent blacks from being able to hold office. The Democrats were so racist that after Reconstruction, and don't forget that in Reconstruction all of the blacks in the legislatures all throughout the south were Republicans. And so the Democrats hated this, of course. So they used the KKK to intimidate and kill. They, they, they used anything that they could once they got back in power and Reconstruction, was over and the feds pulled out. They passed white only primaries where you had to be white to run. They did all kinds of, all the Jim Crow laws, all of that stuff that was the racist Democrats in every single one of those situations. So there was a. A counterbalance or a reaction to that, in the civil rights laws of the 60s that I honestly, I wasn't there. Obviously I wasn't even born yet. But I don't think the idea was we're going to be racist because they were racist. I think there were a lot of people that genuinely thought you have to put your thumb on the scale to guarantee that a black or a brown or whatever color of skin will get elected in order to right the wrongs of the past. So they genuinely believe that two wrongs would make a right. Because I mean, hopefully we can agree that it is wrong to choose to draw your redistricting lines or to vote based on, purely on color of skin. I mean, surely we can agree that's actual racism. If, if you're, if you're making the decision based on whether or not someone is red, white, yellow, black or brown, if you're basing it on their color of skin, then you're being racist. By definition, you're being racist. Okay, so what the civil rights laws did and then more, more. So the Supreme Court decisions after that is they required racism. They, they actually said you have to draw your lines guaranteeing that the person elected is of a particular color of skin. Terrible, terrible thing. Okay, we should have gotten rid of it a long time ago. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has upheld it even in recent years. But it looks like the Texas maps being approved by the Supreme Court. and basically it's a temporary order. It's. The full case is not gone yet. But by the court actually saying no, we think that there's a high likelihood Texas is going to succeed on the merits and ultimately win this case. Therefore, it's getting down to the wire. In fact, for Texas, the filing deadline was yesterday. So as of 5 o' clock yesterday, everybody had to be, declare what they were, you know, what they were going to run for, which district they were going to run for, all that. So the chaos of the scrambling for the filing of which district you're in depended on how these maps were going to be drawn or whether or not they were approved. And we've been through situations where the courts have at the last minute said no, that, that that map is not approved. And the court redrew the map and it. And then all of a sudden everybody's running around trying to figure out, okay, now I'm in a, I'm in a district, different district now, and I got to run. It was, it's been a mess. So the Supreme Court basically said, no, you're gonna, you're gonna stick with the map that the legislature drew. Racism was not used in that drawing of that map. I know that because my good friend that I came into the legislature with was the one drawing the map. And, and he has, and I've interviewed him, and he's been very clear about the fact that he took race into consideration. Zero. None. Nada. Not at all. so it was, it was maybe the first redistricting map that was truly not racist. And now the Supreme Court has upheld. That's going to impact for years to come the redrawing of the lines in every state. And now again, they got to, they got to hear the full case on the merits. That hasn't happened yet. The final decision probably won't even, we won't even see until maybe even late next year. But this is a really, really, really good sign that we're finally going to not be so racist towards each other in this country. Can we just say that, you know, content of the character, not color of the skin, that we're actually going to vote for people based on what they stand for and what they are going to actually do in office, not whether or not they're red, white, yellow, black or brown. So I just think this is a huge, huge, big victory. I mean, these are these things that I'm listing off today, folks. These are big deals, big deal issues. These are, these are big victories, with major, major changes in the direction of our country.

Donald Trump says he wants to permanently pause immigration from all third world countries

