The Rod and Greg Show: Sanctuary Cities Freed Criminal Migrants; Conversation with Mike Lee; Trumps idea on Education Department

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Utah's Talk Radio. Hey, NR, do I have to show
you how to do everything your difficult business? I understand that,
but well, you know, you could.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
Have gone straight to the to the hack, the life
hack on how I get these headphones work, then to
laugh at me and mock me before giving me the information.
You're on a countdown, folks before the show starts, and
he's just taunting me.

Speaker 1 (00:23):
It was like a simple little fix. You're how fix this?
I't be able to hear. How you tighten them up?
Plug a man? Is that easy?

Speaker 3 (00:33):
Says the guy who's been doing for eighty six years.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
Oh thank you, thank you. Well, let's start over again.
Now are you everybody? Welcome to the Rod and Greg
Show on this Tuesday afternoon. You're on Utah's Talk Radio
one oh five nine, can arrest live everywhere by the
way on the iHeartRadio app. I'm Rod Arquette, I'm Citizen
Greg Hughes, and we're going to roll. We got a
great show today. We're all talking about sanctuary cities and

(00:55):
how they have freed criminal migrants. It's a pretty amazing story.
Senator Mike Lee will join us a little bit later on.
We'll talk with Ryan Walters. Ryan is a very outspoken
member of the education community. He's the superintendent of schools
there in Oklahoma. He's going to give his give us
his reaction to the plans for the Education Department by

(01:17):
Donald Trump. And we've got a lot of other things
to get to as well. I think the story which
is just breaking here a short time ago, Greg, Utah
Senator Mike Lee was selected this afternoon to head the
Senate committee overseeing Energy Resources, public Lands, water, and issues
related to Native Americans. He is now Chairman of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. He will be when

(01:40):
the new Senate is sworn in on January third. I
would have to believe, Greg, that is great news for
the state of Utah.

Speaker 2 (01:47):
It couldn't be better news. You've got a senior senator
like Mike Lee, as smart as he is, and with
all the issues that we're dealing with with our federal lands. Remember, folks,
we are a state with sixty six percent of our
entire state owned by the federal govern the Bureau of
Land Management. Other states do not confront what we do
in terms of federal ownership of the land that goes

(02:08):
into our energy policy.

Speaker 3 (02:09):
As a country.

Speaker 2 (02:10):
It is much easier for these companies to extract oil,
gas coal on private property than it is the federal government,
especially when the Democrats and the environmentalists are in charge
of the bureaucracy, they throw up walls all the time.
Having a leader like Senator Lee who understands Utah's issues,
and I think we're going to the Supreme Courts. I know,
we're making this case about the Antiquities Act and how

(02:31):
they keep taking more of our land away from us
and making it more restrictive. All this plays well for us.
I got to tell you, this state cannot continue to
grow in four counties. You have to have this whole
state grow. Sixty six percent of the land being owned
by the federal government keeps us from growing. It's an
act of jerrymandering. Frankly, we can't grow as a population
to see that kind of representation. This is a massive

(02:53):
announcement and I am very, very excited for the state,
but the country.

Speaker 1 (02:57):
Well, and think about this. He had selected dub This
is a Donald Trump right from an energy state, Chris
right from an energy state. Now you've got Mike Lee
heading up with a Senate committee that deals with lands
and energy. Guess what. I just see this as a
win win for like you said, not only Utah, but
the rest of the country and Rod.

Speaker 2 (03:17):
It is having real time It has a real time
consequence right now as we get into the other story
of the day, and that is the Ukraine situation with Russia.
Right now, Putin is saying that if you use these missiles,
these US missiles into the interior of Russia, they will
consider it war. One of the things he's decided to
do is the uranium. The Obama Clinton and Obama stopped

(03:39):
letting us mine uranium in this country, which by the way,
in Grand County and Utah, we kept plenty of it,
but we stopped mining it so we could depend on
Russia for it. Russia's cutting us off. That can have
an impact on our power, our ability to have power,
which is why Putin's doing it. Our energy plan for
this state better, or for this country better be independent
of Russia and Putin and you have the you have

(04:02):
the building blocks in place right now to be able
to have our own uranium, to mine our own uranium,
not depend on a foreign really an enemy of the
state like Russia.

Speaker 1 (04:11):
Well, I think America has the potential greg to be
an energy superpower, correct superpower. Yes, with all the resources
that we have in this country today. It has been
held up by the bureaucrats in Washington and the climate
change crazies out there or saying you can't do this
Donald Trump, and I love Chris Wright, his new energy secretary.

(04:31):
He doesn't believe in climate change. You know, I don't
believe in this stuff.

Speaker 2 (04:34):
We all believe in good stewardship of the land or
our environment, we do, but they believe in compelling behaviors
through the word climate.

Speaker 3 (04:41):
That's what that that's what the left believes.

Speaker 1 (04:42):
Yeah, so he's opening up. I think you're you are
going to see such a resurgence in American energy. Greg.
It is going to the world's going to pay attention,
and we're telling the world, don't mess with us anymore,
don't threaten us with these energy boycotts or all this.
We don't care anymore because we have our own and
we're self sustained. And that's when Donald Trump says America first,

(05:03):
he means it. In every sector, yes, and the jobs,
all of it. We were a net exporter of our
energy when Donald Trump was in office. I don't care
why I've heard the Democrats try to Biden and Kamala
try to repeat those words.

Speaker 3 (05:15):
It is not true.

Speaker 2 (05:16):
You don't by logic, you don't go to Opek with
bended knee, hat in hand asking for moral oil production.
If you are a net exporter of energy energy in
this country, you don't go to Venezuela and beg them
for resources. You don't have a national reserves emergency reserve
that Trump topped off and had full down to nothing
like we have now for a net exporter like they

(05:38):
try to say we are. But we're going to get
back to those days, and I think it will happen.
I mean, on the campaign trail, Donald Trump didn't give
himself a long runway. He said six months he could
have this thing. He could have us have cut in
half our energy price. And I think you're seeing a
team put together in the Congress, Senate, and with his
cabinet that can do that, and they.

Speaker 1 (05:57):
Are going to work to do that. That's for sure,
all right. The other big news of the day, Greg
just mentioned it a second ago. Ukraine today fired its
first US missile into Russia. And the result of what
happened today, Vladimir Putin, the head of Russia basically has
now lowered the bar and this is frightening greg for
Russia to use nuclear weapons. Are we on the verge

(06:18):
of World War three here? I mean, it's kind of scary.

Speaker 2 (06:21):
Look, I'm not into hyperbole. I'm not a fearmonger, but
there is no way you couldn't say we were closer
at least today than we were a week ago, certainly
before the election. And Joe Biden has not been a
president that's been chomping at the bit to escalate this.
He did not want to see a war. He has
been this question and this request of sent having these
missiles into you know, fired into Russia have been asked

(06:44):
of him, and he has rebuffed this throughout until after
the election. And I'm telling you that I believe that
there is a conflict that I think this current administration
would like to lock the next administration into before a
peace steal or before negotiations could even begin. Yeah, and
I think that the stage is being set for Trump

(07:08):
to have to deal with without him having the having
the circumstances that we just had. Like I said a
week two weeks ago, They're going to create very very
different circumstances for Donald Trump when he enters off.

Speaker 1 (07:19):
Well, the question has to be go back to the
original question, Greg, why now, I mean, why did he
have to do this? Now he's in a transition, all right,
he will not be president as of January twentieth, that's
what two months away. Why was it so important right
now to give these missiles to Ukraine and say go
ahead and use them. I mean, I agree with you.
I think he is complicating the situation for Donald Trump,

(07:42):
who has pledged he would bring this war to an end,
and he's just making it more and more difficult.

Speaker 2 (07:47):
Bringing it to an end is not what the military
industrial complex wants.

Speaker 3 (07:50):
It's not what the swamp wants.

Speaker 2 (07:51):
It's not what all the people that have made generational
wealth in foreign conflicts around the world NonStop, we've been,
we've been in wars and perpetuity as a country. When
you bring that to a halt, there's a lot of
people losing a lot of money. If you can escalate
this to a place where it would be very, very
difficult to find peace. Well, that keeps a lot of

(08:14):
the people that are building these missiles and doing all
these things. And I hate to be such a cynic,
but you know, Eisenhower, President is a hoower on his
way out warned us of the industrial military complex, and
I cannot believe it. It's stronger today and more pervasive today,
and powerful, more powerful today, and richer today than it
was when President Eisenhower shared that warning and his final

(08:37):
address to America.

Speaker 1 (08:38):
And it's massive. And I think that's something that the
incoming Sarcretaria Defense, if in fact he has confirmed Greg
Pete Hageseth, is going to have to deal with, because
I think you're right, the industrial military complex in this
country is so huge anymore, you know, and they run
things in many many respects, and Hatest's going to have

(08:58):
somehow get on top of it.

Speaker 4 (08:59):
Yeah. Good.

Speaker 2 (08:59):
A lot ers well get hired by these defense contractors
after they're finished with their service to this country, and
they they they still know the same people. They spent
their careers there. If they were in the Pentagon, they
didn't get there like ten years five years ago, ten
years ago. They've spent their careers amongst the same people.
And now they're a hired contractor. And guess what, they

(09:19):
get the contracts and they get rewarded mightily for being
able to secure contracts with these You know these defense
companies that make these weapons of war.

Speaker 1 (09:28):
Yeah, so world a little more dangerous place to live
today because of what's going on with Ukraine and Russia.
All right, more coming up here on the Rod In
Greg Show. Great to be with you on this Tuesday afternoon.
If you want to be a part of the program.
Eight eight eight five seven zero eight zero one zero,
or on your cell phone dial pound two fifty and
say hey Rod More coming up right here on talk

(09:49):
radio one oh five nine knrs.

Speaker 2 (09:52):
I want you to get that because then we can see.
I don't like the ratings how they do it, like
the old school ratings. I love to know Iheart's got
they got, they got people. And when you listen on
the Iheartrap and then we see our real ratings.

Speaker 1 (10:04):
We have peeps. We got peeps out there.

Speaker 4 (10:06):
Man.

Speaker 2 (10:06):
By the way, not only do we the smartest listening
audience in all the land, it's a even by the
iHeart app. Right now, I'm telling you, I'm liking what
I'm seeing.

Speaker 1 (10:15):
Okay, So we have not only a smart audience, but
a good looking at.

Speaker 2 (10:20):
This audience, yes, they are good looking, and they are big,
and they are large, and they are gatekeepers on politics
in this stage.

Speaker 3 (10:25):
They don't even know it. Yeah, I'm here to tell
you that you are, folks.

