Every day unborn babies very lives are under attack at preborn network clinics
>> Jeff Chamblee: This July we celebrate the birth of our nation and remember the heroes who fought for our freedoms. But did you know there are Americans today who don't have the freedom of life and liberty. Every day unborn babies very lives are under attack. But because of preborn, we can rescue them.
>> Walker Wildmon: I got to hear and see my baby for the first time. Hearing the heartbeat made me cry and it was certain that I was going to keep my baby forever.
>> Jeff Chamblee: Ultrasounds save lives. And when, when you save a life at a preborn network clinic, you often save a Soul as over 85,000 women have come to know Christ. To learn more about preborn's life saving work, call pound250 and say the keyword baby. That's 250baby or visit preborn.comafr that's preborn.comafr all gifts are tax deductible. Your love can save a life.
>> Walker Wildmon: We inform religious freedom is about people of faith being able to live out their faith, live out their convictions no matter where they are. We equip sacred honor is the courage to speak truth to live out your free speech. We also rejoice in our sufferings because we know that suffering produces perseverance, perseverance, character and character hope.
>> Jeff Chamblee: This is at the core on American Family Radio.
>> Walker Wildmon: Welcome to the core here on American Family Radio. You, almost got continued silence from me because I had begun reading an article as the music was playing and Bobby had to raise his hand. The Bobby. The Bobby hand raise. I have to be careful with. You know how they got Elon Musk.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah. Let's get on with the program. None of that, none of that, yeah.
>> Walker Wildmon: None of that saluting stuff. But, so I was actually reading something, Bobby, that's going to become topic of conversation for the show. So at least it was show related, you know, as opposed to like browsing my email or something.
>> Walker Wildmon: Well, I would expect nothing less.
>> Walker Wildmon: Thank you, consummate professional that you are. Thank you, Bobby. It's not pay review season, so your compliments aren't tethered.
>> Walker Wildmon: I can hold on a couple more.
>> Walker Wildmon: Months, so that just means it was genuine. Your compliment was genuine, so I appreciate that.
>> Walker Wildmon: My pleasure.
Better to have your integrity than to have wealth, says Proverbs
>> Walker Wildmon: All right. Proverbs, chapter 19, verse 1. Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than he who is perverse in speech and is a fool. Better as a poor man who walks in his integrity than he who is perverse in speech and is a fool. Better to have your integrity than to have wealth, have, material wealth. That's the Clear distinction between our earthly bodies and our earthly priorities and our eternal state and our eternal priorities. And integrity is part of our faithfulness to God. And our material wealth doesn't bear on our eternal salvation. And that's why one's integrity is more important than anything else. That's what Proverbs chapter 19, verse 1 is referencing.
Today was the much awaited Federal Reserve meeting with Jerome Powell and other governors
All right, jumping into our stories for the day. We have no guests today in all content, so we'll pack in as much as we can. Today was the, much awaited Federal Reserve meeting with Jerome Powell and the other governors of the Federal Reserve. And the, the Federal Reserve kept rates flat, which was pretty much expected, despite the pressure from the Trump administration to lower rates. And they have very strong reason to, to promote the lowering of interest rates, the easing of rates from the Federal Reserve. One interesting fact is that there was a dissension, there was some dissent within the Federal Reserve. You had two governors that disagreed with the decision, so the vote was 9 to 2. So you've got 11 governors and you've got the Fed chair, which I'm not sure, Bobby, you might can look this up to see whether Powell, as the chairman is part of the 11 or if he's an additional vote on top of the 11. But I'm showing the vote is 9 to 2 to hold rates steady, which there's clearly some dissension even amongst the governors, the Federal Reserve governors, on whether or not we should lower rates. And the reality is, if we want to be honest, this has highlighted the questions, the long history of questions regarding the legitimacy and the purpose of the Federal Reserve. People don't, the economists and the commentators on tv, they don't talk about this much. But most critics of the Federal Reserve don't even agree with its existence. All right? So they don't think that we ought to have some Central body of 11 individuals that are controlling, the fundraise, controlling interest, Interest rate at a centralized level. Right. a lot of people that disagree with the Federal Reserve's existence would probably default to some, you know, let, letting kind of the, the, the, the m. The market broadly or the economy and the consumer broadly, drive rates like some of the other rates are driven by, and not some centralized federal power that we've created in the Federal Reserve. And so that's a little history behind people who often criticize the Federal Reserve, including myself. You start looking at their foundation and their existence and it's just all out of whack. It's really problematic when you look at how