Now, of course, I, I had mentioned, let's see, when did I think it was, two weeks ago, Trump did the tweet about re migration. And I read the whole thing. I think it was Thursday. Well, there was a, one of these, one of these guys. Let's see. Where'd he come from? Allie? he says, he's a leftist, he's a son of Pakistani migrants. And, now that Donald Trump says he's gonna permanently pause migration from all third world countries, this guy says, you should have never let us in in the first place. He said, we're going to take over. Let's see. he says, see, that's the thing with brown people. And I'm gonna say this as a brown person. There's a lot of us, like, a lot. There's like 1.2 billion in India. There's more than 200 million in Pakistan. There's like 170 million in Bangladesh. Those are just the people there. There's a bunch of us and we breed. We're breeding people. And the problem is you let us in in 1965. What's he saying? He's basically saying that because America's. Feel good policy of, we want to help people around the world and we're going to let you come into our country so that you can experience freedom. And, and the ones that actually assimilated that actually said, I love America. Like my friend Chris Dunham, who runs our Patriot Institute. He came from India, nine bucks in his pocket, and he's one of the greatest American patriots alive today because he loves our country. He's teaching these kids at Patriot Academy why they should love America, what made America great in the first place. He's actually living the American dream and teaching the American dream. But these others that are saying, nah, we're not assimilating, we hate America, we're gonna undermine America. We're going to replace Christianity in America with Islam. We're going to replace your constitution with Sharia law. Those people we need to be sending back home, they need to be going somewhere else to some other country that wants Sharia law and that wants Islam to be the dominant force in their country. incredibly, incredibly dangerous. They're saying it out loud. They're telling us, they're telling us they want to radically transform our nation into something that was never intended to, to be. And President Trump knows this and that's why he's saying we need to do the, you know, literally re migration, reverse migration instead of just reducing the numbers that we let in. We need to pause all immigration completely and we need to say we're going to round up all of the illegals, send them home, and we're going to round up a bunch of the people that have made it clear they hate our country. If we let you in legally, even if you went through the process and you came here, legally, but you hate our country and you don't want the nation to continue on the path of the value system expressed in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution, then you don't belong here. I mean. Why does anybody think that makes sense? And why does anybody think that we should invite people in that want to destroy the country? You wouldn't do that in your house. You wouldn't invite people to live in your home that you know are there to undermine and destroy your family. Of course you wouldn't do that. Why do we do that as a nation? I know people have their nefarious reasons, why there, there are people out there that, that are doing that because they think it's going to allow them to stay in power. They think it's going to actually give them the votes that they need to stay in power. And then frankly, it worked for them. They, they've been able to use that to cheat, they've been able to use that to fly, flood the system and create chaos. they want chaos in our streets, so they want the criminal element. I know that sounds crazy, but it's true. That's part of the Marxist playbook. You create the chaos that becomes a distraction and becomes an all consuming thing and it makes people end up voting for things that will just calm the chaos down. and so they do that, they flood the streets with the thugs and the gangs. I mean, why do you think the auto pen administration wanted open borders for four years? The damage done, and I'm m repeating myself from, said this I don't know how many times during the Biden administration, the auto pen administration, but the damage done by opening the borders and allowing 20 million illegals to come across that border and 2 to 3 million got aways people that we don't know who they are, where they are, the damage done by that is going to be felt for generations. It's impossible for President Trump to round up all 20 million to find them, but we need to do everything we can to find as many as we can. And I believe, I believe you have to have a deportation in the tens of millions. It's not enough to have even one or two or three million. Eisenhower's effort back in the 1950s was, was laudable. It was, it was successful. but it was a. A fraction of what needs to happen this time around and what must happen if we're going to save the country. Without it. I don't think, you're not going to convert either to Christianity or even to American patriotism. Enough of these people that we've let in to save the country. 53 million foreign born in America. 53 million. And let me remind you, it does not take a majority to push the country one direction or another. It takes about 3%. Well, do the math, folks. 53 million of, 350 million is well over 3%. What would it be? Let's see, 53 million. 50 million of 350 million. So that's basically 1/7. So what is that, 13 roughly, you know, 12 to 13%. Just under 13%. Okay. I'm not saying they're all anti American or undermining, but if a third of them are or a fourth of them are, you've got your 3% that can push the country one direction or another. And they're motivated. They're showing up. I, saw a clip the other day of one of these guys from the Muslim Brotherhood saying we're going to have 50 members of Congress soon. Don't tell me they're not in the fight. They're in the trenches, scratching and clawing. Where are you? Because we need our 3%. If we can get our 3% to step up and rebuild liberty, then we can save the country. But it's going to include deporting tens of millions of them. All right, quick break. We'll be right back. 888-589-8840 is the phone number 888-589-8840? You're listening to @ the Cor.

American Family association seeks to stop erosion of godly values

The mission of AFA is to. Inform, equip and activate individuals and families to strengthen the moral foundations of American culture and to give aid to the. Church here and abroad and its task. In fulfilling the Great Commission. The vision of American Family association is to be a leading organization in. Biblical worldview training in the interest of cultural transformation. Thank you for standing with the American Family association as we seek to stop the erosion of godly values. This is at the Core on American Family Radio with your host, Rick Green.