Speaker 1 (10:28):
They sure are well. As Donald Trump puts his cabinet
together in key appointments, he's moving at light speed. I
mean he is way ahead of what Biden did and
what Barack Obama did, and selecting his kebinet way ahead
of his first time. First time, he didn't quite know
how to handle all this under Steve does now Man
and they are flying. And I think the two of
the most important selections were Tom Holman and Steve Miller.

(10:51):
And he means business when it comes to immigration. Now,
there's this story out today showing that reports have found
from twenty twenty one to twenty twenty four, Greg twenty
two thousand and forty illegal immigrants were let out of
jail into communities instead of being peacefully transferred to ice
twenty two thousand in a three year period. Terrible, pretty amazing. Well,

(11:16):
let's dig into this more. Joining us on our news
Maker line right now is Jessica Vaughan. She is director
of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Study. It's
always great to have Jessica on the show. Jessica, how
are you. Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 5 (11:29):
Thank you. I'm doing well. Good to talk with you.

Speaker 1 (11:32):
Jessica. We look at this number and twenty two thousand
criminal migrants are let out because there's no you know,
they aren't reported to ICE. ICE has nothing to do
with this. What is going on here, Jessica, Well, this.

Speaker 5 (11:48):
Twenty two thousand is the number of criminal aliens, people
who were arrested for state and local crimes by local police,
local sheriffs. ICE got an alert about it and issued
a detainer and said, we have probable cause to believe
this person is deportable. We want to pick them up

(12:08):
when you are finished with them, and the state and
local authorities their sanctuaries let them go. Anyway, every one
of these is a criminal alien who is set free
back into the community potentially to commit more crimes than
many of them do, instead of being turned over to
ICE to be sent back to their home country. And

(12:29):
this is deliberate failure to cooperate with ICE. Actually, you know,
you could call it obstruction of immigration enforcement.

Speaker 2 (12:38):
You know, Jessica, I have a question because here in
the state of Utah we have had we've confronted some
challenges where You have incredible men and women that work
for ICE on the ground and in every state. But
we have had an administration at the same time you've
had these sanctuary cities. We've had a Biden Harris administration
where ICE ICE at least in the swamp and in

(12:59):
the federal LA level, they weren't overly aggressive. In fact,
I would argue that they were saying these some of
these illegal entries were not crimes at all. There was
just a bit of a lag on ICE's part, not
from the men and women on the ground, but from
the administration and their appointments. So that twenty two thousand,
I would imagine that if you had ICE doing what

(13:22):
I imagine it's going to do under the leadership of
President Trump, you might even have more people that would
be detained, even from those numbers that you're sharing, because
you're going to have a different maybe mindset at ICE.
Is that writer or do you think that am I
seeing it wrong?

Speaker 5 (13:37):
Well, there are going to be new policies. The Biden
administration and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkists were
deliberately suppressing immigration enforcement in the interior, even of criminals,
and so you know the fact that I had not
been issuing as many detainers in under the Bible administration

(14:00):
as they were before. And these are most definitely the
worst of the worst, and that's why it's so disturbing
that the sanctuary policy still we're letting them go. I
do think we are going to see some resistance from
sanctuary jurisdictions. I consider Utah to be a sanctuary because

(14:22):
there is so much sort of looking the other way
at people's immigration status to get benefits. And ICE is
not able to find detention space in Utah because of
local resistance to working with ICE, and that's a problem

(14:44):
because especially when you think about their primary targets are
that fraction of the illegal population who have committed other
crimes incarcerated by locals.

Speaker 2 (14:58):
Yeah, there's there's parts of Utah's policy I think that
I think have wrongly and been wrong headed in terms
of its attitude towards illegal immigration, as if it's just
you know, throwing your arms around the huddled masses. And
I agree with you there, but I do a little
bit of work with our law enforcement, our sheriffs are jails.
One of the biggest challenge, really the main stumbling block

(15:18):
in trying to incarcerate people that we would want to
report to ICE. Is that they are considered, at least
under this current administration, civil detainees, and those contracts where
you would hold them required them to have their own ingress, egress,
their own shampoo, their own they didn't have to see
other prisoners. The jails were not They don't have the
design to treat these as civil detainees. There's no such

(15:41):
thing in our jails. And so this is something that
I know in Utah has been a mighty big frustration
with our law enforcement. Certainly our sheriffs are county sheriffs
in Utah, and that's why I brought the question, because
they have wanted They used to have this brilliant relationship
with ICE, but these definitions have changed from underneath their
feet in terms of what a detainee really is. And

(16:02):
there is no jail that would make the six hundred
page contract of a civil detainee. And so those are
the types of things that I'm really hoping we see
changed immediately with the new administration.

Speaker 5 (16:14):
Well, I think it will, because one thing the Biden
administration did was create this Office of the Detention on
Budsmen and their job has been to go out into
where illegal aliens are being detained and you know, help
them complain about conditions and so on, and that has

(16:34):
been a problem. But honestly, there are sheriffs all over
the country. The vast majority of sheriffs are able to
manage IC detainees. And you know, you don't even have
to detain them any longer. You just have to honor
the ICE detainer and let ICE come pick them up. So,

(16:55):
you know, I think any sheriff or police chief would
like to be able to send criminal aliens back to
their home country instead of releasing them into the community.
And so you know, they should be able to find
a way to do that. The governor has been pledging
to help ICE by by identifying detention space that can

(17:19):
be used by ICE, but it hasn't materialized yet. So
you know, you have to wonder, are they really talking
about this in good faith. They're really out of step
with what is the mainstream among law enforcement agencies across
the country.

Speaker 2 (17:33):
Well, this deserves a deeper conversation because I do think
the twenty four hour and forty eight hour holds they
will exist, always will to your point, but there aren't
people from Ice picking them up. They used to our
sheriffs used to call it a milk run. This used
to work automatic.

Speaker 5 (17:51):
If they have a detainer, they're going to pick them up.
It's you know, I know that in you know, under Biden,
there were not many you know that they would issuetainers for.
But if they've actually if Ice has actually gone out
and provided a sheriff with a detainer and a warrant
of arrest, I'm not sure what the problem is with that.

Speaker 2 (18:12):
Yeah, there's there's there's no lack of will from our sheriffs,
I promise you there's And they are working. They are
working with they've tried to work with this higher this
Biden administration, and they are and they've been communicating with them.
But we think we're going to have much brighter skies
with the new administration and Trump coming in now.

Speaker 1 (18:29):
We can only hope. Jessica, Jessica, thank you for joining
us tonight. Always a pleasure. Thank you. Likewise, all right,
joining us on our news Miker Line. That's Jessica Vaughan.
She is from the uh UH Center for Immigration Studies.
Here on the road and Greg Show, all right, Moore
coming up, Utah, Senator Mike Lee will join us when

(18:49):
we come back. Hello, everybody, I'm brought our kid.

Speaker 2 (18:52):
I'm Citizen Greg Hughes. Night's day out but cold, Yeah,
a little chili out there.

Speaker 1 (18:57):
Yeah. Well, we we told you to start of the
show if you weren't listening. A big win today for
the state of Utah. Utah Senator Mike Lee has been
chosen now to chair the Energy and Natural Resources Committee
in the Senate, And Greg, you were saying, you know,
with as much public land as we have, with as
much energy potential as we may have here in the state,

(19:19):
that's a big win for the state. With Mike Lee
sitting as chairman of a very powerful Senate committee.

Speaker 2 (19:24):
It couldn't be if I could handpick where I would
love his leadership to be felt. There's not another segment
that Utah grapples with that this country is dealing with,
and where we're looking at the relationship with Russia right
now in the uranium that they're going to withhold from
this country and the deals that Obama and Clinton made Obama, yeah,
Clinton and Obama made where we don't see any of

(19:45):
this extraction of uranium in our own country anymore. He
is just in such an important leadership role.

Speaker 1 (19:52):
Now, well, we had a chance earlier today before the
vote was taken to talk with Senator Lee about a
number of issues, including what's going on with Ukraine and Russia.
We asked them about this decision by the Biden administration
to provide Ukraine with missiles that let they launched today
into Russia, and we asked, Mike, what do you thought
about this?

Speaker 6 (20:11):
Well, look, I start this by asking the question, why
on earth does Joe Biden's administration seem so intense, so
hell bent on escalating tensions with Russia, a nuclear armed power,
launching launching missiles into Russian territory, risks igniting a much
much larger war, potentially a war the likes of which

(20:33):
we've not seen, and for what? For what purpose? Look
at the bottom line is I fear that progressives, progressive liberals,
they love war because it justifies bigger government and hasten's
greater control over our lives. It's the midwife of progressive government.
And this kind of postering makes it a lot harder

(20:54):
for Trump to negotiate peace and restore prosperity. And that
this is very, very concerning.

Speaker 2 (21:01):
So my fear and I think you're being diplomatic about it,
and I think you're that's what a good senator does.
But I think that I think my fear is that
they want to keep they want Trump to be pot
committed to a war. They want to keep him engaged.
They're not looking for a peace settlement, they're not looking
for the de escalation of what's going on in Ukraine
and Russia, and this is a way to preserve that

(21:22):
or to instigate that into Trump's administration. My question is,
does Putin does he just show a maybe a newfound
patience knowing that he's got to get to a real
leader to get this thing sorted out, or does he
or does he even feel baited by what the Biden
administration is doing right now? And cooler heads will prevail

(21:43):
once Trump's on the clock. What's your sense of things, Senator?
Do you think that this gets worse before Trump even
takes office or do you think Putin waits to get
to the next leader of the next commander in chief?

Speaker 6 (21:58):
Okay, two things will respond to there first, Greg, I
didn't think my answer is all that diplomatic, but if
you want to pay you that compliment, data no idea right,
But as to your main question, we have no idea
how put more response. That's what makes this so reckless.
That's what makes this so dangerous. I mean we're talking

(22:18):
about lives here, a lot of lives on multiple continents
that could be at risk here because of this utterly
reckless action. I don't think Joe Biden has any idea
what the answer to your question is. And this is
one of those things that you don't do unless you
know darn well what's going to happen, and that your
people are going to be safer and not less safe

(22:40):
as a result.

Speaker 1 (22:41):
Mike, let's bring it on home and talk about what's
going on in Washington. Also in Pennsylvania. I mean, you
finally had the Pennsylvania Supreme Court step in and said,
stop counting all those illegal ballots. This election is over.
What kind of a Shenanigans did we see take place
in Pennsylvania.