they were formed and what they were formed for and say, quote, dual mandate that they've never been able to accomplish. And so their dual mandate that they always talk about is maximum employment and stable prices. That's the dual mandate. And they've never achieved that for any sense of time. They haven't achieved maximum employment and stable prices because usually when they. Something's being broken. Usually something is being broken. And, we saw that with the, you know, they artificially lowered, interest rates, and then they claim that that caused inflation, although I disagree with that. and then they, you know, you raise rates, and then you create an unstable, borrowing environment and then an unstable employment environment. So you, then you break the employment sector, and then to fix that, you lower rates. And then the pendulum swings back and forth, all supposedly because of the Federal Reserve decision. So I don't think they've been able to balance that joule mandate very well at all over their history. And you can look at the, you know, the different economic cycles we've been in, and you can see that the Fed's always either breaking something to fix something or fixing something to break something. And that's pretty consistent across the board. Bobby, what do you have on the breakdown of the governors?
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah, so 11 governors. And, Powell is a voter. He's number 12.
>> Walker Wildmon: Okay. All right, so 12 votes, and then, Powell's one, and then you have 11 governors that vote as well. So there is some dissent. the main two reasons that, that keeping rates at this, at this, level are problematic. The first one is the, the refinancing of America's debt. We've got roughly nearly $10 trillion in, in debt that our government holds that is due for refinancing this year, right before, honestly, before October. And when you, if you were to, if Powell were to lower rates, even by, you know, 25, 50 basis points, you're talking about saving hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments with the national debt. So. So President Trump makes a strong case as to why just a, just a small easing of rates could drastically help the US on our refinancing of the debt. But Powell is just completely disinterested in lowering rates. And I know I sound like a broken record, but, there's a lot of folks that are just now tuning in, and they haven't been listening to me for three months, ran about these topics, and so this is helpful for them. Remember, Powell lowered rates before the election when inflation was still near 3% or over 3%. Powell comes in before the election twice in two consecutive meetings, September and October, and lowers rates pretty Drastically, I think 50 basis points each, thereabouts. And he did that. And then when Trump gets elected after the election in November, then Powell goes, oh, we got to stop lowering rates. Well, why did you just lower them twice in September and October, then you all of a sudden stop lowering them? What changed? The reality is nothing changed fundamentally in the economy. The only thing that changed is President Trump got elected and Joe Biden didn't win reelection. And so Powell isn't helping himself out here. He looks political, like it or not. Whatever else you think about Jerome Powell, he looks political simply based on the fact that he lowered rates for Biden heading into an election. And then Biden lost. Really, Kamala lost and Trump wins. And Powell all of a sudden is against lowering rates, even though he just did it twice before the election. And the data was not much different. so, so Powell looks political to, the what the numbers I was looking at coming into the show. Another reason that Jerome Powell needs to lower rates. Even though the Federal Fund rate, the Federal Reserve interest rate set is, is technically different from the mortgage rate, which is, follows the 10 year treasury yield, they do trend together. That's, it's undeniable that the Fed, the Fed rate and the mortgage rate that you and I would get on purchasing property or a home, they do trend together. All right, so when that, when, when the treasury, when the Federal Fund rate is up, you've got traditionally higher mortgage rates. And when, when you've got lower Federal Reserve rates, then you've got lower mortgage rates. That's just how, how it, how it trends. The reason, another reason Powell needs to lower rates is, is the mortgage rates need to be eased. Now how much we can debate, but the mortgage rates need to be eased because currently we basically have a frozen housing market. And you can look at this with the latest data out on home sales. The market in much of the country, the housing market is virtually frozen. why? Because we have astronomically high asset prices in the homes and you have slightly elevated interest rates, which is a recipe for people not wanting to sell and not wanting to buy. And Bobby, if you want to interrupt me at any time, you can.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah. Slight update on the, voting members for the FOMC this year. It's it's the permanent members are actually the sitting, members of the Federal Reserve Board, of which there are six. And then you have the chairman Powell and his vice chair, John Williams, and then on a rotating basis of the 12 district banks. you have four of the banks. the current representatives are from Boston, Chicago, St. Louis and Kansas City Reserve Banks.