Former CDC director calls for removal of MRNA vaccines for COVID 19

Welcome back to at the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green I'm at Green, America's Constitution. Coach, we'll get to the phones here in just a second. 888-589-9884. I did notice as we spent so much Time talking about vaccines. The former CDC director is calling for the removal of MRNA vaccines for COVID 19. So that's. That's a big deal, too. So this is Robert Redfield. I think he was in charge initially when, when Covid hit. I can't remember how far into everything. It seems like it was, like, second year of COVID that he, retired. so he was a major proponent of the COVID vaccines, but he is now saying, he would like to see them phased out and eventually removed from the market completely. So he's basically. I mean, is that a tacit admission that they're not working? that they have been done more harm than good? I, you know, I don't know, interpret it the way you want, but that's a. That's a big deal right there. Just. Just to have that, and then last headline I was going to mention looks, like. I mean, I don't, you know, I always. I always take some of these things with a grain of salt. But, apparently we're at least signaling that we're going to reduce our support of, you know, all the health care of the world. And, look, I'm. I'm a compassionate guy. I'm for trying to help some of these other nations where we can. And we always, of course, want to take an America first way, of doing that. If it's. If it's likely to, you know, a disease to spread and then end up here on our shores, then we want to do what we can to prevent it in the first place. I get that. That makes sense, but, man, looks like we're giving 1.6 billion to Kenya as part of an America first global health strategy. I mean, I got to read the fine print on that. That seems like a lot. I get it. I mean, I know Rubio and Trump are doing all they can, and we've wasted so much money around the world, and so much of it ends up getting lost in fraud. And how much of it actually does any good? I mean, those are all big questions. I am not an expert on that part. but I thought it was worth at least mentioning. At least we're talking the right game, that we should be reducing our funding of all these things and telling these countries they need to take care of themselves in most of these situations.

Danny in Texas says young woman running for Senate is radical

All right, let's head to the phones. We got, first up, I've got Danny in Texas. Danny, you're up first. Man. Comment, question, Insult today. Go for.

>> Danny: It. Hey, Rick. My name's Danny. I'm calling two questions. The young lady is running for Senate. Just barely got any time to run, for Texas. I can't think of her name. I don't know why I got a brain freeze there. I think you know who I'm talking.

>> Rick Green: About. would this be Congressman, Jasmine.

>> Danny: Crockett? Yeah, yeah. Jasmine. Yes. This lady is very radical. And Colin Alred calling Colin Alred all wrong. I call him. His name's all right, but I call him calling all wrong. He even. He even bowed out, I guess let. Let her in. And it's, you know, I'm hoping and praying that she don't make it at all. And that, you know, the, the ads that we had for every. For the Senate. You know, we don't never get to hear about the other Republicans running. We, we get to hear about the guy that's already in there. But you don't. You don't get any other telephone, tele. Television commercials on. the other guys running for. The great guys running for Senate. That's not in there right.

>> Rick Green: Now. Yeah, man, I tell you, this is. I didn't expect this, honestly, because, you know, I'm assuming that the redistricting map, being approved by the, Supreme Court had a lot to do with this because part of what that map did was make. Made her congressional race harder to win for a Democrat. This is Jasmine Crockett. For those that aren't familiar. She's one of these that's just been a shrill say is the craziest thing she possibly can to get the media to pay attention to her. She talks ghetto on. In committees and on the House floor, but apparently is well educated and it's all a show. That's at least what I've read. I don't know if all that's true, but that's what people say. I've honestly never even watched the full press conference with her because she's one of these people that has, talked about, basically universal income, but for blacks only and reparations for blacks only. I mean, she's a racist. Total racist. but yeah, she's running for U.S. senate. They will spend probably, no telling how many tens of millions of dollars to make her, look good, sound good. And a lot of Texans will probably fall for it, unfortunately. And let's not forget you've got some blue, blue cities in Texas and a lot of illegal immigration, where they will try to run up the numbers. And, for those who think Texas is solid red and that we don't have to worry about these kind of things here. Let's not forget how close the Beto o', Rourke, Ted Cruz race was, and how bad the left wants to take Texas back. Now, we've only been Republican for a couple of decades. Let's not forget that when George Bush was governor of Texas in 94, in the early 90s, the Democrats had almost all of the statewide seats in Texas. This was a Democrat state. When I came into the legislature in 98, it was a Democrat house still. And, it didn't take long, but we did finally get to where it was all Republicans statewide. So all of your state elected statewide elected officials, your Texas Supreme Court, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, your, governor, lieutenant governor, comptroller, the Railroad Commission, the Land Commissioner, all those statewide offices became Republican and have been for the last 20, almost 30 years now. And, so it would be highly unusual for a Democrat to win statewide, but not impossible, not when you look at the amount of money that can get thrown that way, and not when you consider what a prize that is, to be able to take Texas back. So I definitely don't think she's the one to do it. I think she'll just hurt the Democrat brand. I think this will actually be good for conservatives and sane people. you know, because we'll see how she runs. Right? Like, does she, does she remake herself in the image of Texans and, potentially across the country, so should be interesting.