Speaker 6 (22:58):
Well, look, there's a word for dragging out vote counting
until late November, and the word is fraud. The Constitution, moreover,
is something that these clowns in Pennsylvania, and I think
clowns is probably too nice of a word. Is clear
in Article one, Section five that each House of Congress

(23:18):
shall be the judge of elections, the elections of its
own members. And this means that the Senate has full
ultimate authority over deciding the Senate elections, and not just
these unelected bureaucrats. Now, this is power that we have
in this area that far outstrips is far greater than
the power that we have to open and count presidential

(23:40):
electoral votes. We are the ultimate deciders of these elections.
So in the event that Pennsylvania's illegal vote counting Shenanigan's
end up producing the illusion of a Casey victory, the
Senate should refuse to see them, and I'll personally lead
the charge to exclude him from the Senate if in
fact they continue with illegal vote counting and the illegal

(24:02):
vote counting creates that illusion of a victory. It's it's
worth pointing out here, by the way, guys, but you know,
four years ago Bob Casey wanted Donald Trump and Peach
for questioning election integrity, for questioning the integrity of the
twenty twenty presidential election. And now Casey is actually doing
what he wrongly accused Trump of doing, and he's openly

(24:24):
under money the democratic processes in his state with shady
vote counting practices, in open flagrant violation of multiple court orders.

Speaker 1 (24:33):
That's a Pauwick.

Speaker 2 (24:35):
So, Senator, there's this this I'm going to bring this
even into Utah. So there are still votes being counted there,
there's a final canvassing in Utah. It's going to happen
here soon. California still counting votes yet, Pennsylvania counting votes.
And there's been this narrative that if you complain about
voter integrity, your candidate must have lost. Well, look I'm

(24:55):
feeling pretty good. My candidates have all won. I still
don't like this. I think it stinks to high Haaven
to be still counting any kind of ballots, waiting for
any ballots, verifying signatures for any ballots laid into November.
What would be I mean, do you have an opinion
or do you think that there's a way for election?
You said four years ago you said this just off hand.

(25:16):
You said, easy to vote, hard to cheat, that's what
you want. That was the standard, and I've never forgotten
how you described that. I think this prolonged process we have,
whether it be Utah or any of these states, just
it undermines people's confidence in the process where these votes
in Pennsylvania, it's not that all the vote. These voters
with good conscience voted and they just did something wrong

(25:38):
and now we can't count their vote. No, these laws
are there so that fraud, as you called it accurately
does not occur. What should change about Utah's elections if
you have an opinion about that.

Speaker 7 (25:50):
Yeah, so you're right.

Speaker 6 (25:52):
I have long maintained the mantra easy to vote, hard
to cheat. Now when you allow counting to go on
true late November, that is ripe with opportunities for fraud.
So I think whatever it is that we have to
do as a state, and I think other states should
do the same. Typically these things are in the hands

(26:12):
of state officials, not federal ones. But we have to
go back to having an election day, obviously making provisions
for people who need to vote, to absentee those who
are homebound, or it can be out of the country or
something like that. And you could also do in person
early voting. I suppose that you if you wanted to

(26:32):
have everybody show a photo ID at the time they
show up, have improved citizenship at the time they register
for purposes of federal election, but for the most part,
election day ought to be an election day and not
an election season. And if we did that, then it
would be easier to have the staff, the resources on
hand to make sure that the votes get counted on

(26:54):
election day. The longer this hangs out, once people know
sort of that the denominator, they can fluctuate the enumerator,
meaning they know how many votes they would have to
add if they suddenly magically quote unquote discover more ballance.
And I think that is too high of a risk
to run. So does that mean that we should go

(27:15):
away from universal automatic mail in balloting in Utah?

Speaker 8 (27:20):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (27:20):
I think it probably does. I think we do it
safer and better than most states. But safer and better
than most states isn't good enough, not for Utahn's, not
for voter integrat I think we need to go back
to having an election day.

Speaker 1 (27:32):
Our conversation earlier today with Utah sender Mike Lee, after
he talked to us he was elected chairman of the
sentence Energy and Natural Resources.

Speaker 2 (27:40):
He wasn't even tipped us off a little bit, could
have said something, he's a bell of the ball today
and he doesn't even tell us.

Speaker 1 (27:46):
Would have said, hey, guys, big news coming up. Well,
he's a humble guy, he is. Yeah, he's from US. Yes,
I had more questions about that. Yeah, we'll talk to
him more next week. All right, Moore coming up on
the Rod and Greg Show and talk Radio one off NRS.
Talking earlier about the military industrial complex, and there are
a lot there are some people out there who don't

(28:07):
understand what exactly that is.

Speaker 2 (28:09):
You know what and that that that term rolls off
the times as if everyone would woul would understand that,
you know, General former General Eisenhower from World War Two,
hero and in these and then he's the president of
the United States for two terms, he warned in his
closing address to America after having served as president, about
the military industrial complex. What the military industrial complex is
is it's the relationship between our United States military and

(28:32):
the the industries that build the jets, the fighter jets,
the weapons of war, the missiles, the.

Speaker 1 (28:37):
Bombs and all of it, the machinery, everything.

Speaker 2 (28:39):
What that relationship can do, sadly and tragically, and I
think we've seen a play out, is it can influence
and shape foreign policy decisions. That relationship between the military
and the people they pay to make all of this
more so than defending this the United States from clear
and present danger and protecting our nation. And that is
influence and so that that relationship there can that's the

(29:02):
tail wagging the dog.

Speaker 1 (29:03):
Thanks read all right, when we come back, we're all
and spend some time talking to us changing election laws
here in the state of Utah. Well, someday we get
faster results. We can only have our fingers crossed. We'll
talk about it next this Hoturday season.

Speaker 6 (29:17):
Give back to the community with your Utah Toyota Dealer's
fill the truck food drive.

Speaker 3 (29:21):
I'm citizen Greg Hughes.

Speaker 1 (29:22):
All right, let's talk about the vote and elections and
what we're seeing out there. Greg, a couple of stories
out there about election fraud and election vote county delays.
I mean, sooner or later we will get results before
the end of the year. I hope. It's just nuts.

Speaker 2 (29:36):
Well, you know, one of the things that a presidential
election does is it really as a nation, we collectively
look at our processes and we have the same conversation
at the same time, and a lot of our politics
that we take we really gleaned from the national conversation
more than just the state by itself. So we've had years,
just last year, last election cycle, even in the special

(29:57):
election where it took weeks and weeks after the election
took place, actually know where the votes were. And we
saw in the case of the special election for Chris
Stewart's congressional seat, it went and it qualified for a recount,
and then you had the stamped ballots and you couldn't
read the dates on the postmarks, and it was it
was just a mess. It's getting more, I believe, attention
and discussion now than you heard back then when we

(30:20):
were going through a much much more arduous process, still
drawn out. But we are one of those states much
like California is right now or Arizona, where we're not done.
We are still not done with official canvassing and reporting
of precincts or counties. And it's unacceptable, it really is
unacceptable to be to pull this election day out these
many days or weeks to have your final results. It

(30:43):
minimally creates an appearance of impropriety or the ability for
fraud to occur because you've you've stretched this out. Then
you look at a state that's what I don't know
if it's six times five times in populations in Florida,
and in Florida's larger they're done that night, they have
ninety five percent reported within an hour or two of
the polls closing.

Speaker 3 (31:02):
Whatever they're doing, we need a little bit of that.

Speaker 1 (31:04):
I was going to ask, has anyone ever looked at
what Florida is doing and how they change things around?
Because does this stem from two thousand with the hanging
chads George Bush and Al Gore? Or is it later on,
maybe to twenty sixteen? I mean, what changed in Florida
to make it? You know, it's amazing that night we

(31:24):
get the results. So what changed and why can't we
do that here?

Speaker 2 (31:27):
I think one of the things Rod that I don't
think they mass mail unsolicited ballots to all voters like
we do in Utah. We have a mass mailing of ballots.
Senator Lee spoke about this when we interviewed him just now.
That is not a common practice. That isn't a bet.
I would argue, it's not a best practice. If you
have a ballot mail you ought to be asking for

(31:49):
that ballot to be mailed because you won't be here
for election day. You might live overseas as a missionary
or in the military. There are circumstances where that makes sense,
but to mass mail ballots and they you get into
the game of signatures because we are one of the
states and not many states do this. This is again
you tuzz in the minority, and we're actually pairing up
with blue states on this where we don't require a

(32:10):
photo ID to vote. And what I mean by that
is if you go in person, you have to have
a photo ID, but if you mail it in. We
have all this software on signature analysis. Sometimes it's strict
and it kicks it out, like does to my son
holding for some reason you can't get a signature right.
It's others who don't sign it purposely very well to

(32:31):
see if it gets kicked out and it gets accepted.
The software and where it's, how it's used and how
strict it is. It's all kind of in a gray area.
And then you get into well, if it kicks it out,
now you got to let them know, hey, your ballot
didn't count. Would you like to cure your ballot? That
takes days, That takes time. It's all based on this

(32:51):
whole signature gathering and cure lists and all those dates
that are required are in the absence of a photo ID.
You get back to a photo ID. You don't have
to worry about signatures anymore because you, the voter have
your ID. So there's a lot of good ideas that
are floating around in Arizona. They're they're talking about making
some changes so they can speed up their process. I

(33:13):
would recommend this is just me to sitting in the
cheap seats of citizen used now because I'm not a
public servant any longer. But having watching this process play
out now over the election cycles, why we would allow
the United States Postal Service to administer our elections? And
to any degree. I don't understand that there are Union
endorsed Kamala Harris. There are ballots now, if you live

(33:37):
from Beaver County and south, they go to loss, they
leave the state, they go to Las Vegas and get
processed before they're brought back into our state. I think
if you want to mass mail ballots out, I'd like
just the same day vote. But if you want to
mail the ballots out early, fair enough, But everybody should
have to bring back their ballot filled out. Most already
do run by way of these drop off places. But

(33:58):
I would have an election judge there even for the
ones that they are in parking lots where they can
scan your ID boo and they see your name, You
scan your ID, drop it off. That creates a chain
of custody that is uninterrupted. And then you get out
of this signature you know dance where you're scanning signatures
and you're rejecting them and everything else.

Speaker 1 (34:17):
That's all tail wagon the dot on the signature issue. Yes,
who sets the sensitivity meter on the machine?

Speaker 3 (34:23):
The clerk?

Speaker 1 (34:23):
Is that up to the clerk to say, be very sensitive,
don't be as sensitive, don't worry about it at all.
I mean, who sets the sensitivity means?

Speaker 2 (34:31):
So there was a legislative audit done and they realized
that the clerk couldn't do it by precent. They it's
not even uniform across the county. They could set that
sensitivity on that software machine by machine, different different there
was no uniformity to it. So one of the the
audit recommendations is that they have a published and understood standard.
But when you talk about these software machines, who who

(34:53):
understands what you're even talking about? When you talk about
the sensitivity of or how they scrutinize that signature or
what if you're a senior citizen, you got a little
bit of Parkinson's going and you're starting to be a
little more shaking or you're yeah, you know, but we
do this signature. This, this chase of signatures is all
so that we don't have to present a photo ID,

(35:13):
a government issued photo ID, to vote. I had an idea,
present a photo ID and vote and then we get
out of the signature game once and for all.