>> Walker Wildmon: Okay, that's the 12. Gotcha.
Bobby Marks says rising home prices are pricing people out of homeownership
all right, so let's look at, okay, so let's go back to the housing prices that, that I think it's not just, I want people to understand, it's not just the rate, okay? It's the rate in combination with the, asset prices, the home prices, the property prices. And then on top of that you have ridiculous, rises in taxes and insurance for properties. I mean, you live in Florida or California. I mean, you've been priced out of a lot of homes because of the sheer homeowners insurance increases in, in the last four to five years. But which is, which is part of the whole inflation topic. But the, listen to this. When you look at home prices over the last 50 years, this is where I want people to understand why interest rates do matter in this topic. The average home price in the 70s was $50,000. These are ballpark numbers. The average home price in the 70s was, was $50,000. In the 80s it was 100. In the 90s it was 150. In the early 2000s it was 300,000. This is the average home price across the U.S. now it's over. It's $500,000, roughly average home price. That's a 900% increase in 50 years in home prices on average home prices. And so the sheer dollar amount in financing and mortgage that we're talking about today has, is not even in the ballpark to what people were dealing with in the 70s and 80s with Volcker. And I guess that was, was that the end of Carter or Nixon? Bobby. And then Reagan comes in and cleans things up. But this is not even so when people say, well, I paid a 50, I had a 15% mortgage rate back in the 70s. Well, okay, you also paid $40,000 for the house, so that wasn't as hard to swallow. But now you're talking about these heavily overvalued, in my opinion, property prices. Then you pair that with, a 3 to 5% interest rate change over the last three years. Folks, that's a problem. And it's, it's pricing people out of homeownership. That's a fact. And so this is more, my case is that this is more than a spat, a political spat between President Trump and Jerome Powell, because President Trump wants to save the US Money on refinancing our debt. It's much bigger than that. And it has to do with restoring the American dream and making homeownership a viable option again for the American people.
>> Jeff Chamblee: At the Corps Podcast are available at afr.net. now back to at the Core on American Family Radio.
Bobby Santelli talks about strong GDP numbers and incoming tariff revenue
>> Walker Wildmon: Welcome back to the Core here on American Family Radio. Glad to have you with us. This segment, as a reminder, we do publish the show in the form of a podcast each and every afternoon. You can go to your podcast store, your podcast library and type in at the Core and you can subscribe to the program and we will queue it up in your library each and every day. So let's go to some clips and talk about all that's going on and maybe talk some more economic topics as well, since that's what we did the first segment. let's play. This is going to be Kevan Hassett on, I think he's on cnbc here. Clip 1. Talking about the strong GDP numbers and the incoming tariff revenue from President Trump's tariffs. Clip one.
>> Christopher Woodward: Prices have been falling month after month and the CPI has respond surprised, on the downside, five months in a row while everybody's, you know, wailing or shall I say squawking about what's going to happen to prices. The bottom line is that if you have an inelastic supply, then the supplier's got to sell his stuff. And the way he sells his stuff is that he eats a lot of the tariff. And that's what we're clearly seeing in the data. Again, think about this really blockbuster GDP release with massive income growth and 127 billion in tariffs and we cut 70,000 federal workers. And so everything that Donald Trump is saying about how you make America great again is being, is proven true in the data. I think it's a really exciting day for ah, America to see this.