John Cornyn has sold conservatives down the river in the US Senate

But you raise something else, and that is the Republican candidates. You've got a, I think a terrible United States Senator and John Cornyn. This guy has sold conservatives down the river for 20 years in the US Senate. He was a pretty decent AG back in the day when I was in the House. He was an attorney general for Texas Pro Life and did some good things. but man, once he got to the swamp, he became very swampy, was pretty decent for about five or six years, and then started going down the typical swamp path. And it's been a, frankly, disaster since that time. And what I mean by that is this is a typical politician, guy who goes to Washington, behind the scenes, undercuts conservatives, does everything he can to kill the conservative agenda, and then once in a while casts a vote for some conservative things and then comes home and spends $100 million or, you know, $20 million, whatever, on, ads that make him sound like he's super conservative because, because of a couple of specific votes. And, you know, he runs these big bad John ads and Anyway, I. I just. He's. He's been disgusting to me for a long time. I didn't even think he would run this time. I really thought he would. He. He would, you know, see the writing on the wall, and he's like, you know, mid-70s, late-70s. I can't remember how old he is now, but, So I thought he was done. I really did. I was surprised that he stayed in this race. You've got Ken Paxton running against him now. Ken is, a friend. I've known Ken for a long, long time. you know, he was a great House member and, then a great senator and state senator in Texas, and has been a fantastic attorney general. He's had some personal, significant issues, and, that's the only reason he's not absolutely walking away with this. He would have pummeled John Cornyn in this race if it hadn't been for the personal issues. And when I say personal issues, his wife filed for divorce this year for apparently, you know, according to her infidelity. Again. so it's a big deal, and, it's made it very difficult for him to win this race. He may still win it because he has so much, political capital and credibility for winning some huge, huge fights. I'm telling you, he's been a phenomenal attorney general. He's been maybe the best in the country. In fact, I thought he should have been. I thought it should have been him as U.S. attorney General, not Pam Bondi. He would have been much, much better at going after, you know, all of the fraud and all of the. The. The, you know, abuse the. The weaponization of the federal agencies, all that. I think Ken Paxton would have been a fantastic U.S. attorney General. I think he can still win this race. I think he could still win the Senate race. there's another guy in it, a congressman, that is, you know, could be good as well. And. And they're kind of. They're splitting the conservative vote right now. and Wesley Hunt, I think. I think Houston. I can't remember if he's East Texas or Houston. Anyway, he's, He's good, man. He's. He's. He's good on stage. He's good on the. On television. And he's, a. He's a military veteran. He's. He's much more appealing to the younger, Republicans in the state and some of those in the middle. And, And he could. He could, you know, end up in a run. It could End up being a runoff between Paxton and Wesley Hunt. I think, I think Cornyn's actually running third right now. So I would love to see either Ken Paxton or Wesley Hunt beat John Cornyn. I think Paxton has the advantage. I think he's got the experience to be a great U.S. senator. but we will see. We will see what happens. it's a three way race, so likely to go to a runoff. and I'm supporting either of the guys running against John, Cornyn. So, that's. Personally I'm supporting. so anyway, glad you brought that up. I think you're right. You don't hear enough from those, guys. The media is going to hide, Paxton and Hunt as much as they possibly can.

About your Patriot Academy, do you have any grants or anything like

Okay, let's go to, We'll stay in Texas. Danny. In Texas. Go ahead. Danny, you're.

>> Danny: Up. Yes, I just got through talking to you about, the young lady who was running.

>> Rick Green: This. Oh, sorry, man. I went, I went back to you, ma'. Am. I apologize. I'm sorry, did you have another.

>> Danny: Question and Yes, I do. About your Patriot Academy. I really want to do that. I would like to take the four day thing. Do you have any grants or anything like.