Speaker 1 (35:21):
But aren't we required to do that? In Utah? Every
time I've gone to vote, I have to show my ID.

Speaker 3 (35:25):
If you vote in person, you do.

Speaker 4 (35:27):
So.

Speaker 2 (35:27):
The only ones that don't are the ones that mail
in those ballots or they never met anybody. They just
they just dropped it off. They dropped it off anonymously
and they'll drop off box, or they mailed it by
the postal service. I'm saying, get the postal service out
of delivering the mail. So you mail out a ballot,
but to bring it back, you the voter, have to
bring back your ballot with your ID. So like in

(35:49):
my house, we have like five registered voters. I can't
bring me and the kids and Krista and Queen Bee's ballot.
Each person has to do it. And if someone says,
well that's really hard, well guess what voting in person
used to be how we did it for everything. Okay,
you got your ballot, mall to you, you get the
time to look it over, fill it out, but you've
got to return it yourself and have a photo ID
when you drop it off. And if someone says, well,

(36:11):
that's a lot of manpower having all those election judges
and people that would be standing at those drop off boxes,
it's worth it, pay it fine. The budge state budgets
down twenty plus billion dollars. Peel off a little bit
of that for some election integrity.

Speaker 1 (36:24):
You're up on the hill all the time. Do you
foresee a lot of bills dealing with election law changes
or election county coming through the legislature this year? I do.
I do absolutely.

Speaker 2 (36:34):
And I take issue with an article in the newspaper,
one of our newspapers out here where it The premise
of it is that our campaign processes are always criticized
by losing campaigns. Okay, well, I feel like we've run
the table, we've won everything, and I still don't like
this election process. So the premise being that the poor

(36:56):
sports always complain and you know the ones that they're
just mad that they didn't win. That is a false premise.
We don't have a strong enough chain of custody of
these ballots. I don't care how good you want to
make that signature software. I don't care if you don't.
If you're just mass mailing unsolicited ballots everywhere, and then
you have some software with the signatures and then you're
mailing back here people in some elections, they get the

(37:19):
letter because the postal service took them so long to
deliver the letter that says, hey, you're ballot.

Speaker 1 (37:23):
Your ballot needs to be cured.

Speaker 3 (37:25):
They received the letter after the deadline to cure it.
It's all ridiculous.

Speaker 1 (37:30):
They should and the other.

Speaker 2 (37:31):
So what I think you're going to see, Rod, is
you're going to see there's a couple of big ones
like one. We're one of only two states in America
where the lieutenant governor of a state is also in
charge of charge of all the elections.

Speaker 1 (37:42):
That needs to be done away with.

Speaker 3 (37:43):
You're a little at least awkward when the.

Speaker 1 (37:47):
Ball or passed. Lieutenant governors did anything shady. We're just
saying in apparents it looks bad. So let's let's let's
set that us up. We create an offense of elections
or whatever we want to call it.

Speaker 2 (37:59):
If we're of only two states, you've got to ask
yourself why is that the case? And I think that
that election's office should be more independent. I don't think
someone that's on the ballot ought to be in charge
of that office just by like you say, at least
by appearance alone.

Speaker 1 (38:13):
It shouldn't be.

Speaker 2 (38:13):
So that's a change I think is going to come.
And then I think, right now, if you have a
postmark the day before the election, then your ballot counts.
So they wait, They wait for the postal service to
get around. Could take two days, three days. You wait,
I say, and this is what I hope to see
in the legislature. But I don't know this one's for sure.
But it makes all the sense in the world to
me that if it's not in the hands of the
clerks to count the night at eight pm when the

(38:36):
polls close in the state of Utah, it doesn't exist.
It does not exist as a ballot. You don't have
to wait for the mail to come trickling in for
days and weeks. No, if they have it in their hand,
they count it. If they don't have it in their hand,
then it doesn't count. And so then the onus is
on the voter to make sure their vote is in
the hands of those election clerks. And I say that's
by coming in person and dropping it off.

Speaker 1 (38:58):
Yeah, well, we'll see. I honestly believe the Legislature is
going to do a lot with election law this year,
and we'll have to wait and see they take. You know,
their session begins in January. Now when we come get back.
Greg had a conversation with someone today and his theory
was this, it was better for Donald Trump to lose

(39:18):
in twenty twenty so he could win in twenty twenty four.
We'll explain and we'll get your reaction to that. And
Greg has a thought on that as well. That's all
coming up right here on the Rod and Greg Show
and Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine Knrs Karen.
I love Thanksgiving. It may be my favorite holiday.

Speaker 2 (39:38):
Mine's Fourth of July is yeah, I fourth Jo but
I know, but look, Thanksgiving is quite today. I do
love Thanksgiving. I love getting together with a family and
we watch Christmas vacation at night, and it's just then
then you kick off your Christmas holidays from there? Do
you go out on Black Friday? I used to, I
still like to. I had an incident one year, and

(39:58):
that's why I can't do it anymore.

Speaker 1 (40:00):
What did you beat somebody up?

Speaker 3 (40:01):
Well, I got angry, so you know how they.

Speaker 1 (40:05):
A gift?

Speaker 2 (40:06):
Well no, well let me just tell you what happened,
because you got to watch those folks. So I think
this still goes on. You know, they get the door prices,
they get, they get you with the ads and it's
not as big now as it used to be. But
they used to give away flats, TVs and everything. Right now,
So I'm waiting at the door at the big Walmart
and I'm going to get mine, and I'm gonna get
I'm getting like a couple of these big screens because
they're giving them away, and I rush the crowd and

(40:27):
I get there, I'm jocking for position. I get a
bunch of gifts for my sister, and I just it's
just it's you know, that's why they do it, because
they know that. And there's only while supplies last, so
you're on the clock and it's not like it's going
to be there all day. So I get a bunch
of they got a palette right when you walk in,
of these TVs and I'm getting these TVs and I'm
getting it, and so we get all our other stuff
and I getting this line. It's like as long as

(40:49):
you can think of. And I get finally to get
to the register, and I'm watching this thing ring up
and it's going higher and higher and higher, and we're
getting into dollar amounts that I was not budget for
at all, And so get they get ready. They give
me the receipt, They give me the you know, my bill,
and I want me to pay, and I said, there's
something wrong here, and I look at the receipt and

(41:11):
some of the TV's all the same TV is the
is the Doorbuster one hundred dollars one hundred twenty dollars
price and everyone's like the three hundred dollars price, you
got the wrong one. And I'm like, these are the
same exact TVs, but you've charged me different and they
and they said, well, you're gonna have to work that
out over at customer service, which the customer service lines longer,
and I am not moving anywhere until you take all
this off of my t off of my tent, off

(41:32):
my receipt. They bring in a lady, a manager, and
people behind me are getting that upset at me because
I'm holding up the line because I'm at the casher
just stoar. I won't move an inch till I get
this right. And they said, well, you have. Some of
those are black and white boxes. Summer boxes have color
on them. And the colored boxes are the three hundred
dollars TV's. The one hundred and twenty five dollars TVs
are the black and white boxes. They're on the same palette.

(41:55):
And I start yelling, these are this is predatory practices,
and I start screaming, predatory practic this is predatory practices
I causes. Apparently, according to my wife and my sister
in law and my kids, I caused a big scene.
But I got my receipt worked out at the cash register.
They didn't send me to that next long line. But
I've never been invited back. And I think I saved

(42:17):
I saved our family a lot of money by spoting
that and then absolutely demanding justice be served on the spot.

Speaker 3 (42:22):
But I don't get the know.

Speaker 1 (42:24):
You could be one of the worst people to get
behind in a checkout. Com here's what you need to do.
You need a sign and put it on your back,
and people read it and say, do not stand behind
me in the checkout. I think my story may be
perfectly reasonable. And now here's the deal.

Speaker 2 (42:41):
That cashier may as well have had a ski mask
on and a gun in her hand. She was robbing me.
I was being robbed in real time. I was not
going to be robbed. I was going to seek justice,
and I wasn't getting a new line of one hundred
people to see that justice. You're not charging me because
the box is colored. Now, if you have that policy,
put it on a different power. Don't put it on
the pallette that has all the Doorbuster prize. You know

(43:03):
TV discounted TV.

Speaker 1 (43:05):
My Only, My Only Black Variday horror story. I had
to block out a woman once from getting a gift
because there was only one left, and it was I
blocked her out.

Speaker 2 (43:16):
That's a worse story. My story story is about justice.

Speaker 1 (43:19):
How many people were in that line behind you in
I don't care they still remember that story.

Speaker 3 (43:23):
I saved every one of them.

Speaker 2 (43:25):
Every one of them behind me probably didn't because I
wasn't quiet about what they were doing. If they had
one of those colored boxes, they they were going to
get hooked for the the twice the price or more.
And I wasn't having it. No, I think I was
doing a service to everybody there. But I still hear
about it. My why Queen Bee and my sister in
law still like to mind you said the predatory practice,

(43:48):
screaming predatory practices was over the top.

Speaker 3 (43:51):
I crossed the line by what you kind of did.

Speaker 4 (43:54):
No.

Speaker 2 (43:55):
I think I was warning the other patrons of that
store that there was something wrong here, something was going on.
They were trying to take so.

Speaker 1 (44:02):
There was no sign on the palette. There was a
sign that the TVs in the color boxes are more
expensive than the TV's.

Speaker 2 (44:10):
Always signed on that palette was the door buster price,
you know, to get you there at the price. It
didn't say anything different about the black and white boxes
in the colored boxes. It only said that the TVs
that were all the same brand, size, everything were a
certain price. But they they tried to explain to me
that what the difference was, Well, it wasn't. It wasn't
my problem, that's their problem.

Speaker 1 (44:30):
But do you so you don't go out anymore? On
Black Friday.

Speaker 3 (44:33):
I'm not invited. No, I know, they don't do it like.

Speaker 1 (44:36):
Your wife and your your sister in law or sister. No,
they don't invite you to go.

Speaker 2 (44:40):
I'm not invited anymore. And you know what, it's a
lot of aggravation. I'm not actually pining a way to
go back. But you know, here's the problem. It's not
the only things we bought, so the so the receipt's
pretty long. You got to you got to really scrutinize
that receipt to make sure you see where in the
world everything got expensive on you.

Speaker 1 (44:56):
And I did that. We were going to talk polots,
I know we were. Oh, we kind of got off
on this. You had to share this story with you.

Speaker 3 (45:04):
But it was totally unplanned when you said it.

Speaker 1 (45:06):
If you see citizen Hughes in a store during the holidays,
do not get behind him or do not get anywhere
near him.

Speaker 2 (45:13):
Well you might want to stay near me because if
I if I spot fraud folks, I'll let you know.
I won't be quiet about it. I will I will
sound the alarm.