>> Walker Wildmon: So that's, National Economic, National Council on Economic Advisers, Chairman Kevan Hassett talking about strong 3% GDP numbers. And remember, this is coming on the heels of, we had a technically negative GDP report last quarter. And then, you know, the word recession was thrown around, everywhere. Right? This is the start of the recession and then we'll have, you know, negative GDP again and that'll be a technical recession. But that's just not the case. So now we've got 3% GDP and, and I think that's just going to go up.
>> Walker Wildmon: How, how negative was it? Was it, was it minus one?
>> Walker Wildmon: It. Yeah, it was, it was, it wasn't far negative.
>> Walker Wildmon: So for all intents and purposes, that was the better part of a, 4% recovery, correct? One quarter.
>> Walker Wildmon: That's correct. Yeah. It was down. It was down 0.5. Yeah. And that was, that was Q1. that was quarter one. So January, February, March, January, February, March. And then this, this print was January, April, May, June, which we're getting the numbers in July. so, so, yeah, yeah, ah, three and a half, 4% increase from last quarter in GDP. And this is, remember, this is you, the, the President Trump tax cuts, extension and all the economic growth is going to be stirred, spurred, from the one big beautiful bill, hasn't even taken effect yet.
>> Walker Wildmon: I'm just getting ready to say the wheels haven't even started turning.
>> Walker Wildmon: Really. No, you're talking January.
>> Walker Wildmon: It's all still planning.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah.
>> Walker Wildmon: You know, here's, here's what's coming.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah, exactly. And we've got A.I. on the, on the precipice of a breakout. energy is going to do a breakout because you got to have energy to fuel AI. So, you've got reshoring of manufacturing. a lot of upside. A lot of upside. And this is where, when you factor all that in, Bobby, when President Trump's team talks about 6 and 7% GDP, that's not crazy talk.
>> Walker Wildmon: Not at all.
>> Walker Wildmon: when you've got AI, energy boom, you're having another energy renaissance is what we're going to have.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yes.
>> Walker Wildmon: and then you factor on top of that, the reshoring and the tariff.
>> Walker Wildmon: Revenue, rare earth minerals that are really, really now getting licensed and actually putting shovel to earth type thing.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah, yeah. 6 to 7% GDP is not crazy when you factor all that in. And this is where Trump's team is relying on that. I mean, this is why they despise the CBO numbers for all the one big beautiful bill. And they continue and everything they've said has virtually come to existence, come to fruition. So no reason to doubt them on that. CNBC also had a little bit of fun with the GDP numbers. the different host and Santelli, talk about how, you know, the Democrats have been squealing about, you know, we're going to have a recession and everything's falling apart and Trump doesn't know what he's doing and we're going to have, you know, inflation from the tariffs and none of that's happened here. So this is going to be the clip too. Let's listen.
>> Speaker E: The left and people that don't like the president and don't want things to work and, you know, like, Senator Elizabeth Warren will Come on and say inflation's out of control and the economy is the, is getting killed by, by what's happening, by these tariffs, this 3% with the market at new highs. And really we haven't seen inflation, you know, go up back to three. Maybe it will this week, maybe we'll see it. But none of these things, none of these horrible things have happened, but they still talk like it's happening. It's amazing.
>> Speaker F: Well, the important, there's an important lesson there. Don't pick a congressman to be your money manager. That's what I would say. In the end, Congress has their own, reasons to, point out certain things. And the Democrats, of course, as you pointed out, really don't want to see the current administration have some success. But there's no doubt that this is some success. We're seeing more horsepower, we're seeing better equities. Inflation. Inflation really hasn't changed much in the last year or so.