>> Rick Green: That? Oh, yeah, no, we do. We do have scholarships. We do have scholarships for people to attend our four day, constitutional, defense course. That's our handgun class. And then we also have scholarships to our, what we call our citizen Congress, which is our patriotic other part of our patriot experience. And it's a legislative simulation. And then we have a military Patriot Academy as well, and we have scholarships for that one. So, yeah, definitely hit our website, patriotacademy.com. learn more about all of those programs. Okay, let's then head to Louisiana. Ron. Ronald is up in Louisiana. Go ahead, ma'. Am. Ronald, you still with.

>> Danny: Me?

>> Rick Green: Rick? Yeah. Yes. Sorry. Can you hear me? Yeah, go ahead. Okay.

>> Danny: Yeah. So it's an honor to speak with you, first of all. listen to you every day.

>> Rick Green: Online. Thank.

>> Danny: You. I'm a truck driver. I had recently heard and I believe it was Lauren Berbert Boebert, but I'm not sure. something about, putting, putting in a law, on the subject of the 50m Muslims, in Congress. He wanted to put in a law about not allowing dual citizens to be in, Congress members in public office or something like.

>> Rick Green: That. Yeah, yeah, I think, I don't remember where this is. I think it would probably require a constitutional amendment, I would think, to do That. I totally get the concept. you know, look, if you're, if you got dual citizenship, are you truly committed to the U.S. i mean. And, now granted, I think Ted Cruz actually has dual citizenship because he was born in Canada. And, and somehow I don't think he's ever had anything to do with. I think, but he. It was something that, you know, was. Was, automatic. And I don't know that he's ever denounced it or, you know, removed it or whatever. Anyway, so I don't question Ted Cruz's, commitment to America first at all. I mean, he's. He's one of our best U.S. senators and, and clearly been America first, before the term was even, coined. but I do, I do think it's an issue, and I do think that it is 100%. it's changed, for America. So if we go back to the founding, obviously you had a ton of the founding fathers that were, not, born in America. So they were immigrants themselves to America. And even they believed you should have to be here for a certain amount of time before you could become a citizen and vote, because you needed to assimilate. You needed to really understand what it means to. To be an American. And you need to understand our civics and our economy and our, you know, our way of life. today is very different. You've got a much more, How do I say this? That you, you have a nefarious plot. I mean, you. You literally have people that are specifically moving here to take over our country and change it dramatically. They shouldn't be allowed here in the first place. Right. We should. We should have a better immigration system. But if that's the case and they get through the system or we don't deport the millions that I think should be deported that fall into that category and they end up running for office, and you end up with an Ilyan Omar who clearly puts other countries first and has made it very clear that, you know, she's more interested in Somalia than she is in the United States. I mean, clearly that, that. That type of person should not be in Congress. It should be removed from Congress just for some of the things that she said in, in that vein. And Congress has the ability to do that. I doubt they'll do it, but they have the ability to do that.

Should dual citizens be allowed to run for office without denouncing dual citizenship

the dual citizenship thing. Again, all comes back to we get to set the rules in our Constitution for who gets to run. I mean, we have rules for. You got to be 35. To be president, we have rules for how long you gotta have been here that the president has to be native born. so I'm not opposed to this idea. I think it should absolutely be considered now. I think you have to, as you debate that and you discuss that, you gotta be intellectually honest and say there's some really, really good Americans that have come here from other countries that, that have kept their dual citizenship, and it's been to our benefit. Now, should they be allowed to run for office without denouncing the dual citizenship? Off the top of my head, I would, I would argue, yes, that, that, that I would probably support the idea that if you're going to serve in public office, you got to denounce whatever other citizenship it is and make it clear to the American people that you are serving this country for first and foremost and that any support or, you know, help that you would give to any other country would only be because it is good for America, not just to support that other country. And, and I think that applies to our, our support of Israel. I think that that makes sense, that it definitely is an America first position to support Israel because it supports Western civilization and it, and it supports us in a lot of other ways too, which I'm in 20 seconds. I don't have time to do, but, go back to some other programs or watch, my, you know, watch some of the recordings.

Walker Wildmon and Rick Green host at the Core on American Family Radio

Anyway, we're out of time for today, folks. All right, listen, I'll be back with you on Thursday. Walker will be with you tomorrow and Friday. Thanks for 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.