Speaker 1 (45:22):
We gotta get you that T shirt which one Black Friday.
Do not stand behind me, no, because I can delay that.
I was, I was, it was your service. Sure, everybody,
We'll get back on track when we come back. After
a news update here on the Rod and Greg Show
in Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine. Can arrest
Rod our kit I'm citizen. Greg Hughes had an interesting

(45:42):
conversation today with a listener, a fan of the show,
and said, Rod, have you ever thought about this? Was
it better that Donald Trump lost in twenty twenty so
he could come back and win in twenty twenty four?
It said, having two different Trump terms instead of back
to bag the way it would have been if he

(46:04):
would have won in twenty twenty. And he says, you know,
I think it was better for Donald Trump to lose
in twenty twenty, even though we had to live through
four years of just craziness with a Kamala and Biden
in front for them for now him to come back
win in twenty four so he can make the changes
he thinks he needs to make. I thought it was an.

Speaker 2 (46:24):
Interesting thought, and I agree with it. I don't so
the only part that the only hesitation I have to
go all in on that theory is the carnage and
the suffering that people have lived through, and the fourteen
million people that are here illegally that we know of,
and then all the others and the cartels, and how
many nationals from every country enemy of the state we
have from around the world that's here. I don't know

(46:46):
that that's a good enough trade off. However, we President
Trump to let these Democrats have control of the House
and the Senate and the Presidency as Biden did in
the first two years, and really yeah, and then we
took control of the House. It allowed them to put
into motion every policy they've ever wanted, and it actually

(47:09):
introduced to America in mass how destructive that party is
and how little they think of the everyday people, and
how it's a party of elitists and it is not
the party of the everyday American. And you could not,
you couldn't get through the last four years without coming
to that conclusion. And the exit polls, the results of
the election proved that out. If you didn't have them

(47:30):
being able to do everything that they wanted to do
so you could feel the true damage that they want
to do to this country, then I don't know that
Trump's second term would be received the same way.

Speaker 1 (47:40):
Well, I think you make a very good point because
I think what by losing in twenty twenty and letting
and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris take over with basically
all of Obama's appointees for the most part, I mean
they worked for him. He couldn't get it done during
his eight years. The country wasn't ready for this, but
he I think they saw an opportunity. People hate Donald Trump.

(48:01):
He you know, they think he's ruined the country, He's
bad for their So let's try this progressive ideology. And
that's what they did, and the American people, Greg I
think got about what. Well, We're nearing the end of
four years of progressive ideology and the American people don't
like what they see. They have pushed back and that's why,
you know, just think about this. Think about another four

(48:24):
years of Trump following his first four years, he.

Speaker 2 (48:27):
Would have had to deal with COVID YEP, and everything
would have been cast Everything that he'd have done would
have been described as the end of the.

Speaker 1 (48:33):
Earth, and the press and the media would have never
backed off on this guy. The law fair, which was
bad already, may have even gotten worse. So I think
I agree with the theory it was probably better, even
though we suffered through Biden and Kamala for four years.
It was better for him to almost lose but then
come back in twenty twenty four to be that agent
of change.

Speaker 2 (48:53):
In one area of public policy that actually hits so
many other areas of public policy. It's this illegal immigration. Yeah,
I can't tell you for how I mean, for decades
I had I had debates with so called conservatives that
wanted open borders. They did not want to have an
immigration policy. They felt like the border should be open.
This is These are people that are more libertarian maybe
in nature. But we had the chambers of commerce who

(49:15):
liked the free lay or the cheap labor of immigrant
They didn't want to have anyone any of them held up.
And I would have these debates about the rule of
law and how this would impact detrimentally our country if
you allowed this to happen. These were all intellectual discussions.
I'm looking at polls right now after four years of
open borders, and the and the media can't scare America

(49:38):
away from the concept of mass deportation. They every time
they try to frame it as something that's draconian and bad.
The American people like and we like it, and we
support it and we need it. You've got Justin Trudeau
from Canada, of all places. This guy's a joker. He's
he's admitting I've made mistakes on immigration, his immigration policy.
He's putting a complete halt to his immigration into Canada

(50:01):
for the next three years because his poll numbers are
in the tank and people don't want any more of
what these people have done. Well, I think as an
academic discussion on public policy, we were not necessarily carrying
the day feeling the public safety threat, the threats to
your housing and to your jobs and to your public
schools and everything that has been included in these open borders,

(50:24):
and the recklessness of it all, and the cartel's controlling
all of this. I don't even think it's up for
debate anymore. I think people know it's not. It doesn't work.
It should have never happened.

Speaker 1 (50:34):
Yeah, well, I just think I don't know what would
have happened another four years of Trump. But like I said,
the media would never have let up on this guy,
and I don't know if they'll let up on this time.
But you know what he feels now, I think more
so than even in twenty sixteen, that he really does
have a mandate from the American people who are saying
to everybody, especially to Washington, we don't like how you operate.

(50:57):
We don't want to put up with all these rules
and regulations. We don't want to put up with crime,
with the you know, soft on crime, we don't want
to put up with illegal immigration. Get in there, Donald
Trump and fix it. And the mere fact that he
took a little break, he's now reading the wins a
little bit better than he used to, and he's got
a solid team behind him. I actually agree with the

(51:18):
individual I was talking to. I think it was better
for him to lose in twenty twenty and come back
strong in twenty twenty four.

Speaker 2 (51:25):
He got more votes than he did, and say he
did he broke all the records, and so did Biden
in twenty twenty. But again, yeah, but yeah, but this
time he've got more votes than he's got in twenty twenty.
And I'm going to tell you that this was truly
a campaign of addition, and it is touching on people
that in sixteen didn't vote for him, and twenty didn't

(51:46):
vote for him, and he's reaching into demographics, urban voters,
suburban voters, and rural voters all going his way, Black, Hispanic,
you name it. There's just a there's a growth of
support for this man to be our president on all fronts.
Ninety five or ninety plus percent of the counties across America,

(52:06):
over four thousand counties in America. All he saw growth
and more support in over ninety percent of the counties
in America. Whether he won the state or not. That
is a powerful mandate that he would not have had
in twenty twenty.

Speaker 1 (52:19):
All right, when we come back, I want to get
a few phone calls on this if you agree or
disagree with with me and the individual I was speaking
with earlier today, do you think it was better that
Donald Trump lost in twenty twenty so we could come
back strong? And it's early yet in twenty twenty four
eight eight eight five seven oh eight zero one zero,
or on your cell phone, dal pound two fifty and
say hey, Rod eight eight eight five seven zero eight

(52:43):
zero one zero. I'm Rod Arquette, I'm citizen Greg Hughes.
All right, we're talking about a question that a conversation
I had with someone today and he said, Ronnie, have
you thought about this. Was it better for Donald Trump
to lose in twenty twenty so he could come back
even stronger in twenty twenty four? And were you asking
you that question right now? Eighty eight eight five seven

(53:04):
eight zero one zero.

Speaker 2 (53:06):
So let's get to those phones right away here at
the last of this break, let's go to Dan in
Salt Lake. Dan, Welcome to the Rowden Greg Show.

Speaker 9 (53:15):
Guys, thanks for taking my call. Hey Greg, real quick,
I've voted for you and I'm still waiting for the recount.
I found several thousand ballanced in my garage, so I'm
I'm waiting.

Speaker 8 (53:28):
For the recount and they don't have they don't have
signatures that we don't care.

Speaker 1 (53:35):
Thank you.

Speaker 4 (53:35):
Dan.

Speaker 2 (53:36):
It is a smart guy, rog Yeah, sure, So what
are your thoughts on this? Is it better for him
to lose in twenty I mean, it wasn't good that
I lost in twenty I'll tell you that immensely.

Speaker 8 (53:46):
I think it's immensely better that he lost and he's
coming back because I think his plans are a lot
more solid. He's had four years of experience and understands
a lot more how to you know, work through this
swampy government? And at the same time, he also has
a Congress that, you know, a sort of a few

(54:08):
you know, Thuon Romney types, I think are going to
step in line because his mandate is really pretty strong.

Speaker 1 (54:15):
Yes it is, it is, Dan, thank you. He's right.
I mean, he's got a mandate and he's got Congress
behind him. Let's go to Danny in Taylorsville tonight on
the Roden Greg Show. What say you, Danny?

Speaker 4 (54:26):
Hey?

Speaker 10 (54:27):
Rodin Greg. I think everybody's making great points tonight, and
I agree with you guys on.

Speaker 4 (54:31):
A lot of it.

Speaker 10 (54:33):
Twenty twenty four will go down as the biggest middle finger.
That's the voters that have ever given to the left.

Speaker 1 (54:38):
And that's beautiful, right, Yeah, it jurious.

Speaker 10 (54:40):
But I also think we have to remember that if
Trump had won in twenty twenty, we would have not
had the disastrous pull out from Afghanistan, so even hundreds
of million dollars of military equipment behind that the Taliban recovered.
I don't think that Russia would have invaded Ukraine, and
I don't think that Hamas would have attacked I ran
on October seventh had Trump's still been in office. So

(55:01):
I do think that like for the for the amount
of misery that has been caused by Biden's ineptitude in
foreign relations. I kind of just wish we had had Trump,
you know.

Speaker 3 (55:11):
Yeah, in a day, I struggled with that.

Speaker 2 (55:12):
Today at the same point, I was thinking about too,
Let's go to Jim in Salt Lake.

Speaker 1 (55:16):
Jim, Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 4 (55:19):
Yeah, I think it's I've always said three months after
the twenty twenty election that it was better that Trump
lost then actually because they had the Democrats had the
Congress or the House and the Senate, and they would
have impeached him, and they had the Senate to remove

(55:39):
him from office. He wouldn't have lasted the four full years.
And also it's so much better because, yeah, we've had
a lot of bad things happen, but Trump or a
Republican never would have won this election. There would be
a Democrat just going into the White House, and we

(56:05):
would have had all that crap and more this next
four years.

Speaker 1 (56:09):
You're right, Jim, thank you. We appreciate that a lot,
a lot. Same thing about that they tried already. They
would have continued trying. Let's go to Glenn in American
for tonight. Here on the Roden Greg Show. Glenn, thanks
for joining us.

Speaker 8 (56:24):
Yeah, I have to agree.

Speaker 6 (56:25):
I don't like the amount.

Speaker 11 (56:26):
Of human sufferings with Curdo the last four years. I
think Trump, though, I think he's stronger. I think he's
had a lot of time to to think about this
and prepare and figure out whose cabinet's going to be.
And I think one other thing is jd Vance. I
like the leadership, and that's over the next perhaps eight years.
I don't feel like we had that with Pants. I

(56:47):
spent too much time on his hair.

Speaker 1 (56:48):
So here and swat mosquitoes.

Speaker 3 (56:53):
That's right, Thank you, Thank you for your call and
your comments.