>> Walker Wildmon: So that's CNBC talking about how great the GDP numbers are, how inflation has not shown up yet. And then the host is like, well, maybe it'll show up this week. Well, maybe, but you guys said it was going to show up 60 days ago and it didn't, so why would it show up this week? Right. I mean, what's shocking, Bobby, is that inflation's virtually been untouched. I mean it's actually, it's trended down.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah.
>> Walker Wildmon: And that's just defies, it just defies, Bobby, all of the predictions. Because it's one thing if inflation was going up, but not as fast as they, the doomsayers predicted, but it's not going up at all.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah. And some of the, the most well paid prognosticators in the market were all touting virtually the same thing.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah.
Every criticism of the Trump administration has virtually been wrong on tariffs
>> Walker Wildmon: and even as of late, there are some billionaires who are actually coming on CNBC, Mr. Langone for one out of New, York City, who's basically turned his whole view around, around the tariffs and the Trump economy and so on, so forth. And in his words, he's a believer now.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yeah, yeah, for sure. A lot of people eating their, eating their words on the tariff predictions. The, revenue, the tariff revenue from from President Trump's tariff just continues to go up. Thus far we've had $150 billion collected in 2025 with projections of at least 300 billion by the end of the year. And this is, you know, the tariff revenue. If you can bring in 3 to $500 billion in tariff revenue. And you don't see inflation go up via, prices going up. Who could argue against tariffs?
>> Walker Wildmon: Right?
>> Walker Wildmon: I mean, there is no case, there is no viable case against tariffs. I'm talking practically pragmatically. I'm not talking the legal arguments of whether the President should have this authority or not. I'm just talking practically speaking from an economic perspective. There is no viable case against tariff use when you're not seeing inflation, touched by this, you're just not seeing it. And this is where you've had a surplus for the first time. And I think it was 20 years during the month of May or June. you saw a surplus in response and the only way you had the surplus was because of the tariffs coming in.
>> Walker Wildmon: 26 billion, which was an all time record.
>> Walker Wildmon: Yes. Yeah. It has never been recorded that kind of surplus. So President Trump is laying off government employees and saving money to the tune of 70,000 is what Hassett just said over the last six months. And you've got record levels of tariff revenue coming in in recent history. And you've got a government surplus for the month for the first time in either forever or a long time. Not forever, but a long time in modern history. And inflation's virtually untouched. I mean, this is just, this is why there's a lot of people that are very influential in the economic world and they have gotten so much wrong. All the predictions, all the apocalyptic talking points, I mean, every criticism of the Trump administration has virtually been wrong. And this is why there's record low trust in the media. And it just baffles me, and it baffles me because I thought the dollar, I thought the money that fuels the media industry would self, I thought the credibility would correct because they're interested in maintaining what they have. But that's not even the case. Like I thought, surely the networks, surely the outlets that have been peddling this fake narrative, and this doesn't just start with the whole tariff conversation. This goes back to the Russia hoax. This goes back to the Obama days and before that. But I thought, you know, surely some of these, some of these publications will correct. They'll self correct because they realize the only viable way forward is to own up to the false narratives that you've knowingly been putting forth. But instead we have this doubling down, which proves to me that this is ideological a lot. not all. A lot of these publications and media outlets are not driven even by profit or by truth seeking or by honest journalism. They are driven by ideology because there's no other explanation to it. You can't tell me a, reasonable explanation as to why your CNNs, your MSNBCs and your new York Times of the world continue to peddle and platform people who have been broadly discredited over the course of a decade plus and they continue to parrot the same talking points. And every economist who went on saying that President Trump's tariffs are going to be apocalyptic, that the prices of iPhones are going to double, that we're going to see, 10 to 20% inflation, that store shelves are going to be empty. I mean, these were all the headlines. They should. You should have two choices here. You should self correct, you should apologize. You should publicly apologize to your viewing audience. I don't even care about apologizing to the Trump administration. I'm talking about you should publicly apologize to your viewing audience, to your subscribers, to whoever is visiting your site or reading your, content. But you're not seeing that. You're not seeing that. And