Transcript

Preborn needs your help to fund one ultrasound for every pregnant woman

>> 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: 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.

>> Rick Green: We equip sacred honor is the courage to speak truth, to live out your free speech.

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

>> Jeff Chamblee: This is at the The Core on American Family Radio.

Rick Green: This is a death knell to Western civilization and the American dream

>> Rick Green: Welcome to at the The Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green. I'm Rick Green, America's Constitution coach. Thanks for joining me. On this day when one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history has been released, this, this will definitely go down as, as one of the top five, maybe top three worst decisions ever. You will remember, Trump versus Barbara. This is, this is bad, folks. Very, very bad. In fact, a death knell to Western civilization and the American dream if it's allowed to stand. And what I mean by that is that, you know, we've had bad decisions in the past that had to be overcome. Dred Scott certainly ranks in the top five worst. And it was overturned with a constitutional amendment. Absolutely necessary. That's what I hope this leads to. you know, very clearly bad, decisions like, you know, the whole Chisholm v. Georgia decision overturned with a constitutional amendment, the 11th amendment. I, you know, look, let's just set it up for those of you that might have been asleep and not seen this coming or even heard so far today that this is, that this is happening, happened. This is basically the debate over whether or not enemies of our country or people that just, you know, want to break the law and are willing to come here and, sneak across the border and have a baby. And, they want that baby to enjoy the benefits of being an American. So you do have some people that they just want what's best for their children. And I'm sure that's what, this decision, by the way, was handed down by all the women of the court and, and the man that acts like a woman. so, yeah, Jon Roberts joined all the women on the court for this decision. This Is the toxic empathy that Allie Beth Stuckey talks about probably a good reason not to have women on the high court. Oh, I'm gonna be in trouble for that one. Or men that act like women. all right, look, here's what, here's what this thing does. So President Trump was trying to stop this business of people, being able to sneak into our country to come in illegally, and have a baby, and then that baby gets to be an American citizen. Also trying to stop this birthright tourism, this business where these Chinese nationals are setting up shop in America and some of them having surrogate mothers give, them dozens and dozens of babies that have them born here in America. Then they go back to China. They're raised in China to be Chinese communist. Yeah, ChiComs. And then as American citizens under this ridiculous ruling, they can come back to the US at any time and vote in our elections, govern in our country. Literally the enemy of our nation can populate American citizens, go raise them in Cuba, China, Russia, wherever, and then send them back over here 18 years later to, subvert our Constitution and our country and our elections. it is literally empowering our enemies. It is also, and this is Sam Alito and others warned about this. So some of the justices have some scathing dissents on this. But it is also just, even if you rule that, even if you forget that part, just the idea that you're going to allow people to dilute the American population with people that are not in any way connected to our country, in any way connected to our value system. I mean, the whole idea of citizenship is that it has to mean something. If you're a citizen of a country, it's supposed to mean something. It requires some level of loyalty to that country. That's the whole phrase in the 14th Amendment. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof doesn't just mean laws can be forced upon you. It means that you want to be subject to that jurisdiction you're choosing this nation to be subject to and not other nations. And so you don't allow people who are subject to other nations jurisdiction to just, you know, run over here, pop a squat, have a kid run back to their country, and now that kid is suddenly an American citizen. It's an absurd idea. It makes about as much sense as saying that if a bunch of criminals break into your home and have the baby in your living room, you now have to allow that child to, to live in your home from now on. Not only that, you had to provide for them, and yet they're not really your child. They belong to whoever, the criminals that broke into your home. And those criminals, you might even be required to let the baby, get old enough and then have to give it back to those illegal criminals that broke into your home. They go raise it to be an absolute thug. And then at 18, you're forced to let them back in your home to take over your home. That's exactly what is happening here. And the fact that you have, you know, of course the three left wing nut jobs on the court were going to go this way, but of course, and I say of course. I mean, I, I never thought Amy Coney Barrett was the right choice for the U.S. supreme Court. I've said that over and over and over again in multiple decisions. She showed her hand during COVID when she was on the seventh Circuit, with some decisions that were just illogical. They were emotional decisions with toxic empathy and safety ism written all over them. And so it was, it was, there were horrible signs before. She's already sold out the country multiple times and given terrible decisions, once in a while. She's on the right side. We get some good decisions too. Okay, we've had some good decisions and she has been on the right side of some good decisions. But it's not good enough when you're going to sell us out on these. The biggest decisions. This one is huge. This is the definition of what it means to be an American. This is the definition of whether or not America will continue to be America and a melting pot where when people come here, they come here legally, they want to be Americans. They assimilate into our, communities and our nation. They become Americans, become the best of America. I mean, my very good friend Krish Dunham, who came here with nine bucks in his pocket from India, legally came to this nation, he and Anila both, and became some of the best of the best of American citizens, some of the best advocates for what it means to be an American. That's why he runs our Patriot Institute. He's the dean of our Patriot Institute. He spends his time teaching these young people how to be good citizens. Good American biblical citizens. That's what you want. You want more of that. That's the kind of immigration that these yahoos think that they're supporting. But they have so little logic and they have so little understanding of the unintended consequences of their toxic empathy that they think allowing for an MS.13 gang member to have a kid here or a radical Islamist or a chicom, that wants to undermine America. They think that allowing them to have children here is the same as Christian and Hila being able to come to our country. It defies all logic. And it. It. I mean, it. It will be the death knell of the American dream. And America, in fact. Let me just read you a few of the lines, from Clarence Thomas, obviously, always has the best decision, in this case, a dissenting, opinion. But he. He is. I mean, he. He let him have it, and so did, Sam Alito. I think the, you know, unfortunate thing here is that they couldn't win over Barrett or Roberts with logic. And so we end up with this horrible decision. If you go back and Thomas does this in his descending opinion. Look, it's 200 pages. I haven't been able to get through the whole thing yet. It's 200 pages, counting the majority opinion and the, dissenting opinions. But he points out that he goes through the history lesson and tells you what this all actually boils down to. I'm sorry, I'm kind of getting off on some.

The Supreme Court is considering whether illegal aliens and foreign diplomats are citizens

Some rabbit trail. So let me. Let me come back to the basic issue. So for those of you that are just learning about this, this is a debate over whether or not, ah, an illegal alien or, frankly, a foreign diplomat. What if you're a foreign diplomat? Now, they do have an exclusion of that because the language in the 14th is pretty specific and the original Constitution. So, but. But let's just say you're here visiting. Maybe you're not an official foreign diplomat. You're just here visiting. You're here for the soccer matches. Okay? Maybe you've been watching this sport they. They call football in Europe. We call it soccer here, and it's basically a sport where, you know, you know, men run around and on the field kicking a ball, and they fake, you know, being hurt and fall down all the time and overreact. It's real dramatic. And rarely does anybody actually score a goal. It's. I don't know why people like watching it, but they do. Okay, so maybe you're here for this, this. This, you know, the World Cup. And. And while you're here, you have a baby, but you are. You're from Brazil or you're from wherever, and your allegiance is there. You're a citizen of that country. You're just here to watch some wannabe, sports. And while you're here, you have the baby, and then you go home with the baby, but that baby is now an American citizen. Just because you happen to be in the US Watching a wannabe sport when Your baby was born, and now that baby gets to come back when they're grown up and vote in our elections. Does anybody think that makes sense? Yes, unfortunately, all of the women on the court and Roberts, who acts like a woman sometimes with some of these decisions and his emotional thinking. so, yeah, so, yeah, you have people that actually think that's the definition of a citizen, that as long as you are born on this soil, you become an American citizen. And you know where they're getting this? They literally say it in the decision. This Amy Coney Barrett actually says they're following feudal principles, medieval feudal principles. That's what they're following. So they chose medieval feudal principles over the American Constitution. They ignore the plain text of the United States Constitution. They ignore the original intent of the 14th amendment, clearly laid out in the debates in Congress and in both the House and the Senate. Very clearly says, in fact, it's very specifically says this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who, Who are foreigners and aliens. They ignore all of that, our actual history, our actual law, our actual Constitution, in order to embrace medieval feudal principles. Unreal. Unreal. And so now, all of these 30 million illegal aliens that are here can have babies. Those babies become United States citizens even though their parents have no allegiance to the United States, no assimilation into the United States, no desire to further protect, defend, you know, and continue the American way of life. And it'll be just like what's happened in Europe. You will see a complete loss of patriotism. Look at, look at, look at Minneapolis, look at Dearborn, Michigan. Look at NewSong York City, NewSong York, NewSong York, where we now have Islamist and Communist and people that have no allegiance to the United States Constitution now in power, winning elections and, and, and this will only exacerbate that. President Trump was trying to turn the corner on this. I will tell you, I don't want to go to. I don't want to go to break. We with such a depressing message today, there is a way to solve this, but it is very hard. It is going to take a ton of work. The easy way out is, is. Is obviously not going to happen. Having these unelected, unaccountable lawyers in Washington, D.C. that we call Supreme Court justices solve this was, was. It was an option was possible. They've helped with some issues, but not this one. The only way now to save the American dream, to save the definition of a citizen, and to preserve our Constitution, is a constitutional amendment. Verifying, clarifying, and defining what it means to be an American citizen, a constitutional amendment that clearly says that you are not a citizen just because you are born on the soil here. That's not the American tradition. That's not, there's no history for that, which is what the, the majority tried to argue. And Clarence Thomas slapped them down and showed him the actual history of the 14th Amendment. What citizenship was before the 14th Amendment, what the 14th Amendment was intended to do, which was simply to protect the rights of, of black citizens, blacks who were, in slavery and then freed from slavery. And some states didn't want to allow them to act as, as citizens. That's all. That's what the 14th Amendment was after. And then even clarifying the Wong decision and all this other stuff that's happened in the last hundred and, thirty years. So the only way to solidify the definition of a citizen and prevent this abuse of our system is going to be a constitutional amendment, which can be done. And so, I mean, I'm calling for it right now. The 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution is going to have to be a citizenship amendment. It's going to have to make it very clear what it means to be a citizen in America so that you stop people from being able to game our system. And then it's going to have to make it very clear that only those citizens are able to vote in our elections. And you know that you're going to have to show voter ID to do that. Essentially the SAVE act added to a citizenship, a clarified citizenship clause. People call the, you know, the 14th amendment clause, citizenship clause. But it really was specific to freed slaves and, and blacks in the south that were being denied that ability. So now you're going to have to do it, you're going to have to do the heavy lifting. We've done it 27 times, we've done it twice where we overturned supreme court decisions. The 11th Amendment overturned Chisholm v. Georgia, which was more of a technicality decision that was done in four months, by the way. So it is very doable. and then of course the 14th amendment overturning, Dred Scott. And so, Ron Paul actually filed an amendment, on this very issue I think last year. It might have been year before last anyway. And I need, I'm gonna go study his, his draft and see if that is, is good enough to solve this problem. We may have to really work on an additional draft, but it's gonna have to be done through the states. The Congress is never gonna pass this amendment. They're just not gonna do it. So it's gonna be up to us state legislators out there. Gonna have to do your job to save America. We'll be back.

American Family Radio celebrates America's 250th birthday with patriotic apparel

I'm Rick Green. You're listen.

>>  : America's 250th birthday. It's a great excuse to have some extra cake and ice cream, but we can help your celebration go well beyond that. Show your patriotism with America 250 apparel that will become a memento of this special year. We also have special episodes on AFA Stream to help underscore that America is a Christian nation and help you find God in the Constitution. Find all of this and more in one place. Afa.net topics 250 this is at the The Core on American Family Radio with your host, Rick Green.

>> Rick Green: I love that. Paak a few. Paak a few cars by Haavaad. I can't. I can't do it. I'm not.

>> Bobby Roza: Paak a few cars by Haavaad Yaad. It's really easy, man.

>> Rick Green: Paak a few cars by Haavaad Yaad.

>> Bobby Roza: That's my old stomping ground.

>> Rick Green: I love it. I love it.

Our Constitution splits power between the three branches and the states

All right, so let's, let's, let's step back a little bit here and talk about the solution. So when, anytime the Supreme Court, just think about, in a constitutional republic, who decides who has the final say on what the law in America is going to be? If we were a republic, a pure republic, then, you know, it'd be who, whatever the Congress passes, that's the final say. If we were a democracy, we'd be constantly having big conventions and polls and it would be mobocracy. That's why the founders hated democracy. But since we're a constitutional republic, the Constitution itself tells us what the final law of the land is and how to proceed. Like, who decides? And so that's why our Constitution splits the power between the three branches and the states. So it's really split in four ways. So the president gets certain powers, executive powers. The Supreme Court decision yesterday, specifically dealing with the president's power to hire and fire the people under his authority in the executive branch, which was a good decision. There was kind of a mixed bag. There was one good decision that said he could fire the FTC commissioner. Then, there was another one that said he couldn't necessarily fire the Federal Reserve member. that there had to be cause and all this stuff, you know, I think that's ridiculous. Like, they basically argued Justice Roberts, again, acting, you know, so emotional, decided that, you know, the Federal Reserve has to be independent, really. Independent of who? Like who? Answer. Who do they Answer to. Are you telling me they don't answer to the, to the President or to the courts or to the, to the Congress, or to the people? Like no accountability. That's my whole beef with the Federal Reserve. And there's no clause in the Constitution saying that. Because there's no clause in the Constitution about the Federal Reserve because it was never created for the Constitution. It was made up of by Congress and never approved by the American people. Okay, I digress. All of that to say that the President gets certain powers, the Congress gets certain powers and purview and jurisdiction, and then the courts get basically the power to determine whether, whether or not everybody's playing by the rules. They're just the umpires. And then the states get most of the power. That's the way our Constitution divvies up the power. That's why the 10th amendment says if we haven't specifically said right here on paper in the Constitution that the federal government gets to do these things, then they don't. It all goes back to the states and to the people. So that part used to be very clear. It's not very clear anymore because we don't teach civics. But that's the way the system supposed to work.

The Constitution has some language in the 14th amendment regarding birthright citizenship

So when you have a question of who gets to decide, then here's, in this case, who gets to decide what a citizen is. So the Constitution has some language in the 14th amendment regarding this, and people have argued about what it actually means. And so the president gets to decide the execution of the law. That's what Article 2 in the Constitution says. He's, he's to faithfully execute the laws. And so that's why he did the executive order saying, hey, my understanding of the birthright of citizenship is that it's not just birthright citizenship. It's not just that you're born here. And based on the history of this thing, I'm executing the law to not give citizenship to people that sneak over the border and plop a baby down. And we're going to be more specific to what history says birthright citizenship should be. Okay, so he did that as the executive. That's the president, the executive branch, okay? Congress passed the civil rights laws, passed the, some citizenship laws, and has some purview to decide what has total purview, honestly, on immigration, to say what we're going to allow for in immigration. And. And then the courts get to interpret and look at those laws or executive orders and say, is that lining up with the actual Constitution? And so they made their decision, they have said no. The executive order from the president doesn't line up with the constitution under the 14th amendment. Even though they say we're not really looking at the 14th amendment, we don't care what the Constitution says. We're going back to medieval times and essentially gonna do this like they did in the Dark ages. That's basically what the Supreme Court just said. All right, so now what do we do? Is that the final say? Does the Supreme Court have the final say on what the law is in America? Most people would say, yes, they have the final say. Most people would be dead wrong. The court does not have the final say. Because what's the final say? The final say is what does the Constitution itself say? Can you overrule the Supreme Court? And that's what I was alluding to in the first segment. Absolutely you can. We've done it multiple times. The 11th Amendment overruled the Supreme Court. The 14th Amendment overruled the Supreme Court. So yes, the amendment process is the ultimate final say that becomes the law of the land for as long as that amendment is not overturned. So sometimes we reverse an amendment. We did that with, with banning alcohol. So Prohibition was the 18th Amendment. So we had to amend the Constitution to give the government the power to ban alcohol. And then we said, this isn't working. And so we come back with the 21st Amendment and, overrule ourselves. So we overruled the amendment. So we had an amendment to overrule the amendment and say, no, no, no, we don't want to ban alcohol anymore. So we took that power back from Congress. So how do you overrule the Supreme Court? You pass a constitutional amendment that says you got it wrong. We're going to define citizenship for you. How do you pass a constitutional Amendment? There are two ways. The first way, which is how all 27amendments to the current Constitution were done in Article 5 of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers gave us two ways to amend. The first way to amend is that Congress. So the House and the Senate both have to pass or propose. I'm sorry, propose an Amendment with a 2/3 vote. Now, most likely, you can't get this current Congress to do 2/3 on anything. I cannot imagine that you could get a proposed constitutional amendment through the House and the senate at a 2/3 level right now. But that's how you normally do it. So with a two thirds vote of the House and Senate, you have proposed, not passed, but proposed a constitutional amendment. And then it goes to the ultimate deciders, the states. That's why I Always say state legislators have the most power under the Constitution of anyone. They actually have the ultimate say on a constitutional amendment. Now, of course, we the people have the ultimate say on over who the state legislators are. So you could certainly argue we the people have the have the ultimate final say, but not in the process itself. We have the say on who's going to get to make the decision. So we got to get put good people in the state legislatures to make this decision. But when Congress proposes an amendment, they send it to the states, and then you have to have, three fourths of the states that actually ratify that amendment. So three fourths of the states are going to have to say yes to this amendment. So you need 38 states to say yes. So if the Congress were to propose an amendment to define citizenship better than what the Supreme Court has just done, then you would send it back to the states. Each of the states would have either a ratifying convention or their state legislature would just meet. It's their choice. They can do either one and either affirm or reject. And if they do nothing, they've rejected, affirm or reject that proposed constitutional amendment. And if enough states ratify, it goes in the Constitution. So that's how all 27amendments have gotten in there. Take the first 10amendments, what we call the Bill of Rights that was proposed by Congress in 1791, or I'm sorry, 17, 89. And, and they were, there was actually 12. So there were 12amendments proposed by Congress and sent to the states. Only 10 of them got ratified by enough states to go into the Constitution initially. And then 200 years later, one of those two that didn't get ratified was discovered by a friend of mine, actually Greg Watson in Austin, Texas, and he said we could get this thing ratified. And so he got enough states to, finally ratify it. And so it went into the constitution as the 27th amendment. Now, even though it was originally proposed as the second, of the 12 proposed amendments by Congress in 1789. Okay, all that to say just to hopefully explain the process, Congress proposes states ratify or.

Article 5 of the Constitution allows states to propose constitutional amendments without federal involvement

And here's the magic bullet, okay? This is one of the most important provisions in the Constitution that has been not used yet and absolutely should be. If you take yourself back in time to 1787 when the constitutional Convention took place. They did all the heavy lifting, all the hard work, months and months and months of sweating it out there in Independence hall, and finally get they reach agreement. September 15th, everything's done. And lo and behold, George Mason Gets up and says, hold up, we've got a problem. We created a federal government here with this Constitution that has limited powers. It can only do these very specific things. But what happens if it goes beyond its appropriated power? It's, it's actual power that we gave it, it's, it's appropriate power and it starts doing things we didn't give it the power to do. What if it gets outside its jurisdiction? How do we overrule it? How do we put it back in its box as written. We're all about to sign and leave town as written. The Constitution as we've drafted it so far. The only way to overrule a Congress is for Congress to overrule a Congress. In other words, he says, what tyrant has ever taken power from the people? And then just said, oh, sorry, got that wrong. Let me give that back to you, I apologize, never. And everybody laughed at the convention. And so he says, yeah, of course that's not going to work. We have to have a way to overrule an out of control federal government. And we do that through the states. Let the states both propose and ratify the amendment that would overturn actions at the federal level. And so it was such a brilliant, proposal that no one objected. It was, it was literally a mic drop moment where unanimous consent to give the amendment process to the states went into the Constitution. And it's been there ever since. We've just never used it. It's kind of a, you know, in case of emergency, break glass moment. It's been sitting there waiting to be used. And it's absolutely necessary to use it to overturn this Supreme Court decision, just like we did with the 11th and the 14th. But this time, without Congress proposing, the states will have to come together and propose. So there's this, this great clause right there in the in Article 5 of the Constitution that allows for the states without any involvement. The federal government gets no say in this. The president gets no say in this. The state legislatures actually call for a meeting. They actually pass resolutions in each of the 50 states. Or actually you only need 34, you need 2/3. Just like with the with the amendment being proposed out of Congress. So 2/3 of the states, 34, have to basically pass a resolution that says, we want a meeting. We want to get together and at least consider whether or not to overturn this Supreme Court decision, whether or not to limit the power of the federal government, whether or not to set in balance the Constitution and let the states take a lot of this stuff back. They get to ask for a meeting. That's it. That's all it is, is a meeting doesn't amend the constitution when they have the meeting. But if they do that, if 34 states will call for the meeting, then you will have what's called a convention of states. And it'll be where all the states will, Even if they didn't want the meeting to take place, I guarantee you they'll show up because they want to have some influence on what happens there. But all 50 states will send representatives to this meeting, just like we've done. We've had dozens of conventions of states where the states have come together to discuss certain things, to consider compacts, to do different things, a lot more in the founding era than in the last 200 years, but we've done it a lot. Anyway, that's what will happen. So they'll come together. You. You have this convention of states. And at the convention, they will discuss whether or not to overturn this supreme Court decision, whether or not to abolish certain departments of the federal government that were never constitutional in the first place. Maybe even though they'll, consider having term limits and limit how long a member can serve in congress or on the supreme Court or whatever it might be. But at any rate, they'll have this meeting. It'll go on for several months, and they'll debate, and it'll all be on television and on the Internet. We'll get to watch all of it. There's no cheating in something like this. There's no ballots to come in late. There's no. There's none of that. They're going to be voting live on television in front of the whole world, and each state gets one vote. Well, friends, we have more than 25 states that would vote for an amendment to overturn this supreme court decision. So there's a very good chance of getting this amendment at least proposed by the convention once the convention takes place, and then it goes back to the states for ratification. So follow me. There's three steps. The first step is you have to call for the meeting. Okay? That's what we're in the process of doing right now. 20 states have called for the meeting. We only have 14 more to go. So we're way past halfway there. You get 14 more states to call for the meeting. The meeting takes place, and at the meeting, they will debate all of this. And if they vote, if 26 states say, we want to propose, here's some language. We want to propose to. To go into the Constitution to overrule the Supreme Court and actually define a citizen in a rational way. If 26 states do that, that is now a proposed constitutional amendment. Not a past. It's not in the Constitution, but it's proposed. And it quite literally gets sent to all 50 state legislatures. And then all 50 state legislatures have the option of taking up that amendment and considering it. Now, if they don't even discuss it, their state has not passed. But if 38 states take up that amendment and ratify that amendment, then it goes into the Constitution just like the 27 previous amendments did. That ratification process is we're familiar with and would not be that different. It's the convention itself that would be different. And so that's what it's going to take. How long is it going to take? I don't know. We've been working on calling for the convention for well over a decade. I think there's a snowball effect that's about to happen. I think that there is a real possibility that this decision by the Supreme Court could be, the, you know, the momentum to get enough of these state legislators that have been wimping out. We've got conservative state legislators out there that have refused to call for convention out of fear that something bad will come out of the convention. That's like saying, let's not have elections because somebody bad might get elected.

Rick Green: Call your state legislator to call for a constitutional convention

It's unilateral disarmament. It's not using the best weapon in the toolbox in order to save the Constitution and save America. So if you're a legislator listening to the sound of my voice right now, please do your job. You must call for a convention of states and you must attend that convention and or someone from your state attend that convention pushing for a clear definition of a citizen and pushing for only citizens being able to vote and pushing for only citizens to be counted in the census when we do apportionment. So there's a pretty clear package of amendments that could, could right the ship. Could. And if we don't, folks, you look at all these, these massive Islamic gatherings in Houston and in Minneapolis and all these places. That is the future of America. You're going to lose the American dream if we don't do something about this. You cannot count on these, you know, black robed judges to solve the day. solve the day, save the day. You cannot count on them to save the day. We have to step up as the American people and get this constitutional amendment done and save our country. It can Be done. It must be done. Our founders did it with the 11th amendment. These were. Who do you think was in Congress and in the state legislatures passing the 11th Amendment? The founding fathers. They said, the Supreme Court got it wrong. We're going to overrule them. so they set a pattern for. They showed us how to do this. We don't just sit back and say, oh, it's all over. The Supreme Court ruled. We have. America's done for. Grab your guns and canned food. Go hide out at the ranch. No. Well, you should have guns, canned food, and a ranch. But no, no, no. We're not gonna give up. We're gonna. We're gonna reload. We're gonna. Absolutely. When I go for all those left wingers that are gonna say, I was calling for no, we're gonna reload. Intellectually, we're gonna understand this. We're gonna put the ammunition in our brains, the intellectual ammunition of how to do this, and then we're going to do our job. Call your state legislator right now and tell them to call for a convention of states and overturn this Supreme Court decision. Got to take a break. I'm, Rick Green America's Constitution coach. You are listening to at the The Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green.

Preborn network clinics offer free ultrasounds to women facing unplanned pregnancies

>> 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, ah, 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. And 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 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound sign 250-B A B Y or visit preborn.com afr that's preborn.com afr hey, everybody.

One Nation Under God celebrating America's 250th anniversary coming soon

>> Walker Wildmon: Walker Wildmon here. We just got done filming here at Wallnua Builders. Library in Alito, Texas, with Steven McDowell, Tim Barton, Rick Green and myself. Episode nine of AFA at Home. One Nation Under God celebrating America's 250th anniversary. That's our theme. That's our title and subtitle for this video session coming out very soon for you. Stay tuned. On July 4, 2026, on America's 250th birthday, we're going to release this video. It's jam packed full of American history, why we're here, why our founding fathers did what they did while they fought and died for our nation. Stay tuned. Make sure to check us [email protected] Follow all of AFA's major social media platforms and make sure you share this with family and friends.

>> Jeff Chamblee: This is at the core on American Family Radio with your host, Rick Green.

Rick Green: Supreme Court decision on 14th Amendment is reminiscent of Dred Scott

>> Rick Green: Welcome back to the The Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green. I'm Rick Green, America's Constitution coach, talking about this horrible decision by the Supreme Court that will definitely go down in history, be ranked right there with Dred Scott. In fact, it's a lot like Dred Scott. If you think back to Dred Scott, the debate was, what's a citizen? And does a black have any rights in America? even though he had escaped slavery and got to the north where he was free, does he have any rights? Or does he, you know, have to, subjugate himself, to the rights of others? And that's essentially what we're doing here. We're subjugating our rights to the rights of illegal aliens, to the rights of our enemies to come here and be able to outvote us and to, you know, take over and have the same rights as us. Well, if you give someone who does not deserve those rights, the same rights you have, you have diluted your rights. In fact, I think Thomas had a line like that in the decision where he basically said, in fact, let me find it here. He said he was referring back to Dred Scott and why Dred Scott was so horrible. Such a horrible Supreme Court decision, and how the 14th amendment, overruled. Dred Scott, overruled the Supreme Court and said, no, if you're a freed slave, you do have rights. And he says, those rights now get watered down. Here's what he said. In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the 14th Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks, but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support. In other words, the Reconstruction. Congress was Reconstruction after the Civil War. This was the Congress that gave us the 13th, the 14th and the 15th Amendments. And the 14th Amendment was designed to make sure that freed blacks had the same rights as other citizens. They were, in fact, American citizens. They weren't, you know, someone that was just visiting here in the US for the purpose of trying to gain, citizenship. In fact, yes, of course you can go through the whole argument of maybe their grandfather, grandparents or whoever were brought here and didn't want to be here, but these were people that were freed and were, and were living here in the United States and now had citizenship. We were literally fought a war over giving them citizenship and making sure that they had the same rights as everybody else. And people in some of the Southern states were still refusing to do that. So now you're watering down what that means. That's what Clarence Thomas is saying. So this decision is as bad as Dred Scott. It's like going back in time, and doing something that just undermines the entire American system.

Alito: Supreme Court decision allowing president to fire agency employees is ridiculous

Okay, but I don't want to spend the whole program on that one decision. There were a lot of decisions today and yesterday that were, released by the supreme, Court. So I mentioned very briefly, I think in the first segment, maybe last segment, that the drum. Trump, Trump, v. Slaughter was, was a good decision. That one allows the, The President of the United States to use his executive authority, I think, to, to, to tire. To hire and fire on ftc. I think that should apply to the entire, executive, branch. If, if Congress creates an exec, Creates an agency, they don't run the agency. It goes over to the executive branch and the executive branch runs it. And part of running the executive branch is you have to decide who's, who's. Who the employees are going to be that are going to execute the law. You are hired as the President of the United States to implement a philosophy. So when we, when we hire the president, when a president wins the election, you're not just hiring the President, you're hiring 4,000 political appointees of the President and you're hiring the philosophy that will now implement the law, execute the law in all of those agencies that Congress set up. But if you don't give the President the ability to fire people who don't want to implement the philosophy that the American people elected to be done. You've, you've hamstrung, You've, you've undermined the election itself. I could, I can give you a specific example. There are so many bureaucrats in the, what I call the fourth branch, there are so many bureaucrats, unelected, unaccountable, nobody even knows who they are, that run the show on the ground. They implement m the policy. And these people, there are specific stories, I'm not going to name names or the department, but there are specific examples where superintendents of departments, high level ranking bureaucrats that run that particular agency or that particular local outfit of that agency, who held meetings after the 2024 election as soon as President Trump won. So between the election and President Trump getting sworn in in January, they held meetings with their bureaucracy to specifically create plans to undermine the new President of the United States. They literally said, here's how we're going to thwart the agenda of the president as he comes in with regard to our particular portion of the federal government of the, executive branch. So, so they're literally saying we're going to undermine the election. We, the bureaucrats that are unelected, are going to refuse to implement and execute the law that the President of the United States has been elected to do. That's what's happening right now. And so the idea that you would not allow the president to fire an insubordinate employee like that is, is ridiculous. You're basically saying, yes, there is a fourth branch. Yes, we're going to, we're going to have a federal bureaucracy that does not answer to anyone. They're going to be completely into. Really? Does anybody actually want that? Well, that's what we were allowing for when we weren't allowing the president to fire these people. So this case, Trump v. Slaughter, is a good one. It actually says, yes, he can fire now. It doesn't give him blanket authority. Jon Roberts tried to walk it back and say, oh, he doesn't get to fire anybody of any agency. This only applies to the ftc. But he, he was not in the majority. he, he did find with the majority, but he did his own opinion. This is what happens with, with courts. What'll happen is when you have a, you know, you got nine members of the court and let's say a decision is 6, 3, 6 of the judges say, we are voting together to say, yes, President Trump can fire this FTC commissioner. Well, if Jon Roberts peels off and says, I concur, but only in part, and he writes his own concurring opinion, what he says in that concurring opinion is not, going to be the law. It's what's in the, opinion of the five that stuck with the person writing the majority. And that opinion, I think it was Alito wrote that one. no, I'm sorry. Actually, Barrett wrote that one. that one actually becomes, quote, unquote, the law. It shouldn't be. I know you shouldn't allow for five people to make law in America. It should be what Congress. But I'm just saying that's the, the, the reality of what we live with right now. And that one says, yes, the President can hire and fire much more than just the ftc. The only thing they've really carved out was there was another decision called Trump v. Cook that was specifically about this Federal Reserve member who has, you know, according to Trump, committed, is accused of committing mortgage fraud. And so he's saying that you don't allow somebody to make these huge decisions about what the interest rates are going to be, what the money supply is going to be. You don't allow somebody on that board to make those decisions that's committed mortgage fraud. They should be removed. So he's saying, I'm firing her with cause, which is what the congressional statute says. It's got to be with cause for that particular, position. I don't think it should have to be with cause. I think the president should be able to hire and fire anybody in the executive branch. That's his job. But unfortunately, the Supreme Court said, they didn't say he cannot fire her. They, they just said it's got to go back to the district court level and he's got to prove that there was cause. So that one's still to be determined, how far they're going to allow the President to go in hiring, firing, federal, Reserve people. But anyway, so those were two of the decisions. And then there was the mail in ballot case. Another bad decision. Once again, Amy Coney Barrett and Jon Roberts hanging out with the far left radical. Three judges decided, that you can, you can continue to have the election for however many days after the election you want to have it if it's mail in ballots. And so this is just a formula for chaos and disaster. Again, overruling President Trump, who is trying to say, no, you have to have Election Day, which, not only President Trump, that's federal law. I mean, that's, that's actually the Constitution specifically says in Article one, Section four, it's Election Day. And that the Congress, the state legislatures get to set policy. And that's what this was about. Mississippi was setting policy to say you can allow for mail in ballots to come in for days and days after the actual election. Day. But it says state legislatures set policy which can be modified by federal law. And so federal law says it's election day. You're not supposed to allow for ballots, to be received after election day. And I get it. I know some people are, you know, concerned about military and others who are traveling abroad. And so you could have exceptions for those people to do mail in ballots. But what this does is allows anybody to do a mail. You don't even have to prove that you're inconvenienced or you're working or you're out of the country. You allow everybody to do mail in ballots. When you allow for that, you now allow for easy cheating. And we've seen that. We've absolutely seen that. And Sam Alito says that in his dissent on that decision. So that one was a bad one from yesterday and, again, needs to be overruled by an amendment. Congress, maybe Congress could overrule it. And you know, don't forget, again, Supreme Court doesn't have the final say. You have three federal players, and then you have the states. So if the Supreme Court says something, Congress can overrule that, and the president can side with Congress by signing whatever that law is that overrules the Supreme Court, and the president can side with the Supreme Court, and then it's two out of three, they overrule the Congress. But even that squabbling at the federal level gets ultimately overruled by the states through constitutional amendments if they do their job.

President Trump signed an executive order allowing you to fix your car

let's see, what else? Oh, the president did an executive order yesterday that this is, this is so silly that we even have to do this. He basically calls it the right to fix your car. Do you, do you know that right now? I mean, I don't know about you, but it's like anytime you see a commercial, it's like American muscle cars kind of thing. It just makes you feel American pride, right? There's something about the, the, the, the American vehicle or even a foreign vehicle, but there's something about the autonomy of having your car, and especially a muscle car, a sports car or a truck. You know, there's just something about that, that just inherently makes you feel American. And there's something about being under the hood of a car or a commercial that, that shows people working on a car. There's something about your, your dad or your granddad showing you how to change the oil or, you know, change out the spark plugs or, you know, fix something on the car. Now, look, I'm no mechanic. I'm Terrible at that stuff. But even when I had a bus, I had a big old, you know, Greyhound bus that we remodeled, and I ripped the whole thing out. And we. We built it from. From the ground up from the metal beam so that our family could travel together. As I was speaking, I just didn't want to be on the road as my kids were growing up, and I wasn't going to do the public speaking thing and traveling and if I couldn't have them on the road with me. So we built out. Built out a bus. I bought Waylon Jennings old bus and, and thought it was going to be ready for the road. I mean, I. I didn't have enough money to buy a nice one. This was an old, old bus. And, anyway, we had to completely redo it. and. And so I had to learn some mechanical stuff, and I just felt like a man when I was doing that stuff, when I was able to fix something on that thing. You just. It's just something American about that, that. That makes you feel good. And if you've ever fixed something on your car, I. I just. I fixed something like the, What was it? I was working on my wife's truck just a couple of months ago, and it, was something minuscule, like, not something I should feel manly about or brag about. I think it was literally like a light bulb or something. I don't know. Anyway, had to take the whole way. They've got these ram trucks now. You got to take the whole apparatus out and you got to, you know, to be able to replace that bulb, stuff like that, though, I, remember putting a new bumper on one of the Patriot Academy vans. And, and once I put that bumper on, it was like, wow, man. I feel, you know, feel accomplished. So if you've ever done that, any, especially men out there, if you've ever done that, then. Then you. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Well, the government has taken away your ability to fix so many things on your vehicle because of the environmental wackos, because of the green agenda. Not Rick Green agenda, but the crazy green agenda of the environmentalists that Romans 1 worship the creation rather than the creator. And it's all based on junk science. It's not even based in reality. But they've created all of these crazy laws that don't even allow you to get the parts to fix your vehicle. They've taken away a huge part of the American dream and the American lifestyle. And President Trump just finally said, enough is enough. And so he signed this executive order that he's calling the right to fix your car so that you can get the parts that they were making not even available to you. You had to go to your car dealer and you had to go to all these people that caved in the Green NewSong Deal and supported these laws. Don't forget how this stuff gets passed. It's the lobbyist in Washington D.C. that pass these laws, that push for these laws that make it more difficult on the, individual. Why would car dealers support this kind of stuff that's going to make your car more expensive? Because you have to go to them to get it fixed. That's why I'm against any of this crony capitalism nonsense. It's really not capitalism, it's communism is where these companies get all this power because they're lobbying the legislatures to prevent you from being able to, I'm sorry, car dealer friends, but you shouldn't have monopoly on who gets to sell cars. You should not. There should not be any laws preventing me from setting up shop, in my front yard if I want selling cars. It's absurd that we prevent people from being able to enter the market. But those are barriers to entry that the lobbyists do to protect their clients and to protect their lobby. And that's what's happened. They supported all of these Green NewSong Deal projects because they could force you to go get your car fixed at the car dealership, which as we all know, cost way more than, you know, Jim Bob down the street that's actually better at fixing your car because he's devoted his life to it and he loves doing it. And you should be able to go to Jim Bob and get your, get your car fixed. Or if you want to be Jim Bob and get under the hood of your car. I got one of, one of my guys that works here at the, at the campus does, he's a jack of all trades man. He does media, he can do work cameras and he can fix a vehicle with just about anything, that's going wrong with your vehicle. He's been under the hood of his 1980 something Ford pickup, for the last two months fixing everything on this thing. And I think that that's one of the most American masculine things to do. I've been so impressed with this young man being able to do that. Well, fortunately, that's an old enough vehicle that doesn't have all these crazy green NewSong Deal stuff on the vehicle that prevents them from being able to, fix that. Now we do unfortunately have some silly environmental laws on what you can do with the Freon and being able to fix your air conditioner. That's the one thing you still got to go, to these folks to do, which I also think is, is ridiculous and anti American. I did not mean to end the program with all of that, but I'm just saying that that's not a Supreme Court court decision, but that executive order yesterday by President Trump is, is, is a good thing. So there was a lot of good, that was some bad, and there was some very ugly, I mean, bad ugly in this, birthright citizenship case. But we're not giving up and we're gonna overturn it. We will not let them end Western civilization. We're gonna use this weekend, Independence Day, to celebrate the first 250 years and rededicate ourselves to having another 250 years this country. Thanks for listening today. I'm Rick Green America's Constitution coach. You've been listening to. At the core,

>>  : The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family association or American Family Radio.