Speaker 1 (56:56):
I agree.

Speaker 2 (56:56):
Ben in Syracuse right before the break sixty seconds, Hey,
what's your take?

Speaker 12 (57:02):
I think I think Trump is stronger, He's he was
a better candidate and and things are just going to
be better. But I think another big part of it
is that the American people had to experience the crap
and see it because it was an it was a
campaign of addition, because they saw how bad it was.
I don't think it would have been nearly a strong

(57:24):
what's out with that? And seeing that That's why that's
why Brooklyn was so strong for Trump and on all
the areas that were definitely blue before.

Speaker 7 (57:32):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (57:32):
Oh boy, that's a good point. And now the bad
before we can see the good.

Speaker 2 (57:35):
Yeah, And I'm very very excited. I don't think it
goes away if if, if he's able to accomplish where
I believe he will. I think that you have a
younger generation of Americans who are going to be more
engaged in a campaign's elections and in who they want
to represent them now because of COVID, what they went
through when they were younger than we've ever seen. That
demographic is emerging, and I'm I'm super excited about it.

(57:57):
One of the things that Roder that makes excited too
is that Trump today it was announced he's going to
give White House Presspool credentials to podcasters, YouTubers, social media influencers,
so Jim Acosta doesn't get to run the show the
whole time. It's got a bunch of these these young
guys going, hey, you're being obnoxious.

Speaker 1 (58:14):
We're ready, all right, what's in store for education in
America with Donald Trump? We'll break it all down for
you coming up next. Hi, everyone, I'm Rod Arquette, I'm
citizen Hughes all right. I think one of the most
exciting things about Donald Trump, and there are a lot
of things exciting about an incoming Trump administration, Greg, is
what is going to happen to education?

Speaker 7 (58:36):
Now?

Speaker 1 (58:36):
You and I have said for quite some time on
this show, Well you've only been here since July, but
I've been here longer then, and I've always felt I
don't I don't see a need for a Department of Education.
That's one of the targets that they're taking a look at.
And I can't wait to see what Elsie does when
it comes to education.

Speaker 2 (58:51):
I'm really excited and what people have to realize. And
I've already seen the demagoguery. I've seen the fear mongering.
They're saying, you know they pay for free and reduced
lunch kids that live in poverty, you know that special education.
These kids are never getting get education. No one's talking
about the funding as much as they're talking about the bureaucracy.
These states who pay into the pot should be able

(59:13):
to keep that money or have that block granted back,
because our schools and our states are well equipped and
better equipped to deliver education to the kids unique to
the state we live in. We don't need that federal
government to do it. But don't let anyone tell you
that all of that funding somehow gets spent somewhere else
in the federal government. That's not the plan. If there
is a plan, won't happened.

Speaker 1 (59:33):
Well, someone who may have a thought or two on this,
as well as our next guest, it is Ryan Walters.
Ryan is the Oklahoma State school Superintendent, very outspoken in
this country about what needs to be done in education. Ryan,
how are you welcome back to the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 13 (59:48):
I'm great, and you guys just laid it out right
there very well. I couldn't agree. I could agree more.
I mean, you know, you listen to the scare tactics
around this. If oh my gosh, you know what about this,
I'm going Hey, for over two hundred years this country
didn't have a federal Department of Education, and guess what,
we became the most powerful, greatest country in the history
of the world.

Speaker 7 (01:00:09):
You know, I think we could.

Speaker 13 (01:00:10):
Do this without an agency of five thousand employees dictating
the states how to use their own dollars.

Speaker 2 (01:00:18):
Ryan, let me ask you this. You know I'm a
recovering public servant. Okay, so I was in our state legislature,
and I've worked on education issues forever and one of
the what I felt, at least in the state of Utah,
one of the big impediments to delivering education to our
students and helping them were these union bosses. I'm not
going to say teachers. I love teachers, but the union
bosses I never jelled with at all. There was an

(01:00:40):
interesting interview where the union boss for one of the
larger teachers unions nationally was shown a two five hundred
percent increase over a period of time of funding for
public schools with a two percent or less academic increase.
And the question posed to this union boss was do
you think you're actually getting this done okay with these percentages?

(01:01:01):
And the answer back was astounding and the answer was, well,
they don't do what we tell them to do. I
don't know what your experiences in Oklahoma, but maybe you
could share the relationship, you know, if we're talking education reform,
where does this these these union bosses and education and
teachers education teachers unions, where do they fit in the

(01:01:22):
mix or not?

Speaker 8 (01:01:23):
Look?

Speaker 13 (01:01:24):
Look you said that so well, I mean, here here's
the reality. You know, the teachers' unions try to pretend
like they're a bunch of teachers, when in reality the
union bosses that these are just political power players. So
all they're trying to do is collect money from their
members does and and create power for themselves. I mean,
I'm amazed, you know, here in Oklahoma, as we've started

(01:01:45):
doing more of an information campaign to teachers and the
teachers in the union going guys, do you understand where
your dollars are going? Do you understand what they're doing,
what they're lobbing for. Oh, we've had a mass excess
from our union. They go, no, we didn't know that.
You know, we thought it was, you know, an association
for teachers that do professional development. They don't lead with no. Actually,
all we're trying to do is make sure that we

(01:02:07):
get to be a.

Speaker 7 (01:02:08):
Power broker here.

Speaker 13 (01:02:09):
I mean, remember the National Teachers Union was lobbying Congress
to keep schools shut down until they got paid off
to go back to school during COVID. So it was like, hey, look,
we know the kids are falling behind, we know there's
all these issues, but hold on until we get our payout.

Speaker 7 (01:02:24):
We're not going back.

Speaker 13 (01:02:26):
So, I mean, the unions and by the way, when
Jimmy Carter created the Federal Department of Education in the
nineteen seventies, it was because that was the number one
ask of the National Teachers Union. They lobbied for it
because they knew they could partner with that agency to
push their agenda on school. So don't forget that those
two are intertwined with one another in their goals for

(01:02:48):
the country.

Speaker 1 (01:02:49):
Let me ask you this, Ryan, do the American Do
parents in America today trust the Department of Education?

Speaker 7 (01:02:57):
Absolutely not.

Speaker 13 (01:02:58):
I mean they look at this and the Department of
Education partner with the Department of Justice and the School
Board Association to target parents, literally investigating them.

Speaker 7 (01:03:08):
I mean, we had examples.

Speaker 13 (01:03:09):
All over the country where federal agents showed up at
a parent's house and go, hey, did you shut up
at the lost board meeting?

Speaker 14 (01:03:14):
You questioning the board?

Speaker 7 (01:03:16):
Well, we got some questions for you.

Speaker 13 (01:03:17):
I mean, if parents are going now, you shut schools down,
you targeted us, You fight school choice, I mean school choice.
A parent shouldn't be able to decide where the kid
goes to school, according to teacher's unions, So we'll decide.

Speaker 7 (01:03:29):
Where you go to school. We know better than you.

Speaker 13 (01:03:31):
There's such an elitism, right that goes on with this,
but no parents say, listen, we want to be in
more control of our kids' lives. Look, we want to
play a role in the path of success for them,
and of course they should. That's what God designed the
family unit and school should be more reflective of that.
And listen, they've all parents of loss trust for the

(01:03:51):
federal Department of Education for a long time.

Speaker 1 (01:03:54):
Have you found it?

Speaker 2 (01:03:54):
We found in the state of Utah that that you know.
They'll say, oh, the partner of Education. It's for kids
living in poverty, free and reduced lunch, and it's for
special education. But they use that as a stick. They
use the funding they bring or that they provide to
a state to really dictate one hundred percent of the
of the education delivery within a school. They use it

(01:04:15):
saying if you don't comply with this, we're going to
pull back this money. We saw this back even in
the Bush administration with No Child Left Behind, where we
just didn't fit all those mandates. It just didn't work
in our state. But they were threatening our Title I
money and all those money for the comprehensive control that
the Department of Education wanted to have but that was
a long time ago that I'm talking about. What is

(01:04:36):
that relationship with the Department of Education and states as
you see it? Are they that heavy handed today as
I felt they were in the past.

Speaker 7 (01:04:44):
Absolutely, and you know they've gotten worse. And use your example.
I was a special ed teacher.

Speaker 13 (01:04:48):
That was my background before I got involved into the
state level. And you know special lads, you know, students
and families that have a special place in my heart.
And think about the absurdity of the position. Shouldn't you hear
some of the of the folks on the left say,
so that should be dictated. I mean, I think every
kid's unique, right, every kid is unique. Every kid has
unique talents, unique challenges. That's especially true in our special

(01:05:11):
ed community, right, our special needs students. So you think
that the people in DC should be the ones dictating
how those individual students get their education. Well, that's what
they're doing right now, instead of states and families saying, hey, look,
you know we're going to find some creative ways, some
innovative ways to meet these challenges. Oh, it's top down,
it's an absurd it's an absurd model. But number two,

(01:05:33):
to your point of the heavy handedness. Don't forget that
over the summer. I know your viewers, your listeners that
remember this. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris woke up one day
and said, you know what, I think boys can.

Speaker 7 (01:05:42):
Be girls and girls can be boys.

Speaker 13 (01:05:43):
So we're going to tell the states that boys have
to be allowed to go in the girl's bathroom and
boys have to be allowed to go in girls' sports,
or we're.

Speaker 7 (01:05:50):
Taking all of those dollars back immediately.

Speaker 13 (01:05:53):
And to even be more heavy handed, we will find
you if you don't agree to this woke nonsense. We
will find you in violation a Title nine, a civil
rights violation. You teacher, you administrator, you know, a school staffer.
What an absurd thing that, But again, you know we
fought it. Hey, we didn't comply here. We slapped a

(01:06:16):
lawsuit on Joe Biden, first date to do that on
that issue.

Speaker 7 (01:06:20):
But the reality is.

Speaker 13 (01:06:21):
Is that's the type of thing that we're willing to
do to enforce their agenda.

Speaker 7 (01:06:25):
On the state.

Speaker 1 (01:06:25):
Yeah, pretty amazing. I've got to ask you one more
question here, Ryan, because I saw this story over the weekend.
You're well aware of it, but you have purchased more
than five hundred Bibles for classrooms in the state of Oklahoma.
How do you see that or why did you do that?
And how do you incorporate that into the curriculum there?
Ryan in Oklahoma?

Speaker 13 (01:06:45):
Ryan, Yeah, look, thanks for the question, because since the
nineteen sixty something fascinating has happened is that our Supreme
Court decided to weaponize their power against prayer in school
and against the Bibles school and.

Speaker 7 (01:07:00):
Even y'all, we're gonna kick out this.

Speaker 13 (01:07:02):
Even the New York Times fact checked me and said, well,
he actually is actually correct. I mean, a Bible would
have been in every classroom until the nineteen sixties. It's like, well,
of course it would have, because it's the most read
book in American history. It's the most cited book in
American history. It's the most purchased book in American history.
So how do you cover in American history class I
never mentioned the Bible? Good bine, I mean, I mean,
how do you talk about the Pilgrim I mean, let

(01:07:22):
me give you a few examples. How do you talk
about the Pilgrims? Why did they come to America? Okay,
you can't use the Bible, you can't use Christianity. How
do you explain that to a kid?

Speaker 7 (01:07:30):
It doesn't make any sense.

Speaker 13 (01:07:31):
So we're going, guys, in its historical context, it's got
to be back in those schools.

Speaker 7 (01:07:36):
Well, we have to have that.

Speaker 13 (01:07:37):
So we started with our Look, we're gonna put it
back in all the classrooms because it's so so involved
in so much of our history. But we started with
American government classrooms going, Okay, Thomas Jefferson sent our rights come.

Speaker 7 (01:07:48):
From our creator? Well, what did he mean? Number one?
Number two?

Speaker 13 (01:07:51):
How did most Americans view that statement? Well, what's their
concept of that? Why did that resonate with them? How
did they view that? How did they view their government
and their rights.

Speaker 7 (01:07:59):
Coming from God?

Speaker 13 (01:08:00):
Look, you've got to understand the first grade awakening. You
got to understand some of those leaders. What were they saying?
How are people engaged with that? We even go up
to one of the things we require is we require
students to understand in the civil rights movement to Martin
Luther King Junior's letter from a Birmingham jail. Right, he
gets arrested, but but he's being a hammerd He's being criticized.
You know, you say that you're you know, this up

(01:08:20):
moral person.

Speaker 7 (01:08:22):
You broke the law. How do you defend that?

Speaker 13 (01:08:24):
He writes this beautiful letter letter from a Birmingham jail,
and he says, Hey, I'm a Christian first, and in
the Bible I see Daniel said right, and meshche can
have been to go and others that they broke the
law technically, but they said that they had to because
it didn't align with God's law and God bless them
for And so that's why I feel I am just
in what I'm doing. Well, how do you, okay, Now,

(01:08:44):
explain to a kid why Martin Luther King Junior felt
he was justified in being arrested and breaking the law
to stand up for civil rights without using the Bible
and Christian like again, it is academic malpractice to say
you can't have these things in the classroom, and it
warps the student's view of American in.

Speaker 1 (01:09:01):
Brian, it is always great to have you on the show.
And you know what, Ryan, you scare me a little bit.
You know why, you just make too much sense. You're
part of the party of common sense. You're part of
the party of common sense that we talk about on
this show all the time. Ryan, So really appreciate your
insight thanks for joining us. I know we'll be talking again. Thanks.

Speaker 7 (01:09:21):
Ryan, absolutely appreciate you guys. Have a good one.

Speaker 3 (01:09:24):
Hey, thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:09:25):
All right. Ryan Walters, superintendent of public instruction there in
the state of Oklahoma. He makes a lot of sense.

Speaker 2 (01:09:32):
You know, if Thomas Jefferson said, you know, your rights
are granted by a creator, Kamala Harrison say hey, you're
in the wrong rally, get out of here. You found
the wrong place, pal hit the road.

Speaker 1 (01:09:41):
I wonder if she would have said that to Thomas Jefferson.

Speaker 2 (01:09:43):
That's what I'm saying, would kicked him out different rally,
get out of here. Get hear that, get out of.

Speaker 3 (01:09:49):
Here Christian stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:09:50):
All right, more coming back on Utah's Talk Radio one
O five nine k n R S. We're just talking
with Ryan Walters. He's the superintendent of schools there in
the state of Oklahoma. Really bright, bright guy, was a
fantastic ideas well. We just this just came across that
President Trump, who is headed President elect Trump has selected

(01:10:11):
Linda McMahon to be the education secretary, so you know,
he's shaking things up.

Speaker 2 (01:10:16):
She headed up I believe commerce in y I believe
she was. Yeah, and I'm glad to see that she's back.
And and again I think that her leadership just generally
and it hits her task to take the Department of
Education and take herself out of a job. I think
you want someone that's not embedded in that bureaucracy to

(01:10:37):
do it.

Speaker 3 (01:10:38):
Yeah, so I think that's really good.

Speaker 1 (01:10:39):
He's shaking I tell you what, he's shaking things up now.
I want to talk for a few minutes, Greg in
this segment about all the I think there was a
lot of media attention here in this state and maybe
a little bit nationally that was focused on members of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints in
the states of Nevada and Arizona because many people thought
it would be a very very tight race. And you know,

(01:11:03):
so both parties, both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, made
appeals to members of the LDS faith in Arizona and Nevada.
And I think I asked you a couple of days ago,
I haven't seen any numbers when you know how it
all broke out. And if, in fact Kamala Harris made
some inroads, well apparently she didn't. No, she did not.

(01:11:28):
Now let me break this down. This is the story today.
The destnews dot com website had it the survey. According
to the election polls, Latter Day Saints surveyed, sixty four
percent supported Trump, thirty two percent supported Vice President Kamala Harris. Okay.
In Nevada, where members of the LDS faith made up

(01:11:49):
four percent of the voters, seventy nine percent supported Donald
Trump compared to nineteen percent for Kamala Harris. Now look
at Arizona where Latter Day Saints, Like I said, I
had that wrong. I'm sorry. Now let's go to let's
see where Latter Day Saints made up fifty two percent

(01:12:10):
of voters, seventy three percent supported Trump, twenty four percent
in Utah, reported Harris here in Utah. So it's pretty
obvious that despite the efforts by some Latter Day Saint
politicians to convince them to vote for Kamala Harris, it
didn't didn't turn out very well, did it.

Speaker 8 (01:12:29):
Well?

Speaker 3 (01:12:29):
Let me connect some dots.

Speaker 2 (01:12:30):
Yes, please do Okay, And I was looking for the
article because I kept it for just this occasion, Jeff Flake,
And this isn't the article. I kept this one too,
But former Arizona senator and US ambassador Jeff Flake was
very considers himself a conservative. In every article where he's
endorsing Kamala Harris as the moral choice for the election,

(01:12:55):
continues to tout his proced or his self assessed Concervntism.
In doing so, he wrangled some of these members of
the Church of Jesus Christ, the Latter day Saints, members
of the church that were mayors to join him in
these press conferences with you know, blackards, saying country over
party and all of this. And he just had this

(01:13:16):
big moral case to be made to elect Kamala Harris.
And we would laugh and I would laugh, We would
laugh at this at such a ridiculous premise here on
the show. But we did ask ourselves, is this going
to stick? Is is this going to have an impact?
I don't know very many elections that are in the seventies.

(01:13:36):
If you take the demographic of members of the church
and it's seventy five percent, it's seventy nine percent. I
think Saddam Hussein and his rigged elections got seventy nine
percent in Iraq.

Speaker 3 (01:13:47):
Okay, I'm telling.

Speaker 2 (01:13:48):
You that that is such a collective rebuke of the
of the blather that Mitt Romney and Jeff Flake were
peddling to people of the Church of Jesis Christ Life
Saints that somehow they, as the bastions of all that
is moral, should vote for Kamala Harris instead of Donald Trump.
It was wholly and entirely rejected. You can get thirty

(01:14:11):
percent again for Democrats in any of the red estates
in America. There's a thirty percent based for Democrats always.
You can just wait, you to just kid. But Donald
Duck put a D next to their name, they're gonna
get thirty. They're not getting thirty percent among members of
the Churchy's Christ not even getting that. So I don't
know how he could be told and Romney could be
told you're wrong more so than the out companies, including

(01:14:34):
even in Utah, which is in a seventy percentile range
of members of the church who voted for Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:14:40):
Well, I just shared with you the numbers, right, I
mean overwhelmingly in support of President Trump and not that
much much support for Kamala Harris. Right, But then are
you ready for this? A sociology professor at d YU
said he believes Harris made inroads with Letter Dade Saints
based on early available data calling her support among the

(01:15:02):
Latter day Saints in Arizona, Utah nationally impressive in a
year where non LDS voters clearly moved right word nationally.
How is that impressive? I mean she got.

Speaker 2 (01:15:14):
Walloped, she did, and it's not And his analysis has
contrived because I've looked at the Fox News exit polls
of one hundreds of thousands, one hundred and fifty thousand
people that they there isn't anyone who's affiliated with a
religion they said, or do you go to church?

Speaker 3 (01:15:30):
Yes, what's your faith? They give it to them, they
share it.

Speaker 2 (01:15:32):
Who did you vote for? I vote for Trump? I
vote for Kamala Harris. There isn't a faith that voted
in a stronger percentage for Donald Trump than the members
of the church he is Christ Larry Saints nationally. So
forget Arizona. So this in road he's talking about where
it's you can't find it because they outpaced every Christian
faith in America in terms of their.

Speaker 3 (01:15:54):
Support for Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:15:55):
They did.

Speaker 2 (01:15:55):
Yeah, I'll tell you right now. People the ones in
Utah that have the like the Trump drain syndrome and
still are never Trumpers, they better take a hard look
at what these what people are doing and how they're
making choices for who they want to be their leaders,
because you got a lot of people like the one
that that one calumnist that said, we're on the wrong
side of history if we support Trump. Are members of
the church uh lds church support Trump? She's on the

(01:16:17):
wrong side of history. They're on the wrong side of history.
And it's not even close.

Speaker 1 (01:16:21):
No, no, As a matter of fact, if we have
time tomorrow, Greg, I saw this terrific article written by
Ben de Mintch. He is with Fox News. He wrote
this article. He said, the rise and fall of the
never Trumpers. Yes, and if we have time tomorrow, we'll
let the door hit you on the way out. You
got it, all right? More coming up on the rod
In Greg Show in Utah's Talk Radio one oh five

(01:16:42):
nine can arrest.

Speaker 3 (01:16:44):
I'm citizen Greg Hughes and I'm.

Speaker 1 (01:16:45):
Roder Our Kent Jesse Kelly coming your way following our
news update for you at the top of the hour.
Several key issues in this election which was held. Can
you believe that two weeks ago today?

Speaker 2 (01:16:55):
Yeah, it feels like a month, just glorious, beautiful two weeks.

Speaker 1 (01:17:00):
Well, we talked about the economy. We talked about immigration,
and we thought crime was related to immigration, right.

Speaker 3 (01:17:07):
Absolutely.

Speaker 1 (01:17:08):
The interesting thing about this election was that Donald Trump
made really unbelievable inroads in urban areas, the major cities
in the country, because I think a lot of them
are just sick and tired of the crime, and they say,
we want it stopped.

Speaker 2 (01:17:22):
I cannot again, this country's moved in ways and they've
had conversations as collectively as a nation, I just wasn't
sure we could ever have again. And one of the
big conversations coming into this election where from traditional Democrats
or Democrat voters where they're saying.

Speaker 1 (01:17:36):
Why would we vote for you again?

Speaker 3 (01:17:38):
What have you done?

Speaker 2 (01:17:39):
You assume our vote, you expect our vote, and yet
things have never been worse. They and they collectively resisted
and pushed back. We haven't seen that before for a
Republican candidate running. We've not seen those traditionally strong Democrat
blocks say you know what, you're not just assuming our
vote anymore. We're done with this. So I think it's
I do think that these gains that have been made

(01:18:01):
can be generational.

Speaker 1 (01:18:02):
Well, joining us now on our News Michael Line to
talk more about that is Charles faine Lehman. He is
a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. We've had Charles on
the show before, always a great guest. Charles, in light
of what happened in this election two weeks ago and
the numbers change that we saw in the urban areas,
do you foresee any major changes as to how cities

(01:18:23):
are run when it comes to dealing with crime.

Speaker 15 (01:18:26):
You know, I'd like to be optimistic. And that's the
thrust of the article, because you know, the article which
I wrote with.

Speaker 14 (01:18:32):
Rhatslam, who is the President of Manhattan's.

Speaker 15 (01:18:34):
To our observation is that obviously much of the nation
swung right in the twenty twenty four election, but urban counties,
big cities swung conspicuously right relative to where they were
in twenty twenty.

Speaker 14 (01:18:47):
That was the biggest swing in the biggest counties.

Speaker 15 (01:18:50):
And that to us represents the fact that in many
ways Donald Trump was the moderate candidate, that he ran
on a platform of economic growth, of sanity at the
border of law and order, of getting some of the
craziness out of our schools and our culture. And you know,
I think the message from big cities is we want

(01:19:12):
more of that which doesn't mean that they necessarily are
going to turn bright red tomorrow, but that they would
like to see either more moderate democratic governance or heck,
moderate Republican governess.

Speaker 14 (01:19:23):
They might be open to that.

Speaker 1 (01:19:25):
Charles.

Speaker 2 (01:19:25):
I love the term that you you coined in here,
conservative populism. My question is when I look at some
of these big cities, because I think this was a
campaign of edition of the grandest display. I just think,
I just think that this really was America speaking, and
this really wasn't a Republican movement. You pointed to that,
but how on how does a presidential campaign or a

(01:19:49):
message like Trump's actually reach the people in some of
these large metropolitan areas like New York City or Chicago
or even Dallas, where they're not a swing state. There
aren't a lot of dollars being pushed into those states
per se. Why they are the swing states? How are
they able to digest Trump's message and know that there
was an option better than the one that they were

(01:20:11):
living through?

Speaker 12 (01:20:13):
You know?

Speaker 15 (01:20:13):
The first thing I would say is that, particularly earlier
in the campaign, Trump went out of his way to
go to some of those places, right. He had a
big speech in the Bronx. He spoke in New Jersey.
His last campaign performance was in Madison Square Garden.

Speaker 14 (01:20:27):
He did not win New York, but the message there was,
in his.

Speaker 15 (01:20:31):
Own Trumpian kind of way, I'm going to be president
of all of America. So I wouldn't underestimate the extent
to which he was trying to play for those places,
at least symbolically. The second one is that you know,
Donald Trump is a social media president. He is an
extremely effective communicator outside of the boundaries defined by the

(01:20:53):
mainstream media. He sets the story, not everybody else.

Speaker 14 (01:20:56):
And so I think if.

Speaker 15 (01:20:57):
You are a newsreader in a big city like the
ones that you just mentioned, you are looking at what
Donald Trump says every day regardless, and maybe it sounds
kind of sane to you.

Speaker 1 (01:21:08):
Yeah, Charles, let me ask you this, how about the
issues like immigration, crime, the economy. How much did this
play into his advancements in those urban areas.

Speaker 15 (01:21:21):
Almost certainly substantially. Immigration was a significant factor for minority
of voters, and they're always immigration voters. But I think
you saw a large inversion in Gallat's polling, for example,
where for the first time ever, a large majority of
Americans wanted to see less immigration. And look that is
a byproduct of the disaster at the southwestern border created

(01:21:44):
by the Biden administration. Americans saw that on their televisions
every night. If they lived in a big blue city,
they saw what mass immigration does to cities for the first.

Speaker 14 (01:21:54):
Time, and they were responsive to that.

Speaker 15 (01:21:57):
And on the crime issuew, Americans are more where than
ever of the severity of crime in major cities. In
some places it has gotten better, but not everywhere. As
I've argued, America's cities still have a major disorder problem,
and the tendency of Democratic pundits to downplay that and
to say that crime isn't such a big deal. You know,

(01:22:18):
the reality is even the bluest of Blue voters cares
about crime. They don't like crime, they don't want to
have to put up with it. And so I think
that was very motivating that Trump was willing to position
himself as the tough on crime candidate in an elector
that's still very concerned about crime.

Speaker 2 (01:22:32):
You know, I think there's a lot of conservatives, Republicans,
whatever you might want to describe a leaders or public
servants that agree with Trump and absolutely subscribe to his
view and his vision and his agenda. But My question
is this a Trump election, meaning that the people in
urban America, the people that got to know Trump over

(01:22:52):
decades and him, you know, just being the guy he
is and so unique. Is this his election? Or can
Republicans really care carry the mantle on restoring and making
cities great again and really further Trump's agenda after a
Trump four years can is this something that's sustainable for
the conservative populism to go after Trump's done?

Speaker 15 (01:23:13):
You know, I hate to give the cop out answer,
but I don't think it's obvious. I think that Republicans
in big cities need to see this as an opportunity
that they need to look at the agenda that frankly
with the Manhattans to talk about of merit of racelindness
in education and in hiring, of safe streets, of strong markets,

(01:23:37):
of fiscal responsibility, and say, actually, there is a big,
massive voters that is not so ideologically motivated that live
in these cities, but are willing to hear a sane
cenral Republican. You know, I like to point to Lee Zelden,
who is about to be.

Speaker 14 (01:23:52):
The administrator Environmental Protection Agency.

Speaker 15 (01:23:56):
Zelden almost won the New York gubinatorial race as a
Republican against Kathy Cocul a couple of years ago.

Speaker 14 (01:24:02):
If I think, frankly, if you.

Speaker 15 (01:24:03):
Hadn't been so vocally pro life in the House and
hadn't voted against impeaching Trump, he probably would be governor
at this point.

Speaker 7 (01:24:12):
So that's how close they got.

Speaker 1 (01:24:14):
Final question, Charles, it sounds like you're saying it doesn't
matter what side of the eye you're on if you
give urban voters. I think any voter in America today
smart policies and policies that will improve their lives, they're
willing to take a look at it. Is that true.

Speaker 15 (01:24:30):
Yes, I think that's right, and I think that's more
true than ever. One of the things that they point
at is that there has been a remarkable swing such
a minority of non white voters, a larger minority than
usual non way voters voted for Trump.

Speaker 14 (01:24:45):
And you know, we see that as sort of a
I see that as sort of a move from.

Speaker 15 (01:24:50):
Within race voting to within ideology voting, which is that
for decades black people, Hispanic people voted with the Democratic
Party out of alignment with their idio more to the
right of the Democratic Party and I think that the
forces that made that true are weakening and that people
are feeling more able to express their t reviews. So
you know that Trump coalition got more diverse because more

(01:25:12):
people felt like, instead of voting with the party, they
could vote what they believed. And they happened to believe
some pretty middle of the road things, and Trump spoke
to that.

Speaker 1 (01:25:20):
On our newsmaker Line Charles faine Lehman, he is with
the Manhattan Institute talking about America's cities. They hope to
be great again under Donald Trump. Mare coming up on
the Right Arquet Show along with Greg Hughes. Right here
on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine knrs Boy,
Nancy Mason certainly stirred up things.

Speaker 2 (01:25:39):
Just by being in Washington. She does want to share
a bathroom with the guys.

Speaker 1 (01:25:43):
She want to say a new bathroom policy in Congress
that guides have to use the guides bathroom and girls
have to use the girls bathroom. And if you're stuck
in between, you got to use your biological choice.

Speaker 2 (01:25:54):
And here here in lies the sub division of all
of America and our collective common sense with the leftists
and their crazed belief system.

Speaker 3 (01:26:03):
But here. I want to play this real quickly if
I can.

Speaker 1 (01:26:05):
Rod.

Speaker 2 (01:26:06):
This is the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, where
he is clarifying he was in a media scrummer. They're
asking questions, they're pepperninel questions, and he felt like he
had not answered it clear or concise enough regarding his
position on whether it was Representative Congresswoman man Nancy Mace's
bill or just how he feels about the issue generally.
This is what he had to say to make sure

(01:26:26):
people were left with no doubt.

Speaker 16 (01:26:28):
Hello, everybody, I just want to make a statement for
all of you here and be very clear. I was
asked a question this morning at the leadership gaggle, and
I rejected the premise because the answer is so obvious
for anybody who doesn't know my well established record on
this issue.

Speaker 1 (01:26:44):
Let me be unequivocally clear.

Speaker 16 (01:26:47):
A man is a man, and a woman is a woman,
and a man cannot become a woman. That said, I
also believe that's what sCOD for teaches what I just said,
But I also believe that we treat everybody with dignity,
and so we can do and believe all those things
at the same time. And I wanted to make that
fear for everybody because there's lots of questions. So that's

(01:27:08):
where I stand.

Speaker 1 (01:27:08):
I've stood there in my whole life.

Speaker 10 (01:27:09):
And.

Speaker 2 (01:27:12):
Man's man perfect, woman perfect, and a man can't become
a loe.

Speaker 1 (01:27:15):
There you go. And they're doing this because we have
a trans person who is elected to congressations, a guy
who's acting like a girl, and Nancy made stood up
and said, Eh, not gonna happen.

Speaker 2 (01:27:25):
So I'm just going to tell you that the Left,
I didn't get to do this on before the show
ended it. The left thinks that they're going to stop
Trump's successful economy because they themselves are not going to
buy anything. This is again, this is an amplified thought
or thought of themselves. They see themselves as far more
important than they actually are. They think the whole world
revolves around them. They're not going to post, They're not

(01:27:46):
going to buy anything us. They are going to stop
Trump's economy from being successful.

Speaker 1 (01:27:52):
Good luck with that idea, all right? That does look
for us tonight, head up, shoulders back, make God bless
you and your family and this great country of ours.
Thanks joining in us. The Wingman Wednesday edition coming up
tomorrow

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Rod and Greg Show: Sanctuary Cities Freed Criminal Migrants; Conversation with Mike Lee; Trumps idea on Education Department

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News .css-1q01m3q{margin:0 0 -2px 0;}

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes