Transcript

Rick Green: When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound, she chooses life

>> Bobby Roza: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, preborn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection and the majority of the time she will choose life. But they can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside them. One ultrasound is just $28. To donate, dial pound250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr.

>> Walker Wildmon & 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.

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

>> 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. And a lot to cover today. Phone numbers 888-589-8840. That's 888-589-8840. Let's just start with a little constitutional reading. So article one, section eight, paragraph 17, to, exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district not exceeding 10 miles square, as may by session of particular states and the acceptance of Congress become the seat of government of the United States and exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings. What are we talking about here? D.C. wasn't yet called D.C. it was Washington that actually laid out the boundaries and specifically designed it. I learned something the other day I didn't know, of course, as hopefully, you know, we're headed to the Virginia election, and the redistricting, just shameless redistricting that it's attempting to take place there. Get into why and what's at stake here and what gerrymandering is. We'll get into all that.

President Trump could potentially take back some land from Maryland and Virginia

But first, just what is this area of the District of Columbia all about? Because one of the things that's being thrown out is the possibility of President Trump on his own with an executive order essentially taking back a lot of the land that was given back to Maryland and Virginia. So initially, when this whole thing happened, just kind of get in your time machine with me. Let's go back to 1787. The new constitution is being put in place, and they're basically saying, okay, we got, you know, we need a seat of government. We need a place that essentially, the federal government will be, that will not be a state and never be a state. Don't forget what the Democrats keep threatening and they will do if they get the chance. They want to make D.C. a state. It was never intended to be a state. There's something special about the seat of federal government that you don't want it to be within a state where it could be governed or overruled by that state in any way, shape or form, or even just having the, you know, the give and take and the arguments over who's in charge of the streets outside the. All that kind of stuff. You don't want it to be within a state, but you also don't want it to be a state. Because think about the advantage that that state would have over other states with regard to, any negotiations with the federal government, any governing, housing. I mean, all of those things. It would be not right. And so the founders knew that. And so they wanted this to be set aside as a special place, knowing if you live in the District, you're not going to have the same representation in Congress. they didn't even envision having these delegates, these, these representatives from Washington D.C. that, you know, technically don't have a vote, but they still get all the benefits and they still get to engage and be involved. They would have not even been for that. but anyway, what we've done is we've set aside a special place, it's right there out of the Constitution, to be the district that would govern where the federal government would have its seat of power. That became Washington D.C. as I said, it was actually laid out and surveyed, by Washington. Initially, Jefferson was very involved in the design. And then of course you had, Lafont, who did the designing of the streets and all that, which, frankly, weird. In fact, they used to have a. There was a Broadway. Well, I don't know if it was ever actually on Broadway in NewSong York, but it was a play, at least in dc. I can't remember the exact title, but it was something to the effect of what exactly was l' Enfant drinking the night that he laid out the streets of D.C. if you've been there much, you know exactly what I'm talking about. okay, so back to, Back to this, this potential solution. Now the reason people are talking about Trump potentially taking some of that land back. So what initially happened was, as the Constitution specifically says, there would be this area ceded by particular states and accepted by Congress to become the seat of government for the United States. And then Congress rules over that area. That's why there's, there's, there's a committee in Congress that's supposed to essentially govern DC. Now we've gone through several iterations of incorporating DC. That's what this 1871 incorporation act is. Which. Man, I've done so many programs on that over the last five years. Somebody put out some goofy conspiracy theory video, I don't know, six, seven years ago that basically said the Incorporation act of 1871 made America a corporation, changed everything. Got rid of the Constitution, your birth certificates, not even a person. Now you're a number. Crazy stuff. Okay, it's, none of it is accurate. 1871 Incorporation act was literally an incorporation act. It was incorporating D.C. as a city and giving, you know, city type powers and authority to Washington D.C. instead of Congress micromanaging it. I think they should, but they basically delegated that and allowed for election, you know, within Washington, D.C. for those leaders. No different than what I'm doing at the Patriot Academy campus where we're incorporating as a city. That's a, that's a, literally called an incorporation, kind of like an incorporation of a company, but you're incorporating a city. So we're incorporating Constitution City, Texas. Right now we're an unincorporated city in the unincorporated area of the county. But about a year from now we will be an incorporated city and we'll have an actual city charter and city councilman and a mayor and all that good stuff. Well, that's essentially what the 1871 Incorporation act was. Now that's, there's been a couple of kind of bouncing back and forth over the, you know, 250 years of being a country with regard to the authority in Washington D.C. but what initially happened was Maryland and Virginia ceded that land to bdc and that was, was supposed to stop at that point. and anything that would happen after that really would be extra constitutional. In other words, it would be beyond what the Constitution allowed for. The Constitution allow for you to give it back. It's supposed to be ceded, accepted by Congress, end of authority. There's nothing in what I just read you that gives, gives the federal government the authority to give it back to those states. But back In, I think 1840s, I forget the exact dates. That's essentially what they did. However, what was done back then was never actually approved in the way that it was supposed to be approved. What was supposed to happen was in order to give Arlington and that whole area of Virginia back to the state of Virginia, what Congress said was both the county and the city had to approve that. And that didn't happen. Only one, I can't remember which one. I think the city approved it, but the county didn't. And so there was a bunch of you know, monkeying around with the election results in order to you know, kind of make it happen, even though it didn't actually happen. So it's actually, it actually does withstand potential challenge. And then the last thing that happened was, and I can't even remember who was president at the time, but there was a presidential order basically saying this has been done when it hadn't. And so what the theory out there is that people are floating and this was being floated long before this election in Virginia to do redistricting. The theory out there is, is what they're calling DC retrocession, meaning like go back to the original secession of that, those lands to Washington D.C. and not have the not recognize the essentially gifting back to Virginia of Alexandria. Why, what would happen when. Well you'd basically take all of those left wing votes because remember this is a very liberal part of Virginia and it's because it's all the lobbyists, it's all the politicians, it's all the you know, essentially people that live off of government so they're naturally liberal. And if you put them back into dc, DC is already ultra liberal and DC doesn't get actual US Senators or congressmen. And so you basically be putting all those left wing votes back where they belong in DC to no real effect of changing DC's representation in Congress, but major effect on the state of Virginia because here's what they did. Okay, let me back up a little bit. Virginia did a mid decade redistricting. Perfectly legal. Okay? It constitutionally, it is fine for states to redistrict in the middle of a decade. There's nothing constitutionally that prohibits that. So when you do your apportionment, that's what, and your redistricting, what you're doing is you're dividing up the states to determine where the lines will be for each congressional district. And so if you, if you draw those lines to pack a ton of Democrats into one district so that you can spread the Republicans out over other districts, you'll get more Republican representation in Congress from that state. If you pack a bunch of Republicans into one district or two or three and spread out the Democrat vote, then you get more Democrat representation in Congress from that particular State. Now, this only works, obviously in a state that has more than one congressman. So if you go to some of these smaller states that have one congressman representing them or. Well, redistricting there is a non issue. It doesn't matter because you got one congressman from, I think it's Wyoming and some of these other states that have one congressman. So it doesn't matter that you don't. You're not redrawing the lines because the state boundaries are the line. But as soon as you get two districts. Now where you draw the line for those two districts could affect whether or not you have a Republican or a Democrat going to Washington D.C. to represent that district. And in big states like Texas, where you have the 38 congressmen, then how you draw those lines has a significant impact on who goes to Congress and what the makeup of Congress will be, from that state. So there were several states threatening to do this. I'll tell you the truth of the matter is every state does it and that that has more than one congressman and every political party does it. So this is a Republican and a Democrat thing. They always skew the districts to favor their party. You're not going to get away from that. I don't care if you have a bipartisan commission.

Rick: Whoever does redistricting is going to have a bias

I don't care if you have a nonpartisan. There's no such thing but a nonpartisan commission. I don't care if you have the Supreme Court do it or you have the legislature do it. Whoever does it is going to have a bias and they're going to. Nobody has square districts that are perfectly aligned with the population. That just doesn't happen. All this goes back to Elbridge Gerry, signer of the Declaration, one of the framers of the Constitution. He would call it gerrymandering because when he was governor of Massachusetts, they had a district that looked like a salamander. And so they. And he signed off on it. And when I say salamander, you go back and look at the map. I can't show it to you here obviously on radio, but you know, it had little fingers, little, little digits going out into these neighborhoods to create a district that would give a particular favor to Elbridge Jerry's party, which I think was anti Mason party or Whig Party. I don't remember what it was. anyway, and so they nicknamed it gerrymandering. Elbert's Gerry looked like a salamander. This district that he approved, gerrymandering, that's where it comes from. So my point is we've been doing it since the country began. Okay, but usually it's done. Yeah, you know, sort of a nudge here and a nudge there. And it's not like this blatant total wipeout of another party. For instance, in Texas. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but we got 38 districts. Trump got, you know, roughly 60% of Texas, and it's roughly 60% of the districts. And Texas, Texas is pretty solid 60% Republican. If you look at the races, like judicial races where nobody knows who they're voting for and they pretty much vote straight party in the November elections. It's, it's 60, 40m, maybe like 58, you know, 42, but 59, 41 or 61, 39. It's right around 60 40s. Texas is essentially a 60, 40 Republican state. Well, the Democrats, as long as they held the legislature, skewed the districts to go the other direction. So we would have a 60, 40 representation in Congress because the districts were drawn in such a gerrymandered way that it was actually the opposite of what the state actually was. So the state wasn't being represented accurately for what the state actually was. Well, when Republicans got control of the legislature, they flipped that. And once the Republicans could draw the lines, they drew the lines to be much more, representative. And so now you got roughly a 60, 40 Republican representation for Congress of the congressional districts from Texas, which is what the state actually is. And what they did was this last year they did redistricting mid decade to skew that a little bit more. I think it might be 62%. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it's fairly close to what the state actually is. You still have 13 or 14 Republican, I'm sorry, 13 or 14 Democrat districts. We didn't wipe them out. What Virginia did is wipe out the Republicans. So the Democrats have done a district by the way, illegally. They actually broke the rules of their own state in how they have to do redistricting in order to do this. And, and they went to 10 to 1 democrats even though the state is almost 50, 50 republican and democrat. More on this when we return. Phone numbers. 888-589-8840. If you got some thoughts on this. 888-589-8800. We'll also of course talk about the straits, what's going on there. The mines, the, the, the just the, the, you know, I think good things that are being done over in the Middle east, continues to be a major problem. Stay with US Folks. You're listening to At the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green. This is at the Core on American Family Radio with your host, Rick Green. Welcome back to At the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green, I'm Rick Green, America's Constitution coach. Man, hope I can get to all of it today. I really want to dive a little deeper though into this Virginia redistricting thing because it's very, very, very, very important. but man, we got to get the whole, you know, indictment of SPLC, the haters, the, What's the best way to say this? The best at hating, I guess. I don't know. I mean, these guys sowed so much discord in our country over the last few decades. Definitely listed us, wall builders. I mean, all the organizations that, you know, you listen to here at AFR and that you support called, all of us the haters. They were the act, actually the ones sowing the hate and the, and the, you know, disunion in our country.

The yes vote has won Virginia's redistricting referendum, but legal fight is just beginning

Okay, but let's, let's finish off, the redistricting thing first. So what Virginia did is they decided, well, if Texas is going to end up with a net three or four, maybe even five Republican seats after they're redistricting, then we're gonna, we're gonna, you know, undo that by trying to get another net five Democrats out of Virginia. Now think about Virginia's map. Probably the most fair map in the country for a 50, 50 state, literally a 6, 5 delegation. So they have 11 districts, six Democrats, five, five Republicans. Even though the state goes back and forth, literally like flips every four years, one, one, you know, it's Republican, then it's Democrats, Republican. There's Democrat almost always at a 52, 48 one way or the other. Right. Roughly around that. But what they did is they, they turned it into a 10 to 1. So Democrats would completely, you leave one day, you put all the Republicans basically in one district. And the way they did it was they took all those liberals in northern Virginia, right outside of D.C. in that Alexandria area, and they essentially, you know, spread them out all over the state. So you're gonna have congressmen all from the northern part of Virginia representing the rest of the state. It's a terrible map. It's a terrible. It's so non. You can say Democrat if you want because even though we're not a democracy, it's so non Republican. It's so non representative government. It's the opposite of a republic and it completely unfair, literally disenfranchises. Half the state. Okay, but that's not the worst part. The worst part is they broke the law to do it. And a judge there in Virginia, I don't know who this guy, I, don't know anything about the judge. Republican, Democrat. I don't know any of that. But this judge has said, I warned you. I told you you were breaking the law in the way you were doing this referendum and this redistricting. So I think Ken Cuccinelli summarizes it better than anybody. He's the former Attorney General there in Virginia. Great guy. Works with, Russ Vogt and Wade Miller and those guys, over at the center for Renewing America. They do fantastic work. I follow a lot of their stuff and, share a lot of the things that they've been putting out for the last five years. Anyway, here's what Ken said. I'll just read you his tweet. The yes vote has won Virginia's redistricting referendum, but the legal fight is just beginning for Virginia. Constitutional challenges are now teed up. In other words, he thinks there's four different ways they can kill this, this crazy plan that Virginia did. If they. Honestly, I think if Virginia, if these leftist in Virginia had done a reasonable rewriting or redrawing of the lines, you know, maybe, maybe instead of 6, 5, they go to, you know, 7, 4, maybe even if they'd gone 8, 3, which would still be very, you know, unfair. I hate saying unfair because, you know, life's not fair, you know, get over it. But, very, you know, not judicial. I don't know the right word. Anyway, if they had done something a little closer to, to a fair spread, you probably wouldn't have what's about to happen, which I think the whole thing is going to get thrown out. I'm praying. Okay, here's the four reasons why Cuccinelli thinks it will get thrown out. And please call in if you got thoughts on this. 888-589-8840. I don't want to be the only one giving an opinion today. Here's what he says. First, passage was invalid. Okay? This whole thing that they did in the legislature to do this. So he says the amendment was taken up during a special session convened in 2024 for budget purposes. So let me, let me be clear here. For those of you that have maybe not, you know, followed the legislative or amendment process closely in most states to do a constitutional amendment for your state constitution, remember, this is a. That's what this is. This is an amendment to the state constitution in Virginia to be able to do redistricting different than what their state statutes say should be done. Okay. And so you have to amend the Virginia Constitution to do that. Well, in most states, if you're going to amend your state constitution, usually it has to go through the legislature first and then the people vote on it to actually put it in the state constitution. Now, in some states, you have a, referendum first, so you get it on the ballot first to do a constitutional amendment and then it's only up to the people. Or maybe you have a petition, ah, drive to, to get it on the ballot and then it's a constitutional amendment. California does it, in that way. Well, Virginia's a lot more like Texas where it's got to go through the legislature first and then it goes to the ballot and the people vote on it to get into the constitution. But there's very strict rules on how that's done. For instance, in Texas, you have to get 2/3 of the legislature to vote for it first, and then it goes on the ballot for the people to vote on. And you only need 51% at that point. Okay. In Virginia, here's how it works. In Virginia, you have to actually have the amendment passed by the legislature first in a legislative session where you're allowed to do that. This was not a legislative session where a constitutional amendment could be taken up. It was only a budget legislative session in 2024. It was a special session for that purpose. So here's what Cuccinelli says. The General Assembly's own call to the Governor under Article 4, Section 6 and Article 5, Section 5 and its governing resolution, HJR 6001, Ltd. The session scope. So. So by law, the session was only supposed to cover certain things. Expanding it to include a constitutional amendment on redistricting would have required a 2/3 vote. That never occurred. So there's a county judge in Tazewell that found this action void ab initio. So in other words, it's void on his face. It does not. This, this whole constitutional amendment to be able to do redistricting in this way is void. So that already is going to be, you know, I guess because even though the judge told them this is void, they did it anyway. It's going to have to go up to the Supreme Court of Virginia and maybe to the Supreme Court of the United States. I don't know if they've got a way to get it there, but for sure to the Supreme Court of Virginia. Okay. Second reason this Thing should and very likely will be thrown out. Article seven, section one requires that after first passage. So even if they'd done it in a legislative session, that was allowed that after its first passage, a proposed amendment must be, quote, referred to the General assembly at its first regular session held after the next general election of members of the House of Delegates. An election must intervene between first and second passage. Okay, in other words, let's say the legislature proposes an amendment to. To go into their state constitution. That amendment could change how elections take place.

Virginia's proposed constitutional amendment could change the pay of legislators

That amendment could change the pay of legislators. It could be anything that favors the legislators. So the wise people that put the Virginia constitutional place said, if you're going to amend the Virginia constitution, you got to propose it in one legislative session, and then those m turkeys got to go home and get reelected. So in other words, it's just like the 27th Amendment to the US Constitution. That was actually originally the second amendment in the Bill of Rights proposed by Congress way back in 17. Was that 89 or 91? I'm blanking. I think 89. But it wasn't ratified by enough states until 200 years later. And so it became the 27th amendment. And it basically says if Congress gives itself a pay raise, they don't get the money until they go home for reelection and get reelected. So a pay raise given by Congress to itself doesn't go into effect until after the next election. Okay. That's kind of how this constitutional amendment thing works in Virginia. They propose an amendment in the legislature of Virginia, they go home, get reelected, and then they come back and have another legislative session where they have to propose it again. In other words, they have to say, again, yes, we want to have this constitutional amendment. All right? So an election must intervene between first and second passage. I know that sounds weird. You may be thinking, well, why has it got to pass twice in the legislature? Because it's so important in. You're amending the Constitution of Virginia, you're amending their state constitution. M. Remember, we're a constitutional republic. The constitution, both of the U.S. and of our states, that's what rules our nation. That's what rules the state of Virginia. So it's vitally important that if you're going to amend the Constitution of Virginia, you gotta. You gotta have two passages in the legislature. That's the way it's designed on purpose, for reason, to. To protect the, constitution and then ultimately protect the people of Virginia. That did not happen here. So it's a completely unconstitutional, meaning the Virginia Constitution. Unconstitutional adoption of this amendment to allow for this crazy, incredibly partisan redistricting. Okay? So that's two reasons why it will likely get overturned. The third reason, according to Cuccinelli, Article 7, Section 1 requires the amendment to be submitted to voters, quote, not sooner than 90 days after final passage by the General Assembly. So in other words, you got to wait at least 90 days. We do the same thing in Texas. You propose this thing in a legislative session. Typically even a regular bill doesn't go into effect for, it's longer than 90 days. It's till September anyway. This is common across the country and across constitutional republics. It's almost like a cooling off period, if you will. Gives you a chance and a marketing time, gives you a chance to campaign for whether or not this thing ought to be adopted. So according to Cuccinelli, the requirement is that you got to wait at least 90 days to put it on the ballot for the people to vote on. And the timeline from second passage to the April 21 vote did not satisfy this requirement. So that's just like on its face, a completely, unconstitutional, meaning state constitution violation on its face, ignoring the rule of law. These people do not care about the rule of law. They don't care what the rules are that even Democrats helped put in place for how you would do a constitutional amendment in their state. They don't care. They are mob rule, which is a great reason for the people of Virginia to throw them out of office. In fact, I think it's impeachable. I think you should be impeaching the members of the legislature that did this. You should be impeaching the governor there for completely ignoring the rule of law on its face after being told by a judge not to do it and still did it. Anyway, anyway, Cuccinelli throws in one more just for fun. Article two, section six requires that, quote, every electoral district shall be composed of contiguous, contiguous, contiguous and compact territory. The proposed constitutional maps violate this, requirement actually very badly. So even that piece, the Supreme Court likely will throw the map out. So listen, this is a great summary by, former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. I pray, these challenges are already in place. There's already, I think one judge has already said, gotta throw it out. but we'll see how high up it goes and how fast it happens. Because think about it guys. It's, it's April, it's the end of April, the election's in November, it's got to be done now. You got primaries, you got to figure out who your nominees are going to be for each of those 11 districts for the Republicans and the Democrats, and then have an actual campaign. so, Virginia, shame on you. For the Governor of Virginia, shame on you. Literally, as Ted Cruz said, this was shameless. They have no shame. The Bible talks about that. They are so evil. They don't care about right and wrong. They don't care about the rule of law. They are willing to do anything to win. I mean, this is, this is so over the top. And here's the, here's the cherry on top. Here's the hilarious part. To me, the current Attorney General of Virginia, this guy that basically threatened to kill all of us that don't agree with him, he, he laughably said, because a judge has already said this thing was illegal and unconstitutional and on its face should be thrown out, he. In my opinion, it's laughable. He said, oh, the people have spoken. And these rogue judges are now, through judicial activism, overturning what the people said. If you're listening, surely you get why that's hilarious. How many judges over the last two years have been overruling President Trump and what the people voted to have done by President Trump in the election. And all these rogue judges through judicial activism. Where was he when all that was happening? Huh? Okay. Very important to pay attention to this one. It's huge. Why is it huge? Well, number one, because if we don't respect the rule of law, what's the point? Even having a republic or having a constitution or having a Congress, and, and, and if you don't push back on this and you allow it to happen, every blue state in the country is going to do it. secondly, it changes. It could be the game changer for who wins the midterms. Now, maybe the midterms are going to be a blowout one way or the other. I think right now there's a real risk that it's a blowout for the Democrats and against the Republicans.

Indiana refused to even redraw a fair map

And if President Trump would bring Elon Musk back and do all the Doge cuts, I think it would be a blowout the other way. unfortunately, they haven't done that. Ah, there's not even talk of them doing that. And I think that's, that's a shame. but anyway, it's going to have a huge impact on the elections, the, November elections. What's the margin in Congress right now? Three votes, maybe four votes. And you, got a lot of people retiring. You got a lot of open seats. I mean, anything could happen. I think I, think this shows you how bad the Democrats want to win and how wimpy the Republicans are that they let this happen in the first place. That Indiana refused to even redraw a fair map, do a fair. Indiana wouldn't even do a nudge of redistricting like most, excuse me, most red states have done. Shame on them. Shame on the wimps in Indiana for not being willing to do even a more fair map for representation of Republicans. They weren't going to do. Indiana wasn't going to do this, you know, abomination that Virginia has done. They were going to do just a nudge. And now, you know, you've let the people, the Democrats do what they're doing in Virginia. So hopefully that challenge will, it will be overcome.

Rick Green: Southern Poverty Law Center was a massive fraud perpetrated upon American people

listen, when we come back from the break, we got a couple things we got to hit. We got to talk about, the Southern Poverty Law Center. I mentioned it briefly at the top of the segment if you missed that, but we'll dive a little further into that. This is serious stuff. I mean, this was a massive fraud perpetrated upon the American people. There were actual consequences from this fraud that were huge. I mean, how many times did we, did they say that Trump was a racist, that he was praising racist and all of this and the whole thing was a setup from the Southern Poverty Law center, which is basically the, one of the most racist, hateful groups in America. I mean, these are the people that caused, all kinds of terrorist acts in America. they're just, they're terrible. And they've been indicted on 11 counts. It's amazing. We're starting to see some of the justice that we've been calling for. We've said over and over and over again, if you don't go, go after the people that break the law just like this, this Virginia thing, then you get more of it. And unfortunately, SPLC has been allowed to perpetrate this hate millions. And I think they, I think they had over $100 million after some of the things that they did. They, that they, that they were able to foster hate and stir the, stuff up. They couldn't find any actual racist on the right, so they had to go gin some up. They had to go fund some fake racism in order to, to create this nonsense. All right, quick break. Phone number is 8885-8988-4088-8589-8840. I'm Rick Greene. You're listening to APP4.

>> Bobby Roza: Right now. The voices in our culture are loud, but truth is often silent. And today, preborn needs you to help, speak that truth. Women facing unplanned pregnancies are often pressured to act quickly before they have time to pause, breathe, or hear the truth about life, dignity and hope. But I refuse to be silent, and I'm asking you to join me. At PreBorn Network clinics, a woman is welcomed with compassion and given a free ultrasound. She sees the life growing inside her, often for the very first time. And in that sacred moment, fear gives way to clarity. And she's offered something the abortion industry will never provide. The hope of Jesus Christ. This April, our goal is to have 11,000 gospel conversations in PreBorn Network clinics, trusting God to bring the increase as we remain faithful to speak. You can help make that possible by sponsoring ultrasounds. Just $28 provides one ultrasound. $140 sponsors five ultrasounds for mothers in crisis. Every dollar helps save babies and share the hope of the gospel. To donate, dial pound sign 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound sign 250-B A B Y. Or visit preborn.com that's preborn.com afr this is at the Core on American Family Radio with your host, Rick Greene. We're back here on at the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green.

Rick Green: Ken Cuccinelli predicts referendum will get tossed in May

I'm Rick Green, America's Constitution coach. I, want to give out Ken Cuccinelli's, Twitter handle, X handle, whatever you call it now. you should go give him a follow because he's, he's given a kind of a play by play, blow by blow. Said these cases definitely will be in the Supreme Court of Virginia, not the Supreme Court of the United States. So I'm guessing there's no, no angle to get it up to the U.S. supreme Court. I don't know the makeup of the Virginia Supreme Court. If anybody knows that wants to call in, that'd be great. I don't know if they're appointed or elected. I don't know if they're, you know, I'm assuming they're probably Democrat leaning. Well, but, but this one is so clear that I think it's going to be tough for any judge to not, side with Cuccinelli and, these challenges that he's bringing, and he predicted, let's see, he predicts the referendum will get tossed in May. So maybe even as soon as May, sooner the better for, the candidates and for the people to be able to have some real campaigns over the over the next few months. But anyway, Cuccinelli's X handle is Ken Cuccinelli. That's it. Ken Cuccinelli. And it's weird spelling. C U C C I N E L L I. So K E N C U C C I N E L L I. anyway, great. Got a follow and great. Gonna wanna watch this closely over the next few weeks. Could literally tip the balance of power in Washington dc.

If President Trump sees this blockade through, it could benefit the world economy

okay, let's go over real quick to the, shoot to kill order from President Trump with regard to these potentially more mines being laid. and I read at one point that Iran doesn't even know where they put mines. I mean, are you kidding? Crazy. But the, U.S. has ordered for, I mean the President has ordered for the, US Mine sweeping ships to continue clearing any mines. Folks, we could literally be on the road to a massive economic boom if President Trump sees this thing through. And let's say we just take over the straits. Let's just say we don't just do this blockade right now that's, that's costing Iran $500 million a day, eventually going to bring them to their knees. let's say it's more than that. Let's say, we say, you know what turns out that this is actually a better way to help the world economy is for America to police these straits and keep Iran or any other crazies from going back to Barbary power, you know, pirates days. and so we're just going to keep the oil flowing through here, man. We're going to keep this safe for the world. Now granted, I think Trump was right. Europe's the one that should be footing the bill for this and Europe is the one, those countries are the ones that benefit most from this. But, you know, it actually, it could benefit the whole world. and President Trump could be both by removing the biggest sponsor of terror and by opening the straits to not have to, you know, deal with Iran at all. Man, think of what that would do for the world economy. And I'm kind of shocked that oil hasn't gone higher. I mean, we're basically at Biden levels right now. So during the, you know, Otto Penn administration, gas, was this high and diesel this high. And here we are in the middle of a war in the Middle east and the straits shut down for how many weeks? And all of the things that have happened and we still haven't gone beyond what Biden just created with inflation. it's remarkable, actually. And of course the markets hate uncertainty. And so the fact that it dropped like it did, what, 10 days ago, eight days ago, and then only came back up, you know, roughly. What was it, 90 and 100, for West Texas. And Brent, you know, I would have expected it to get even far worse than that. I think what that says is that the market and the millions and millions of decisions being made in the market is starting to trust. President Trump is starting to trust what he's doing and, you know, that there's actually certainty in the middle of a war. I mean, that's wild. But it seems to be happening.

Rick Perry: Southern Poverty Law center is evil on steroids

all right, let's go to the phones and I got to come back to Southern Poverty Law center as well. Let's get Phil in Texas first. Phil, thanks for calling in, man. Go ahead.

>> Phil: Yes. I just want to tell you, I'm so happy to hear you talking about what the horrible stuff that, that Southern Poverty Law center has been doing. I'm so glad somebody's finally going after them. But I'm going to tell you something I told you several months ago last time I called. you can you. You use the word nonsense a lot, and some things are nonsense, but I'm sorry, Rick, this is pure evil on steroids, what they're doing. Evil. You need to call it what it is.

>> Rick Green: Yeah, yeah, no, I agree. completely evil. I mean, look, when you, when you defame, when you pour poison, literally pouring gas on the fire of racism and division, making people hate America, causing in many cases assassination attempts. you know, all the, all the hate that they created for Family Research Council, and then that crazy guy goes in trying to kill people. all the hate they created for wall builders and David Barton and myself and others. I mean, the death threats that come from that stuff, the things they did to Matt Staver and Liberty Council. I mean, virtually every conservative organization in the country has been targeted by these racists. They are the true racist. And then to find out that they're funding so many of these evil rallies and movements that, that, you know, just to make people think that Americans are still racist. That's what they're doing. it is absolutely evil. And, you know, the false flags of these supposed right wing organizations, it's all a scam. It was all done to try to skew elections. It was all done to stir up hatred. And I was trying to find the numbers they went from. Seems like, oh, here it is. Got it. Okay, so their revenue, this from Andrew Colvitt over at, our friends over at Turning Point. Their revenue before that whole Charlottesville, you know, fraud that they created, their revenue was 51 million. Their revenue after that, a year later, 133 million. So they benefited an $83 million increase as a result of creating this scam, this whole Unite the Right thing. They paid this rally leader $270,000. Their grift is unreal. It's unreal. Okay. Yeah. And, you know, to Phil's point, I won't say unreal and insane. And what was the other. What was the word I used to. Anyway? nonsense. That was it. Yeah. We'll, stop using those words and say this evil. And the level of this evil, it actually is culture changing. It actually moves the needle in the wrong direction, obviously. It is so bad, it is so big, it is so over the top. Think of all the kids that get influenced by this stuff. They're watching these videos, they're buying into this. They think that there's truly these hateful people on the right. Absolutely has to stop. And the fact that we have an FBI, the fact that we have, an administration that's willing to go after this, you know, this used to be the third rail, man. You didn't pick on these people. You didn't, you didn't even call them out whenever they did this stuff, because then you became a target of theirs or you look like the racist. Those days are over, man. Those days are over. And we have, we have a potentially a two year period coming up, two and a half year roughly, of actually getting indictments, actually getting convictions, actually putting people in jail for this evil. And that's what you have to do, otherwise you get more of it. Folks, we have rewarded the left for cheating in elections, so they just cheat more. We have rewarded the left for committing fraud, so they just commit more fraud. We've rewarded the left for defaming, canceling the destroying people's lives, so they just do more and more of it. The only way to stop that is you have to go after it, you have to prosecute it. And that's what Cash Patel is doing. that's what the DOJ is doing. And it couldn't happen to a group of nicer people. I'm telling you, they are evil, evil folks.

Amy from Iowa calls in with question about rising gas prices

All right, let's go back to the phones. Amy's calling in from Iowa. Amy from Iowa. Go for it. You're up next.

>> Amy: Hi there.

>> Rick Green: Thanks for taking my call. My question is, all this talk of our gas prices going up, and I keep hearing that Trump is trying to get other countries to buy fuel from us. So if we have so much fuel that we're in a position to sell to other countries, why are our gas prices going up? Good m. Question. Good question. Amy, thank you for calling in. I think that, I think that. And I'm not an economist. I like to think I know a little bit about it just from reading and being a student of Milton Friedman and others and Thomas Sowell. but the simple answer is this. And I did hear this from a real expert in the field who happened to be here visiting the Patriot Academy campus. one morning when we had all the scholars together and one of them asked him that exact question. and he explained it this way. And part of it is just global economy. think about it this way. Even if we tried, let's say we built a border and said we're not going to let any of our oil leave the United States, we're going to consume all of it, and therefore try to keep our prices down, the world economy is still real, and the price of oil is still going to be affected, maybe not quite as much, with natural gas, because it's harder to create, friction in the market and prevent that sale to the rest of the world. It's harder to have those sales to the rest of the world. You can't, you really have a hard time getting, natural gas to other parts of the world. We're starting to, we're figuring out ways to do that. But oil is like any other commodity. And so it's, it's, it's going to be affected by whatever's going on in the world because everybody in the world uses it. So our price, even here in the United States, is still going to be affected. So let's say you take out the straits and you don't allow oil to get to these other places in the world. Well, then when that price of oil goes up to 100 bucks a barrel or 105 bucks a barrel, somebody's going to pay that somewhere in the world. And so, just from a free market economy perspective, oil companies here in the United States, why would they sell to someone in the United States for 70 bucks a barrel if they can sell it to somebody else in the world for 100 bucks? 100 and 510 bucks a barrel, they're going to. Just like you would, Just like I would. If I've got a hamburger that I can sell to somebody else down the street for, you know, 10 bucks, why am I going to sell it to you? For five. And so that's just pure market economy in the world, which is a good thing, not a bad thing. It's actually good for our economy overall. If that oil company based in the United States can sell it for $105 somewhere else, that's going to create more jobs here. It's going to, you know, all those things. And so eventually it drives up the price here as well because they start selling so much of it, to, to other places that then the price here we have to say, well, if you're going to sell all of the oil or more of the oil to other places around the world for 105, we're going to have to pay 105, or maybe we only have to pay 100 or 95 because now you don't have to transport it around the world, if that makes sense. So eventually all of those costs end up getting factored in and so the price goes up for us just like it does. Maybe not as much, but it still goes up for us. ah, as much as it does around the world. But natural gas, it's interesting you haven't seen the same spike in that because the market, it's so much harder for those world economies that need it. But, but, but it's so much harder to transport it that it gives some insulation to buyers here in the United States because the difference between you produce it here for the same, but the difference between providing it here and providing it to the world is much bigger than it is with oil that's much easier to get on a tanker and send around. Around the world.

I'm always against government trying to subsidize products

it's, it's actually one of those topics too. I've always been curious about why I live in Texas. And so I drive by oil wells all the time where they're burning off the natural gas and it's not even worth, you know, putting it into a pipe or building the pipeline to get it to somewhere where you can use it or putting it on a, you know, in a, in a, you know, big butane type tank. that is changing though. I think that the price is going up enough to where people are trying to figure out how to capture that instead of burning it off on all these oil wells all across Texas and other places. So great question. Very, very good question. Simple answer is buyers can come from anywhere in the world and if they're willing to pay a high enough price, they'll siphon off the supply that we have here in the United States. And the more of that supply that gets siphoned off to these other places around the world, the higher the price goes because, you know, obviously if the supply gets smaller for us, the demand keeps going up here in the United States, the price is going to go up. So it's all going to go back to supply and demand always. And, even if the market, even if governments try to manipulate that, even if they try to prevent having a free market and they try to supplement the purchasing of. This is why I'm always against government being involved in the pricing. I'm always against government trying to subsidize products because it creates what Milton Friedman called friction in the market. It's a false positive. It's a false price on that, on that product. And that's the whole thing about electric cars and all of the environmental movement. It's a skewed deal, man. These windmills don't work well. They don't produce good energy. But yet we subsidize it. And so you get a bunch of it, even though the market would have never demanded it. And, and so it's a bad, bad deal. Anytime you have government spending money and subsidizing those things, you should let the market decide if the demand is there, if it's a good product, if it, if it actually does provide well, the market will pay for it. And, and, and it will. You'll be rewarded for it. And, unfortunately, you've got so much friction in the market right now, you don't even know what actually would be, What's the word I'm looking for? Not provided for, would actually be supported by the market. Okay, looks like in our final minute here. Thank you, producer extraordinaire. Bobby.

Virginia Supreme Court has seven justices. They serve 12 year terms

Virginia Supreme Court has seven justices. They serve 12 year terms. Wow. That's long term. so don't have the, the party breakdown, but we'll talk more about that maybe, next week. But be watching that one, folks. Follow Ken Cucinelli. He'll, he'll be, I'm sure, commenting on that and may have already done that and I missed it, but, I'm sure he'll be commenting on the political breakdown of that court as well. of course, if it. He's involved in these cases, he's not going to say anything bad about them because he's going to end up being in front of them in probably just a couple of weeks. But be praying for victory there because it could impact the whole country. Hey, Walker, we'll have you tomorrow. Have a fantastic weekend after that and I'll see you next week. Thanks so much for listening to at the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Greene. The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family association or American Family Radio.