it's so baffling to me how wrong they get it. I mean we talked about it several months, Liberation Day in April. I mean every story was about how terrible it was, how this is going to wreck the economy, another recession, some were talking Great Depression. I mean you would just think that the world was ending. And none of that has come to fruition. So this explains the record low trust in media and the record low trust in journalism. And people wonder why Americans are prone to believing in conspiracy theories. That's because the government and the media, the legacy media, have built an environment of distrust. This is all self inflicted. They've built an environment of distrust and then we're the problem because we're prone to conspiracy theories. And this is really where as a civilization we're going to have to go. We're going to have to go one of two directions. You either restore trust in the institutions which President Trump and others are trying to do. You either restore trust in the institutions and I'm not just talking government, I'm talking across the board. You either restore trust in the institutions and maintain the civilization and maintain the country, restore credibility, or you continue to degrade trust in the institution, in the government and you continue to sow seeds of chaos. And that ultimately leads to the downfall of the country. It leads to the downfall of civilization. What does that downfall look like? I don't know. I'm not talking doomsday end of the world. I'm just talking not the America we know and not the America we've known. Europe has gone through this, other civilizations in history past have gone through this. But you cannot, you cannot sustain a nation for any long, extended period of time with this level of cynicism and distrust in the government and in journalism, news outlets and institutions. And this is why, whether we're talking about the Epstein files, which there's reportedly hundreds of thousands of files in DOJ custody, whether it's, the FBI and restoring, you know, faith in our law enforcement to equally apply justice across the board, whether it's Congress, the House and the Senate, all of these institutions, public universities, media outlets, this is why all of this effort for transparency is important, because it's part of an overall movement to restore trust in America's institutions so that we can preserve our country for the foreseeable future. Without transparency, the conspiracies and the cynicism will grow worse if we lose this cultural war. We're going to have a hedonistic, humanistic society.
>> Jeff Chamblee: Discover the story of the culture warrior Don Wildmon and how he went head to head with Hollywood playboy, the homosexual agenda and the Disney empire. The movement Don started paved the way for Christians to boldly stand for truth and righteousness in a hostile culture. Watch Culture Warrior today for free visit culturewarrior movie. This is at the Corps on American Family Radio with your host, Walker Wildmon.
A lot of climate change hysteria was spurred on by the Obama administration
>> Walker Wildmon: Foreign welcome back to the CORE here on American Family Radio. Glad to have you with us today on the program. Well, if you thought the last few segments were interesting, you're gonna like this one. The, the Green New Deal or the Green New Scam, A lot of this was really spurred on by the Obama administration. Now the, the, the Green New Scam has been around long before the Obama administration. And you've got the, you know, the tree hugger movement and the environmentalist groups, et cetera. And, and what's, what gets a lot of people is there, there are half truths in some of these movements, for example, and then there are some movements where there's no truth at all. But, but for the, for the Green New Deal movement and the whole climate change hysteria, the one thing where people did agree is that we need to be good stewards of our environment, right? And this is where we get the Clean Water act, which brought about record, levels of clean water in America. Clean drinking water, cleaned, up our streams. I mean, there's clearly some benefit there. You can look at the historical context of that. So there is broad consensus in ensuring, through all reasonable measures possible to, ensure that our environment is well maintained, is stewarded. Well, what the Obama Administration did that we're going to talk about is they took it to another level and took stewardship, broad stewardship of the environment, which is a bipartisan issue, and they took it down to the micro level, to the very local level and built an entire political and ideological movement on the falsehood that carbon emissions and fossil fuel emissions are bad for, for the environment and harm people. That's the link that they took this to. So, so, so let me connect the dot. Let me show you the comparison here. All right, so the Clean Water act, for example, so we have that which is, it's, it's elementary level type legislation about ensuring that our rivers, creeks and lakes, etc. Are clean and don't have trash and junk piled up in them. so you have that which is relatively narrow in scope. I know there's some tentacles to it that the EPA's tried, you know, regulating people's ponds on their land and stuff, and there's some constitutional issues there. But, but you go over here to the, the climate hoax and its tentacles go everywhere. Okay, so you've got water over here. But then they went a step further. And so when you start talking about energy being polluted and energy production and emissions being bad for people in the environment, your regulatory tentacles are going everywhere. Because when you try to name all the things that rely on energy, everything relies on energy, from vehicles to homes, commercial office buildings, everything, everything uses energy virtually. And so the regulatory tentacles right there were just a whole nother level of overreach compared to things like clean water or clean air. All right? And so what the Obama administration did is they produced this, this finding. The Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama produced this endangerment finding. That's what they called it. Where, where the epa, using a bunch of junk science, claimed that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. This, this was the, the, the fuel on the fire of the climate hoax and the green new scam and all of the environmental regulations that have followed by producing this, this, this very faulty spotty endangerment finding that the EPA then used that finding to build the entire regulatory framework in which we live under today. And if you want to know what that framework is, think about your washer and dryer. How your washer and dryer, if it's residential rated, it doesn't produce enough water. thus it leaves sud marks on your clothes. It doesn't properly clean your clothes. Why? Because they're all following this EPA regulation on quote, protecting the environment, but specifically related to the fossil fuel emissions. The, all of our Vehicles have been fitted based on this endangerment finding to quote, reduce emissions, right? Remember the entire, over the last 20 years, this entire climate religion has been based on the fact that they claim that the emissions that come out of coal plants that come out of our vehicles, et cetera, are just straight up bad for the environment. They weren't parsing words. They just said emitting fossil fuels equals bad. Thus the government should get in and regulate what President Trump is doing, which is absolutely amazing. He didn't even try this in the first term. Is the EPA is looking at, they're currently opening the process of rescinding the endangerment finding. And anyone who's been in this space, I know this might sound a little nerdish, but anybody who's been in this space of energy and the whole climate change conversation understands how pivotal this endangerment finding was to their whole movement, to the entire environmentalist movement. This was their gospel, this was their tablet, if you will, of truth that they used to spur on us. This multi billion, probably multi trillion dollar regulatory regime where every company in America had to abide by all these rigorous environmental standards to operate. And so President Trump's administration, specifically the epa, the Environmental Protection Agency under Commissioner Lee Zeldin, former Congressman from New York, they are rescinding this quote, endangerment finding which is going to open the door to a deregulatory move unlike anything we've ever seen. This will be, if done successfully, the largest deregulatory move in American history, not in modern American history or in the last 40 years. This will be the largest deregulatory move ever, if successful. Let's listen to a little background to here. This is EPA head Lee Zeldin, clip 5.
>> Speaker G: EPA is proposing to rescind the 2009 Obama EPA endangerment finding to eliminate all of the greenhouse gas emissions, regulations that followed, including electric vehicle mandates, which amounts to $1 trillion worth of savings. And on top of it, that much hated start stop technology, EPA is also going to, is also also proposing to eliminate that off cycle credit that incentivized it. As you just mentioned, if finalized, this amounts to the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States. Thanks to President Trump, the Trump mandate and the American people.
>> Walker Wildmon: This folks, this is what happens when truth prevails. Because there is not consensus on this topic of the effect of, of fossil fuel emissions on our climate on our environment. To be more specific, there is broad debate in the scientific sector, if you will, on this Topic. This is not, quote, settled science. And there are actually scientists that just fundamentally refute this notion that that fossil fuels are in any way bad for the environment. Now, now, there are some, there are there, there are some clear, there is some clear consensus on, for the example, for example, the effects of coal emissions. If you've got a housing complex directly next to a coal plant emitting high levels of ash and coal residue, there's clear consensus that, hey, that's not a good idea. Let's take some common sense approaches to protect civilian populations from, for example, mass coal emissions. But that's not what they were debating. That's not what they were talking about because a lot of people can agree on that. And that doesn't come with this massive regulatory regime that they were going for. So what this has cost the American economy and the American consumer since 2009 is estimated over a trillion dollars.
>> Speaker E: Or.
>> Walker Wildmon: $54 billion every year. And so by rescinding the endangerment finding, we can actually start building things that work again and we can actually start building things that are normal again. For example, the on off feature, the auto start and auto auto on off feature for the modern vehicle is one of the most ridiculous regulations and just applications. This endangerment finding that I know of and what it has to do. Anybody, my vehicle does this, anybody who's bought a vehicle probably in the last five to 10 years, it has this auto on and off feature. So you pull up to a stop sign and the car cuts off and it's relying on your battery to run all the appliances, all the accessories. And then you let your foot off the brake and then boom, the car cuts back on and you're doing this stop and crank process just over and over and over again. It can't be good on the transmission and it's completely unnecessary. It's completely unnecessary. But the thinking behind that was, well, think about all the emissions we can reduce if we cut people's vehicles off while they're at the stop sign or at the red light or hung up in traffic. Think about all the emissions we can reduce and we can save the planet, folks, if the, if fossil fuel emissions are as bad as they say they are, even though we know they're not. Cutting my car off at the red light isn't going to save the planet. We are mass, producing fossil fuel emissions. We are burning through fossil fuel like there's no tomorrow. And you think cutting my car off at the red light is going to save the planet? It's not true. It's so unbelievable. And that's just one example of many that would be, unnecessary under the removal of the endangerment finding. Another thing that this is going to help with is this broad hesitancy on expanding fossil fuel investment and production. Because as it stands today, with this endangerment finding that is built on very faulty science. With this endangerment finding, you have basically poured water, cold water, on a industry, the energy industry, and made it to where they don't want to invest in your traditional energy sources because they're being told by everybody in their third cousin that the fossil fuel industry in and of itself is just destroying the whole planet. This entire climate change ideology is built on the falsehood that by emitting fossil fuels, which means by producing them as well, you are just destroying God's creation. And which business, what business wants to operate under that type of environment where people say, your entire existence is destroying our planet? And then Exxon Mobil and others, they're being sued left and right by the environmentalist movements. And then, you know, Obama and Biden get in charge at the White House and they won't grant permits for new energy exploration.
People are leaning into wind and solar like it's the next religion
And then you, you, you want to, expand your refining capacity, which is a major problem, by the way. And no, you can't do that because the EPA won't grant you permits. And as a matter of fact, we can't even upgrade our current refining facilities because the EPA won't grant us permits. And we're being sued left and right by private parties and special interest groups, et cetera. Meanwhile, meanwhile, we've got this solar and wind phenomena that is very inefficient, by the way. It's a pretty cool technology, very inefficient when you look at the amount of power it produces. And people are leaning into that like it's the next religion. Oh, we've got to have wind and solar. Got to have wind and solar. And then the federal government comes in and they're subsidizing the wind and solar industry in the name of it being, quote, green energy. Folks, there is nothing, or if we want to talk like we're from Mississippi, there ain't nothing clean about wind and solar. There's just not. As a matter of fact, when you look at the studies that talk about the offsets, when they bury that windmill after they retire it, they bury it in the ground. How good is that for our, soil? Let's just bury the windmill. We have no other way to dispose of it than to just bury it under our farms and our hunting land. And then the solar panels, they are mining. They are mining minerals all over the world, destroying forest and Greenlands to get these minerals out of the ground for these solar panels. And then when the solar panels are retired, what are they doing with them? They're burying them with all those toxic chemicals. Folks, this is. There is nothing clean about wind and solar. We'll see you next time.
>> Jeff Chamblee: The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family association or American Family Radio.
Live
Did you know American Family Radio is listener-supported? Your monthly financial support will allow us to continue upholding Godly values through our numerous channels, like American Family Radio, One Million Moms, The Stand magazine, and many more.
Become a Great Commission Partner TODAY to help AFR transform culture by rebuilding the family. When you donate today, you’ll get access to:
