Rod and Greg Show - Congress and the SAVE ACT; Rob Bishop and the Must Pass Ut. Constitutional Amendment - Rod Arquette Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Great to be with you here on the Rodd and
Greg Show. I'm Rod our Kent, I'm Citizen Greg Hughes.
And it was a lot of fun being with some
of our listeners at the Tucker Carlson Glenn Beck event
on Saturday night.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
That was a fun cart, it really was. We had
a great meet and greet with Glenn Beck. We had
a great dinner Huckleberry Grill, and then we had the
great the concert which or the event with Tucker Carlson
and Glenn Beck. All of it was great. But I
tell you, just getting to meet listeners and I just
we just we have the greatest listening audience and all
the land. We really do.

Speaker 1 (00:28):
Yeah, Tucker is a funny guy. I mean that laugh
or whatever, what does.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
It breaks out, it's a He's a funny guy.

Speaker 1 (00:38):
And we had a great time there and we want
to thank all our listeners for joining us. We had
a good time to see Tucker and Glenn together on
stage at the Delta Center on Saturday night. It was
a lot of fun. Now we have got a lot
to get to today. Of course, we'll talk about the debate.
We're going to talk about a coalition of sane people
there really is a coalition of sane people in this country. Today.

(01:00):
We'll get into that. Boy, the polls, Boy, they're fascinating
right now.

Speaker 3 (01:04):
Oh, we'll dive into this.

Speaker 1 (01:06):
We'll talk about former Congressman, former Speaker of the House,
Utah House Rob Bishop will join us later on. We'll
talk about is it Amendment D, which will be on
the ballot in November. We'll get into that. We'll talk
about school lunch debt, and we'll talk about Congress and
the Continuing Resolution that Save Act, which Mike Lee is
behind with a lot of throwing support. So a lot

(01:27):
to get to today, But I think Greg, you and
I agree, the story of the day is what is
happening in this small Ohio town called Springfield, Ohio and
this now refugee problem that the town is trying to
figure out what to do with.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
And you know what, this is a problem that is
being realized everywhere across this country and including in harrim and, Utah.
We're seeing in ordinate numbers, numbers that are by percentage
are so much larger than if it's if you are
a town of sixty thousand people and you have five
thousand refugees that are in one apartment complex, number of areas.
It does impact your schools, your public safety, you're everywhere.

(02:05):
It impacts everything. However, I didn't see this one coming.
I had no idea that we would see amongst these
refugees and these growing populations. Uh, they're eating the domestic
pets of people. They're going into the parks and they're
killing the geese and the and the ducks in there
eating And I'm telling you, when they start eating the cats,

(02:26):
you know, they say it's raining cats and dogs. When
they start eating cats and dogs, we're talking, uh, some
real problems. But isn't this something Rod that all these
these theories about open borders and let's throw our arms
around all that, all these all the cerebral talk about
what immigration is or isn't, what should be allowed to,
what shouldn't be, what's born out of racism, what's not

(02:47):
the consequences to these terrible the breaking of laws, the
ignoring of laws, the bringing them in at any cost.
Look at the consequences that are happening to this country
and people that are not political, how it's detriment mentally
impacting their lives in real time, It right now, and
we should be paying attention.

Speaker 1 (03:04):
Well, I think what's going on in are Colorado with
e venzo whaling games taking over your apartment cars.

Speaker 3 (03:09):
I thought that didn't happen at all.

Speaker 2 (03:10):
I was told by the original media and the governor
that that was just a a that's an truck.

Speaker 1 (03:14):
Here you have Springfield with a population about fifty eight
thousand people in Ohio, midwestern community had fallen on hard times.
Jobs were starting to come back. So the Haitian refugees,
who by the way, apparently are here legally greg from
what I've been able to read, but they're causing all
kinds of problems, you know, like they say they're eating

(03:35):
domesticated animals. People are worried about this. I mean, I
want you to hear this one comment. This is a
woman who appeared before the city council there in Springfield
and asked for some help.

Speaker 4 (03:46):
I'm done with what I'm saying. It is so unsafe
in my neighborhood anymore. I have the homeless that we're
trying to camp out, and I have I have made
concessions with them, and I try to help them the
best I can to keep them trying to squat on
my property. But it is so unsafe. I have men
that cannot speak English in my front yard, screaming at me,

(04:10):
throwing mattresses in my front yard, throwing trash in my
front yard, and I can't. I look at me. I
weighed ninety five pounds. I couldn't defend myself if I
had to. My husband is elderly, and last night, after
living in this home for forty five years, he said, no,
well guess what it's time to pack up and move.
He said, we can't do this anymore. He said, it's

(04:31):
killing both of us mentally. I don't understand what you
expect of us as citizens. I mean, I understand they're
here under temporary protected status and you're protecting them. And
I understand that our city services are overwhelmed and understaffed.
But who's protecting us? If we're protecting them, who's protecting me?

Speaker 1 (04:51):
Boy, what a sad story that is, Greg. I mean,
here's a woman and her husband. They've lived in this
town what you say, forty forty five years, and they're
now thinking about lea in the community because they feel
threatened by these Haitian refugees and nobody is doing anything
to protect them. And they're sleeping on their front yard.
They're throwing mattresses at them, they're yelling at them in

(05:12):
language that they do not understand. I mean, this is
not what America is about and what immigration is about.

Speaker 3 (05:17):
I don't think.

Speaker 2 (05:18):
And let me tell you before anyone tells you that
these refugees come from these troubled countries and these are
the ones that we really have to throw our arms around.
Just know this about the federal government. Cubans trying to
get away from that regime as they try to make
that trek over the ocean, the United States repels them,
tries to keep them from coming to America. And if

(05:39):
they make it on shore, they're safe. But if they don't,
they you know they so there is no interest in
seeing that happen. And you know, Cubans when they get
here and they have the next generation of Cubans that
are American, they vote Republican. And that's why you see
them getting pushed back. These referee so called refugees, these
political refugees that the United States government tries to prevent
from coming to this kind. When you have this happening,

(06:02):
if you or even have that refugee status, if you
are vilaing the law if you're if you're trespassing, committing crimes,
that status should be rescinded and should be gone. That
is the law that should be followed. And I'm telling
you the impact is growing. The consequences are being felt
more and more by everyday people, not just people from
certain you know, segments that deal with refugees or these things,

(06:24):
or missionaries that work with them, or border towns.

Speaker 1 (06:28):
Beyond border towns, it's in the heartland of America, like Springfield, Ohio.

Speaker 2 (06:32):
The unintended consequences, at least are unattended. I think some
intend these consequences to be the case, but the unintended
consequences to the everyday Americans that are feeling it, it
has to be addressed. And the only way I know
how to address it, rod is in this election right now.
This is how we're going after address this, because nobody
else is protecting that poor woman speaking at that city
council meeting.

Speaker 1 (06:52):
The school district has had to hire additional bilingual teachers,
the hospitals have had to hire additional bilingual nurses and doctors.
The languages are not the same, and look at the
impact it's having on this community.

Speaker 3 (07:04):
You want to have you know.

Speaker 2 (07:05):
An interesting example of that in our dinner with our listeners.
I was speaking with one of our listeners and they're
aware of the court cases that come. They have people
where English is the second language, so they have to
have translators at the court ready to go, and people
don't show up. They are hiring people to translate in
all these different languages for crimes committed, but that there's
failure to appear. The cost of all these people ready,

(07:28):
that they pay them for the whole day, but no
one's showing up for court for these issues that are
going on is actually crippling. Even court's in our state
here in Utah.

Speaker 1 (07:36):
Pretty amazing, Pretty amazing. Well, we'll have more on this.
We've got a lot to get to today. Just love
having you join the show on this on Monday afternoon.
Don't forget the debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris
coming up tomorrow night at seven and you will hear
it live right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh
five nine k and R. The debate between Donald Trump
and Kamala Harris and you'll hear it live starting at

(07:58):
seven o'clock tomorrow night. Going to be fascinating. Greg to
see how those two.

Speaker 3 (08:02):
Go at it.

Speaker 2 (08:03):
I'll say I think I really think that her staying silent,
hoping to just you know, use political pageantry as her
main you know, thrust, is backfired. I think people don't
know her or they've heard other people define her, and
so I think she's she's in a make or break moment,
and I just don't think she's good enough to really
make something. I think she'll just get the media to
say it was a draw.

Speaker 1 (08:23):
Yeah. Well, and the real question is, Greg, how hard
are you know, the folks at ABC, it's David Muhir
and another correspondent, how hard they're.

Speaker 3 (08:31):
Going to push her?

Speaker 1 (08:33):
Yeah, because there are a lot of flip flops out there.
She finally did put out a policy statement. Did you
notice that on her website? Absolutely nothing? At least she
had something on the page.

Speaker 2 (08:43):
Yeah, it's it's a little, it's a lot. It's a
lot of the same. I mean, if you look at
it and you go through it, it's there's nothing really there.
It's it's a lot of it's a lot of words
salad as.

Speaker 1 (08:53):
She's good at it, she's an expert at it. Well,
what about this race in twenty twenty four. My next
guest wrote a fascinating piece. His name is David Dville.
He is the instructor at the University of Saint Thomas
is a senior contributor to the Imagine a Conservative. He
talks about a new coalition of the SAINE. David, I
have to tell you, I love that title. What is

(09:14):
the new coalition of the saying.

Speaker 5 (09:16):
David, Well, I think it's the people who are getting together.
And they aren't just Republicans, but there are many Democrats
who are starting to look back on Trump's first term
and say, you know what, that wasn't so bad. That
was actually pretty good. And they're looking at what has
happened under the last four years with Biden and Harris
and saying it wasn't very good at all. And you know,

(09:40):
as you were talking, you two were talking about just
a second ago. They don't seem to have any ideas
for anything, and much of what they do have as
ideas are just copy and paste from Trump's agenda with
no real intent to follow through on any of it.
So anybody who's on board is part of this coalition
of the SAINE, and it looks like it includes a

(10:01):
lot of Democrats like Alan Dershowitz, Robert S. Kennedy, Junior
Tulci Gabbard, who are all saying, you know what, maybe
we're not completely conservatives, but we realize this is the
way to go, you know.

Speaker 2 (10:15):
And then the other side of that, the insane. You
start to see that the left who couldn't stand Bush
or Cheney and they just couldn't stand even anything about them,
they're now getting together. They're now you know, they're now
pals and on the same cause. Let me ask you this.
I we've had this running debate on this program about
is it pageantry or is it going to be substance

(10:37):
that's going to carry the day. And it's been my
feeling that the substance is going to carry the day
because it's not intellectual. It's not an issue you have
to look up and see and read about both sides.
It's what people are feeling. It's what you just mentioned.
You can take we a unique way four years of
one administration and put it right next to the last
four years we've lived with and just say, well, which

(11:00):
one was better? I mean, it's it's kitchen table issues.
I would say, so can is Matt so? Am?

Speaker 3 (11:05):
I right? Well, can substance carry the day in this election.

Speaker 5 (11:11):
I think it can, and as you said, it's kitchen
table issues. Very literally. People are still going to the
grocery store and no better. How many times they're told, oh, well,
inflation is letting up. They still look at the price
of eggs. My wife was complaining about that last hour.
You know, I mean all of these things and it's
you know, people see that and gases crept down a

(11:33):
little bit, but it's still not where it was when
Trump was president. They're looking at all of these issues
and saying, you know what, I don't think I really
was better. Houses are more expensive, interest rates are way up,
and there's something wrong. And you can't continue to just
say oh, Bidenomics and joy and all of these, all

(11:54):
of these sort of magical words and make people forget
how much the eggs cost.

Speaker 1 (12:00):
David, you know, the Harris campaign is all about looking forward.
Then we can't look backward. But there are a lot
of people in this country who would like to look
backward and look at lower gas prices, lower food prices,
lower everything. I mean, you know, how the are the
American people concerned it all about looking backward if they're

(12:20):
based on what Donald Trump did in his four years
in office.

Speaker 5 (12:24):
Well, I mean they are insofar as they're looking backward
and seeing that despite all of the horrible press that
he got and the opposition that he got, that he
actually accomplished things, and Biden really has not accomplished things,
and the ones that the things that he has accomplished
have had been largely bad. I mean, he recently admitted

(12:46):
himself that, well, we shouldn't have called it an inflation
reduction Act. It was really about sort of our environmental goals. Well,
you know that's pretty obvious because inflation didn't really get solved.
And yet we see more and more policy aiming at
crippling our economy and not really doing anything for the
green cause anyway other than lining the pockets of green advocates.

Speaker 2 (13:08):
So this coalition of the saying, I think you started
to see this certainly in last year. In our last
presidential election in twenty twenty, the high water mark for
votes that a presidential candidate without regard to party with
sixty million. That was the high water mark. Trump received
seventy four million votes in twenty twenty. Now Biden received
eighty one million. However, you want to count that, But

(13:31):
you have seventy four million Americans that voted for Donald Trump.
I don't believe there's seventy four million Republicans card carrying
Republicans in America. I don't believe these are tried and true,
predictable independence in swing states that voted. I think he
appealed to this coalition that you're describing. Does that coalition grow?
Are any of those seventy four million going to vote
for Kamala this time around? Is it going to stay

(13:53):
the same or does it grow in twenty twenty four.

Speaker 5 (13:57):
No, I think it's going to grow, and I think
it's become much more acceptable for people to support Trump openly.

Speaker 6 (14:03):
Now.

Speaker 5 (14:03):
We've seen a lot of a lot of these tech
company executives who all supported Biden last time and now
have realized what a disaster that was. Uh, there are
more entertainment people there. It's just I think it's a
different climate where they're not chasing people with maga hats
out of restaurants now and more people are are daring,

(14:24):
daring to say, you know what I You know, maybe
I don't like everything he does, but he did a
better job than the guy in office and the woman
who supposedly was at his side, you know, as the
borders are or whatever she was.

Speaker 1 (14:38):
David fun a question before we let you go, any
thoughts on the debate tomorrow night? What do you what
do you foresee happening? Maybe maybe not?

Speaker 5 (14:46):
Yeah, well, I mean I think what they're what they
wanted to do was uh that you know, they wanted
to turn on the microphones again so that Kamala could
interrupt him and play a tough prosecutor. I think that's
now been been outlaw, but I think that's what they're
going for. Is they want to show that she's tough
and can sort of stand up to him, and you know,

(15:07):
I mean I think they also wanted initially some opportunity
for her to be able to say I'm speaking, you know,
something like that, to show that she's really in control.
I don't know whether they're going to get that or not.
And I think Trump has been practicing talking to people
hostile audiences all along. She can't even talk. She can't

(15:28):
even talk to the friendly media audiences. So I really
don't think that she's going to do well. But what
what the media will do is say, oh, you know,
her expectations are so low that if she comes out
with a coherent sentence or a good one liner, they're
going to say, oh, well, you know she did, she
did really well, she overachieved. Yeah, we have to look

(15:49):
out for the spin.

Speaker 1 (15:51):
All right, Hey, David, great chatting with you. I know
we'll have you on down the road quite often. Thanks
for joining us to.

Speaker 5 (15:55):
I David, thanks for having me all right on.

Speaker 1 (15:59):
Our newsmaker line that David Dville. He is with American
Great mins also with the AMAC talking about the sane Coalition,
the coalition of sane people.

Speaker 2 (16:09):
Come in there, so we're in common disagree, but I
consider myself, I self identify as the same condition.

Speaker 3 (16:17):
Thank you, Thank you.

Speaker 1 (16:18):
All right, more coming up, Rod and Greg with you
right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five to
nine anrs. Some polls came out this weekend. Of course,
the one that's getting all the attention, Greg is the
New York Times Siena poll, and it found that Donald
Trump nationally has a one point lead on Kamala Harris
and the media freaked out on that.

Speaker 2 (16:38):
And the reason, folks, that that poll of all polls
is the one that's causing panic is that's been the
New York Times Sienna poll that is supposedly the most elaborate,
the most voter sample, it is the most accurate. It
always it was bent towards Kamala Harris, So they love
that little detail as well.

Speaker 3 (16:56):
Well.

Speaker 2 (16:57):
Even that pole is now pointing to Trump's emergence in
the numbers.

Speaker 1 (17:02):
There are a couple of real interesting things. I know
you want to talk about the gender divide, which is
coming up in this poll. But Trump leads Kamala Harris
forty eight to forty seven percent. Close rates the same
poll taken four years ago when Joe Biden was the candidate.
Joe Biden greg had an eight point lead on Donald Trump.

(17:24):
That's a swing of nine points now with Trump leading
Harris forty eight to forty seven. So that's what people
are going, Uh oh, what's going on com I think
she's lost the mojo too.

Speaker 2 (17:36):
And here's the thing I saw earlier today as stat
that there has not been since I think the six
early sixties in this point in September one of the
candidates not having at least a five point advantage on
this day in September. Yeah, there's never been. There's there
have been zero days of a five point advantage for
Comma or for Trump in any poll, and that has

(17:59):
never been seen before.

Speaker 3 (18:00):
Yeah, well you were talking about this.

Speaker 5 (18:02):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (18:02):
I think you talked about this last week and it's
been brought up this weekend again. The polls that we
aren't seeing greg are the ones that the campaigns do. Yes,
why are they so? Why are they so critical? I mean,
could a poll right now, let's say, because they spend
a lot of money on this, could those internal polls
that Hara's doing is doing right now showing that she's

(18:24):
in more trouble than that than we all realize one
hundred percent.

Speaker 2 (18:28):
So here's a deal you've got. We've talked about this
before that in the cross tabs, those are just the
little details that any respectable polling firm is going to
at least show how they how they pulled people who
they pulled. And they have this this technique they do
called over sampling. Well oversampled democrats because it's in their
in their idea, more Democrats are going to show up

(18:48):
to vote than Republicans, so they oversample that those calls
to or those respondents. But what a campaign wants to do,
and there's a reason behind that. It kind of pushes
public sentiment. You know, perception can be we can become reality.
But campaigns want to know what's really really happening on
the ground. They can't. They don't want to delude themselves.
They don't want to just make themselves feel good. They

(19:09):
have to see real numbers. And I am telling you,
and I've said this for a while. When you've got
David Axelrod telling Democrats don't get too excited, we're not winning,
James Carvell said the same thing.

Speaker 3 (19:19):
Well we've heard it.

Speaker 2 (19:21):
We heard it even from Tucker Carlson and his sources
at his event over the weekend, inside campaign sources who
have the worst time keeping a secret. Okay, nobody keeps
a secret in Washington. None of these people ever do
They both know that that Donald Trump and their internal
polls is winning this race in the battleground states, is
winning this race. And it's a problem. It's a big,

(19:43):
big problem. They know what's happening, and they need something
to turn it around. They're looking at this debate, but
you know, she's really built expectations for a debate when
you've decided never to talk to anybody, and now everything
is just building and pressures building, on this one debate.
I think it's a I think the it was the
wrong gamble to make.

Speaker 3 (20:02):
But we'll see.

Speaker 1 (20:02):
Well, one of the aspects of this, this latest survey
greg showing that you know, most people know who mister
who Donald Trump is and what he stands for. Right yep.
The challenge facing Kamala Harris is they don't know who
she is. They don't know what she stands for. And
you and I have been talking about it. Can she
get by and win the selection with people really not

(20:25):
knowing who she is and what she stands for?

Speaker 2 (20:27):
This has been our This has been our lengthy discuss
our ongoing discussion. Can it be joy and you know
and hardware stores and you know, and MACROI and cheese
or do you have to start saying something at some point?
And we've worried, all of us have worried that you
can just you know, just glamorize and just pageantry your
way out, political pageantry, your way through this. But I

(20:49):
think it's I think it's coming back to harm her
because there isn't a great understanding of who she is,
what she's about, what she would do. The only thing
you have to judge that on is what she's already done,
which is very good for the American people.

Speaker 1 (21:02):
You know what you talked about this weekend. I don't
know if you heard this yet. The most important issue
that she talked about this weekend her concern over leaving
lipstick marks on her Starbucks coffee cup lid. Yeah said,
we got you do something I don't like leaving lipstick
marks on my coffee mug.

Speaker 3 (21:19):
Ask yourself this.

Speaker 1 (21:20):
That was her concern, and she cackled all the way
through that discussion.

Speaker 2 (21:24):
By the way, and imagine this, if you've gone through
ninety two percent of your original staff when you became
vice president, ninety two percent and those that came back
before she was nominee. So they were talking a little bit.
The lips were a little looser back then. We'd give
her white papers, we give her binders, get you know,
shure her what she needed to know to speak at
an event. UH, and she would not read any of it.
And then she would just try to bluff her way

(21:45):
through it and fail and then get mad at staff
when she looked foolish. What how is any of that
culminating to a successful, uh and really thoughtful run for president?
By the way, Nate Silver does a modeling on these
on these poll numbers, so when you see just one
percent ahead, he takes that into consideration, takes a bunch
of other other polls, but his right now, if unless

(22:08):
something changes after the debate, his modeling shows a sixty
three point eight percent likelihood that Trump is going to
win the electoral college.

Speaker 3 (22:15):
That's got people.

Speaker 2 (22:16):
That's a bigger number than the fifty four or the
forty seven percent.

Speaker 3 (22:21):
Yeah, big number.

Speaker 1 (22:22):
All right, We're on to talk about another issue in
this survey that has cropped up and Greg and I
will talk about it in the five o'clock Cower. This
has become a gender campaign, men versus women, and we'll
get into that coming up in the five o'clock Cower.
We probably should congratulate the President of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, President Russell M. Nelson,

(22:44):
turning one hundred years old.

Speaker 3 (22:45):
One hundred Wow. So there was a funny meme.

Speaker 1 (22:48):
That said you got to show that or talk about
this meme because it's really funny.

Speaker 2 (22:52):
So apparently on the package of legos it says this
product is good for those that are four to ninety
nine years old and it has a picture of him
and like maybe in an unguarded moment, so his face
is just kind of like a resting base. And it says,
when you find out that you are no longer allowed
to play with.

Speaker 1 (23:08):
Legos, So he can't play with legos anymore. Now they
only go to ninety ninety nine years one hundred a days,
So he can't play with legos.

Speaker 2 (23:14):
Legos are now out of his purpose. He's not allowed
to play with legos. There's a prohibition. You can only
be the oldest. You could be his ninety nine and
still play with legos. Yeah, so but you know you
don't hear that a lot anymore. One hundred years old.

Speaker 1 (23:28):
So well, Joe Biden is hay birthday, Yeah, happy birthday.
Joe Biden is eighty one. As we all know, someone
broke down his vacation days. Are you ready for this?

Speaker 2 (23:37):
By the way, is there a never a difference between
one hundred year old prophet we're talking about and this
guy at.

Speaker 3 (23:41):
Eighty one years old?

Speaker 7 (23:42):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (23:42):
Amazing, amazing. Well, apparently he has wracked up five hundred
and thirty two vacation days in less than four years. Okay,
that is forty percent of the thirteen hundred and twenty
six days he's been in office. So for almost half
the time that Joe Biden's been in office, he's been

(24:03):
on vacation.

Speaker 2 (24:03):
So here's what here's what blows my mind. Job he's
he goes to the beach and public like he's hanging
out with like the everyday people, like he's.

Speaker 3 (24:13):
Just laying there with everybody.

Speaker 8 (24:14):
What's going on?

Speaker 4 (24:15):
All right?

Speaker 1 (24:16):
Well, former Utah Congressman, former Speaker of the House, Rob
Bishop will join us next stay with us on the
Rotting Great Show hour two. It's on its way or
I'll be talking with Utah Congress soon and Rob Bishop
here in just a minute. Former Utah congressoon Bishop, I
didn't realize that you just told me that he swore
you in. Yes, Speaker of the House, when you became
Speaker of the House years ago.

Speaker 5 (24:35):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (24:36):
In twenty fifteen, when they have the first data session
and the body, the whole body, by the way, in Utah,
all all members of the House Republican Democrat vote unanimously,
oh the Speaker of the House.

Speaker 3 (24:48):
Really they don't. It's not them.

Speaker 2 (24:49):
It's not like in Congress in Washington, DC, where all
the Democrats vote for their their minority leader, and the
majority of Republicans vote for their speaker or vice versa.
It's it's a it's a very I think it's symbolic,
and it's very important that the entire body does because
each party does have a majority leader and a minority leader,
and the speaker's not either one. It is the presiding

(25:10):
officer of the whole body. So having both Republicans and
Democrats House members vote unanimously for that, yeah, it's an
important message and a message to the new incoming speaker.

Speaker 1 (25:21):
Yeah. We'll be talking with Congress and Bishop here as
soon as we get them on the line talking about
this whole must pass constitutional amendment. He wrote a great
up ed piece in the Salt Lake Tribune, And what
you have talked about before, Greg, you know, if this passes,
Utah could become California.

Speaker 3 (25:39):
I only know.

Speaker 2 (25:40):
I mean there are a few grassroots organizations that can
really work their guts out, work their fingers of bone
and get something on the ballot.

Speaker 1 (25:47):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (25:48):
Ninety nine percent of these are just well healed liberals who,
because they don't see success in a legislative state branch
of government, they're going to go and just carpetbamba state
with narratives that sound beautiful, but with Easter eggs throughout
the whole thing.

Speaker 3 (26:02):
That's what they do.

Speaker 2 (26:02):
Yeah, they do it. It's not a theory, it's a fact.
So it's something that you know, we really do need
to pay attention to that there's no change with this amendment.
This really is just trying to administer this initiative law
as it's been done in Utah for one hundred years.

Speaker 3 (26:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (26:17):
Well, joining us now on our Newsmakali is former US
Congressman Rob Bishop. One time through hear the house as well. Rob,
how are you welcome to the rod In Greg Show.
Thanks for joining us this afternoon.

Speaker 9 (26:28):
I'm doing fine and it's good to be with you
guys again.

Speaker 1 (26:32):
Rob, Greg and I first of all want to know
if you have found a pair of socks yet.

Speaker 9 (26:40):
I have, I just haven't used them for the past
four years.

Speaker 3 (26:43):
Good Man, good man?

Speaker 1 (26:45):
Why did you write this off ed piece?

Speaker 3 (26:47):
Rob?

Speaker 9 (26:49):
Well, this is one of those issues that is terribly
bothering to me because it goes against the very fundamental
foundation of law that there needs to be checks and
balances and the legislative body should have the According to
Constitution should be embold with legislative policy, and initias by
the very nature are up or down, all or nothing, yes, no,

(27:12):
no ability to compromise. There needs to be a way
of trying to balance it out so that not one group,
or one person, or even a vote of one people
can destroy somebody's individual liberties without having some kind of
balance to it. We've seen what's happened in California with
initiatives that have changed drastically the law in California and

(27:34):
have had devastating impacts, especially on the business community. I
don't want to see that happening in Utah.

Speaker 2 (27:40):
So one of the arguments that did people say is well,
this has been very narrowly crafted. My answer back to that,
Congressman has been so you say it's narrowly crafted, But
at the end of the day, the judiciary, that branch
of government gets to decide what's deemed government reform or not.
Are you worried about the judicial activist them and the

(28:00):
reverse engineering of what that would actually mean. You can't
put the definitions of what government reform is in statute.
Based on this decision by the State Supreme Court, this
newfound power of initiatives how do you view this? Is
this narrowly crafted or does is this a Pandora's box.

Speaker 9 (28:17):
What the State Supreme Court did. In my opinion, it's
not narrow but actually creates a new superclass of law
that no one knows what it will or will not maintain,
or what happened to it in the future. The founding
fathers believed in Newton's idea of checks and balances, opposite
attracts opposite. For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

(28:42):
There needs to be some kind of way that any
action that takes place in government can have a balancing impact.
The legislature needs to be a balance of any initiative,
to make sure that the initiatives are written properly, the
initiatives don't have hidden insights, and that initiatives can be changed.
And to limit that, to limit that is going against

(29:03):
the very philosophy of why we have legislatures in the
first place, and why people elect their representative to the
legislature and what purpose they do have.

Speaker 1 (29:13):
Congressman I mentioned this on the show, and Greg and
I have gone back and forth on this. I honestly
believe I understand what's taking place here, but This is
going to be a tough sell to voters to convince
them to go along with this because they feel, hey,
I voted this way, now you're taking my vote away
from me. How do lawmakers, how do you convince people
that that is simply not the case.

Speaker 9 (29:37):
Well, you need to look at some of the things
that have been done, especially to the business community in
years passes. My first real life is congressman. There was
an initiative that was drawn out in another state to
try and to attack a Utah state company under the
guys getting more money for education, but what it was

(29:58):
really about was trying to take the business share away
from a Utah company and send it to an out
of state company. In California, when they did Prop forty
seven as a way of trying to get fewer criminals
to put in jail, and they made shoplifting up to
nine hundred dollars a misdemeanor. What that has done is
increase the amount of petty theft and the amount of

(30:19):
shoplifting to the point that businesses are closing in California.
It has unintended consequences. You need to have somebody, some
group out there whose responsibility is to look after the
details of these and make sure that there is no
unintended consequences that comes from an initiative that is an
up or down vote with no chance of actually having

(30:41):
a compromise or saying I like this part, I don't
like that part. That's taken away from the voter. And
that's why you need to have a legislative body that
has that function of doing legislative work to be there
to try and make sure that there are no unintended
consequences as there are an initiative after initiative in California.

Speaker 2 (31:03):
My final question is to your exact point about there's
a balance of counterbalance. There always has to be a
pro and a con there's two sides of the coin.
You get that through a legislative branch. It's processes, and
if you have initiative law, you ought to have a
counterbalance there abs in a legislative body. Are you aware
of any state where there is an inherent and built in,
equally funded counter story or counter or retort to whatever

(31:27):
initiative is being presented to the voters or is it
truly just a one way street for those that are
well healed? And can you pay for the campaign statewide.
Has any state been able to find a counter initiative
process to campaign the other side of the story.

Speaker 9 (31:44):
No, If it's an initiative, if you have the money
to do it, you can try and push through things
that may have negative influences on the rights of individuals,
and there is not a counterbalance to it, unless they
wanted to concentrate on the idea of a referendum, in
which case the voters could take a law that was
actually passed in the legislative body legitimately and have a

(32:05):
say on whether that should be implemented or not. But
that's not what we're talking about here. This is not referenda.
This is an initiative where somebody with enough money and
enough money to have a whole bunch of really cool,
slick pr campaigns can push through any idea and not
necessarily have anyone realizing the implications and the details of that.

(32:27):
And once again in California you have seen initiative after
an initiative that has really cost California money and jobs
and businesses. Businesses have been hurt by it. We've seen
that in past in Utah, and there are people who
are threatening to use the initiative process today to try
and get their ideas through when they don't think it
can actually be done legitimately through a legislative process.

Speaker 1 (32:49):
Rustlin, always right chatting with you. I hope to have
you back on down the road. Thanks for joining us
this afternoon.

Speaker 9 (32:55):
It's always good to talk to you again. And I
think this is a significant an issue that has repercussions
beyond what people just think about. It's it's not simply
do you have the right to vote, it's do you
have the right to change everything without any kind of
checks and balances?

Speaker 1 (33:10):
Yeah, very important notes.

Speaker 3 (33:12):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (33:13):
That's a former Utah Congressman, Rob Bishop, Speaker of the
House one time, talking about this initiative. Speaking of that,
Greg coming across this afternoon. A judge may decide this
week on whether to let voters decide on Amendment D.

Speaker 2 (33:26):
Now think of the idea of that, Yeah, where they
protect the people's right to vote. Don't want to have
a vote on this. They want to go to a
judge and get it done the way they want it.

Speaker 1 (33:35):
Yeah. Interesting, But he's got to decide by I think
it's Thursday, because the ballast has to be printed up
for the fall, so it's going to be interesting to
see what happens over the next twenty four to forty
eight hours. Doneal five to nine k and rs. Gearing
up for the big debate tomorrow night. Kamala is now
in Philly. She arrived this afternoon. She's ready for the debate.

(33:56):
Donald Trump's ready every day for the debate. He doesn't
need any breath. He just shows up.

Speaker 2 (34:02):
I hear that Telsey Gobert's kind of helping him out
a little bit. The one thing he's got to do.
He doesn't need any prep on any issue. He knows
every issue like he just knows it so well. He
just he can't get He just can't have a sharp
of elbows with a female candidate, in my mind, than
you can a male.

Speaker 1 (34:17):
How difficult is it in your opinion? Now, I've never
run for political office? You have, I have. How difficult
is it for a man to run against a woman?
I found it very difficult because you can't attack her.

Speaker 2 (34:28):
Because I I it's it was easier for me to
really emphasize when I felt misrepresented by my opponent when
it was a male as when it was a female
candidate I had. I just wanted to be very careful
that I wasn't being misunderstood as being disrespectful or too
hostile towards a woman. And and so it played on
my mind, and it was it was a factor for

(34:50):
sure running against females. I had two two tough, good candidate,
tough candidates that I had to run that were female,
and uh, and it was harder than run against them.

Speaker 3 (34:59):
Well, how men get long?

Speaker 1 (35:00):
We you know, we give each other a lot of crip, right,
we poke fun at each other. Yes, my wife will
say to me time to well, that was mean to say.
I know, and you pray hear that from Queen Beee
as well. But they don't understand the guys get along
by going after each other.

Speaker 2 (35:17):
And you know, like brothers wrestles, Dad's wrestling, and it's
aggression with love. Right, You're beating each other up, you
giving each other nuggies, you're doing all this stuff, but
there's no there's no hate involved. Right, So we know
how to be aggressive, we know how to do that,
and we don't have to have hate born in our
hearts to.

Speaker 3 (35:31):
Be a little bit tough.

Speaker 2 (35:32):
Yeah, okay, but man, when you're when you're running against
a female candidate, So what I worry about for Trump,
is you he cannot call her a blooming idiot like
she kind of is.

Speaker 3 (35:41):
Don't say it.

Speaker 2 (35:43):
This is just us talking, right, But you can't say
it because you it will just give them so much
fodder that he's a misogynist and he hates women. He's
got to find ways. I thought his most powerful moments
with Biden was when he was dismissive. Yeah, when he
would say, I don't know what he just said. I
don't think he knows what he just said. That was
a great line. He's got to find ways. And I
hope that that Tulsea Gabbard, when they go through kind

(36:05):
of a rehearsal of this, helps him go to the substance,
go to the contrast, go to the you were on
the clock and what have you done?

Speaker 3 (36:12):
Type of thing. Yeah, and we.

Speaker 1 (36:14):
Wanted to talk and we'll open up the phones on
this here in a second, but we want to talk
more about the campaign. The latest poll that came out
poll shows right now that Trump is leading Kamala Harris
by one point. Okay, A lot of those surveyed said
they don't know who Kamala Harris is. They don't know
what she stands for. That's completely the opposite of Donald Trump.

(36:35):
Everybody knows Trump, everybody knows what he stands for. Right then,
there's no question there. But an interesting point in this,
in this latest survey, Greg and The Hill has an
article on this today. This has really become a gender election.
You have men who simply do not like Kamala Harris
who are voting for Donald Trump, and women who do

(36:57):
not like Donald Trump and are voting for Harris. I
don't know if I've ever seen numbers like this, because
the numbers are pretty large.

Speaker 2 (37:05):
They are, and I think that's a growing trend if
you took Trump out of it. I just don't think
the Democrat Party really likes men, young men. I mean,
I think if you look at the popular sports apps
like Barstool Sports, you look at guys like to be sarcastic,
like we were talking about. They like to be cutting,
they like to tease, they like to rip each other.
You know, there is no humor in the Democrat Party.
There's no there's nothing. Everything's politically correct. You ca get

(37:27):
canceled in a night, in a flash, you know, blink
of an eye if you say the wrong thing. So
I think that guys are just not subscribing to this
this growing you know, just this lobby that men are
inherently bad.

Speaker 3 (37:42):
That that's toxic masculinity.

Speaker 2 (37:44):
There's no more masculinity that's good unless you're Tim Walls,
you know, wagging your wrists, waving at everybody and blowing
them kisses and wearing a cameo hat while you do it.
That's about as masculine as you can get. I'm just
telling you that, I think it's a major turn off
to young men what's going on with this Democrat party.
In fact, that party can't even tell you what a man.

Speaker 3 (38:02):
Is, or a woman or a woman is. They can't
even define it. They can't do that.

Speaker 1 (38:06):
I've never heard anyone ask them, can you define what
a man is? I think a question they were coming
to do that What is a woman? He kept asking
Democrats to define a woman. They couldn't do it. Remember
the Supreme Court nominee there, she couldn't. Yeah, she couldn't
define it. So the question would be greg and we'll
open up the phones to this men, and we have

(38:27):
a lot of men listening to this radio station. Why
do you not like Kamala Harris? There are few things
I can say but I can't say him on the air.

Speaker 3 (38:36):
And that's why, don't you bet? What? What is?

Speaker 8 (38:39):
Why?

Speaker 2 (38:39):
Why are men not feeling like the Democrats are going
where they're going? Why do you feel if you do
feel or a few cents it? Why are why is
there this gender gap? What's going on out there?

Speaker 1 (38:51):
Eight five seven eight zero one zero eight eight age
five seven eight zero one zero, or on your cell
phone dial pound two fifteen and say hey, Rod, your calls,
your comments coming up on the Rod and Gregg Show.

Speaker 3 (39:02):
We're just rolling right along, Yeah, we are.

Speaker 1 (39:04):
We are a telephone number if you'd like to call
eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero on
your cell phone dial pound two to fifty and say, hey, Rod.
We're talking about this divide between men and women when
it comes to their support of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
Right now, I think fifty eight percent of men say
they support Donald Trump and about the same number fifty

(39:25):
eight percent support Kamala Harris. But the question is the men, Yes,
do you feel the Democratic Party just ignores you anymore?

Speaker 3 (39:33):
Yeah? And here's it.

Speaker 2 (39:34):
So we want to know a that you fall in
that category, you feel like you're alienated by this candidate
Harris or the Party of the Democrats. And then we'd
also like to know your assessment of why you think
that's the case. Here's why this is a big deal
on for Harris's campaign, that gender gap has always represented
a strong favorability for Democrat candidates. They've always enjoyed that advantage.

(39:57):
Men fleeing aiding away has not always been the case,
especially in these rost belt states or swing swing states,
particularly Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, those states you haven't seen it
as much, but you're seeing it now. And that's why
those states are in play, is that men, young men,

(40:17):
young even young voters who used to always go Democrat
when they were young, they're they're leaving the party.

Speaker 3 (40:22):
They're leaving. They don't want they don't want her.

Speaker 1 (40:24):
Yeah, well, let's go to the phone. See what you
have to say tonight eight eight eight five seven O
eight zero one zero, or on your cell phone dial
pound two fifty and say hey Rod. We begin in
t Willa tonight with Patty here on the Rodd and
Greg show. Hi, Patty, how are you?

Speaker 10 (40:38):
Hi?

Speaker 9 (40:39):
I'm good.

Speaker 10 (40:39):
How are you guys?

Speaker 1 (40:40):
We're doing well? Thank you.

Speaker 3 (40:43):
Good?

Speaker 10 (40:43):
Okay, so I know I'm not a man, but I'm
calling to give what I think is some insight on
why women are supporting Kamala Harris. Okay, I think there's
two reasons. The first one is because of some of
Donald Trump's comments. I'm a big Trump supporter, but I
hear this from women all across the board. They can't
get past some of his crew comments. And also, I

(41:06):
think there's a novelty of Kamala Harris being a woman
and the idea of having the first woman president. But
the other thing I wanted to bring up if I could,
is that I don't understand why Donald Trump isn't creating ads.
Just show Kamala in her own words, the clip of
all the things she said that she's in favor of
that she's now backtracking on.

Speaker 1 (41:26):
Well, I tell you what, Patty here in a second
will air a new ad from the Trump campaign about
Kamala Harris. And I think it does exactly what you're
talking about, convicting Kamala Harris or condemning her in her
own words, because all you do is have to go
back and look what she'd said over the years. And
I don't think how I don't know how she defends

(41:47):
it to be real, honest, Patty, I.

Speaker 10 (41:50):
Agree, and I think when people see that, they're going
to see through her and understand who she really is.

Speaker 3 (41:55):
Yeah, yeah, they will mind.

Speaker 2 (41:57):
And I think sometimes you get ripped off being in
util We don't see some of these ads, but there's
an ad that Trump's campaign has had where she just
argues about how bad things are and how groceries are
too expensive, and then she's heralding Bidenomics is working.

Speaker 3 (42:09):
Yeah, this ad is on the border. Listen to this.

Speaker 11 (42:11):
Kamala Harris was given one important job as vice president,
monitor and control our southern border. How did she do?
Did you take the job seriously? Did she do all
she could to protect American citizens from an invasion? Did
you do anything at all.

Speaker 8 (42:29):
Before?

Speaker 11 (42:31):
And I haven't been to Europe and asked me, I
don't understand the point that you make it. Here's her
grim scorecard. Murders, rapes, attacks on children, a twelve year
old girl in Texas, a mother of five in Maryland,
a nursing student in Georgia, all savagely murdered by those

(42:51):
Biden and Harris led into our country unlawfully.

Speaker 3 (42:54):
We have a secure border.

Speaker 11 (42:58):
Kamala Harris was and is a complete failure at her job.
Now she's asking us for a promotion. Who in their
right mind would give it to her? Restoration Pack is
responsible for the content of this advertising.

Speaker 3 (43:11):
A complete failure in her job, and now she's asking
a promotion. Yeah, great line, it really is and it's interesting.

Speaker 2 (43:17):
Good. She keeps saying, we want to look forward, we
don't want to look backwards. Well, some of that is
just because she can't afford to help me look even
at today or anytime recently going back.

Speaker 3 (43:26):
She said, she doesn't want you to All.

Speaker 1 (43:28):
Right, back to the phones. Let's go to Karen in
Park City, who's been waiting patiently here on the Rotting
Greg Show. Karen, how are you? Thanks for joining us?

Speaker 7 (43:36):
I'm trying.

Speaker 5 (43:36):
Can you hear me?

Speaker 1 (43:37):
We sure can thank you.

Speaker 7 (43:38):
Go ahead, Okay, I'm calling because I grew up in
Ohio and I know Springfield that you talked about in
the first few minutes. And it's a sleepy little college town.
Wittenberg College is there. It's southwest of Columbus, between Columbus
and Dayton. And if we aren't careful, our sleepy little

(44:02):
college towns could be up to the same kind of troubles,
and I'm really concerned about my newly adapted state of
Utah with regard to the governor's race and the appearance
of three linements on the writing campaign just to confuse

(44:24):
the public.

Speaker 1 (44:25):
Karen, thank you for your phone call. First of all,
let's address the Springfield story. You're right, I mean, you
know this is a town of fifty eight thousand. Twenty
thousand Hasian refugees have moved into that city, causing a
lot of problems right now, and they're trying to deal
with it now. As far as the Phil Lineman issue
is concerned, the governor today denied his campaign denied that
they put another lineman on the ballot. But you say, Greg,

(44:49):
I mean, why would a lineman just put his name
on the ballot to confuse people?

Speaker 3 (44:53):
Something is going on here.

Speaker 2 (44:54):
The degrees of separation are probably appropriately there in terms
of arms length, But there is not one single reason,
by mere coincidence, anyone with the name Liman would also
want to be a writing candidate for governor.

Speaker 1 (45:07):
Yeah, I've never heard of anything, because.

Speaker 2 (45:09):
What it requires you to do when you have a
writing two writing candidates with similar names. I think there's
even more than just one is that you will have
to if you're writing writing in the candidate's name, write
the full name out because you can't.

Speaker 3 (45:21):
You don't know how Liman you're talking about, right.

Speaker 2 (45:25):
And if you had had just one single writing candidate
and it was you could put Phil, you could put Liman,
you could put p Liman, you could put There's a
lot of different versions of how you could write that in.
But once you have multiple camps with the same name,
and I just don't find Lyman to be all that common,
it does have a chilling effect on a writing campaign,
which I find unnecessary a because writing campaigns are hard

(45:47):
campaigns already. H But if you're doing that, you're you're
putting even a greater barriers in front of a writing
campaign by having people with the same name trying to write.

Speaker 1 (45:59):
And if the cock campaign had anything to do with this,
I go back to the question you just posed.

Speaker 3 (46:04):
Why, Yeah, well, you know what is out there that
they're so.

Speaker 2 (46:09):
Afraid of to not think that somebody in that universe
of the Cousin's campaign wasn't at the source of getting
people with the name Lineman to run as a write in.
Then the question it begs the question then why, I mean,
is it that big of a coincidence that somebody with
the name Lineman just just decided they wanted to have
a engage in a writing campaign for governor. We don't

(46:30):
see a lot of writing campaigns. It's for state wide races.
It's not like it happens every every cycle. So I
don't think there's any logical reason why you would find
multiple Linemens running for a campaign for governor, but for
to stemy that effort, and who would want to not not?

Speaker 3 (46:50):
I would think he was the one who wants to win. Right,
does make any sense?

Speaker 2 (46:53):
Yeah, and the Democrat doesn't do it because if you're
talking campaign elections, blocking and tackle if he can, if
Conservatives were to migrate to fill, it actually brightens the
prospects of Brian King, the Democrat nominee. But you know,
some Republicans are Matt Atfield Lyman for writing the writing
because they're afraid that could happen. But h but the

(47:14):
reality is, I don't think that it makes any sense
for the Democrat nominee for governor to confuse people on
the write in campaign. I think having a clear alternative,
a third party a right and would serve them, So
I don't think they get any advantage electorally by doing it.
The only one I see that does is the is
the one that wants to win and doesn't want, you know,

(47:36):
the doesn't want that wants there to be a chilling
effect on the uh on who you're writ And think
about this too. If you're not overly engaged and you
know that you like Lynman, but then you see Linman
three times on a on a ballot, you're not even
sure which one you'd like.

Speaker 1 (47:49):
What if we submitted and Greg Lyman, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (47:55):
I think we win the whole thing, right, that is
what I think. I think that I think the Rod
and Greg Lyman ticket would just go go gangbusters.

Speaker 1 (48:02):
All right, more coming up here on the Rod and
Greg Show and Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine.

Speaker 2 (48:07):
Can arrest Rot and Greg show here on talk Radio
one o five nine, can rs everywhere on the top
on the iHeart Radio app, which, by the way, is
all the rage.

Speaker 3 (48:18):
Yeah, yeah, yeah it is.

Speaker 1 (48:20):
You know, every election year we're always looking for creative
commercials political ads, because there have been some really really
funny ones over the years. Right, there was one a
couple of years ago, this guy running for uh, like
secretary of Agriculture or something in Alabama and riding a horse.

Speaker 3 (48:37):
He pulled out a gun and shot something.

Speaker 1 (48:38):
I mean that was that was the ad, right, I
mean it was kind of crazy. This year there seems
to be a plethora you like that word word of
the day, plethora of parody songs about Kamala Harris. Now,
last week we played this one for you. We are
all in.

Speaker 8 (48:58):
This ording by what has been heard? You say, are
you uni understood?

Speaker 12 (49:14):
Just great?

Speaker 1 (49:15):
Gray? Yeah, great great? Now that was the one last week.
Well there's a new one this week. Comm a chamelion,
got a chameleon. This is called Liar Liar pants on
fire thanks to Jim Morrison and the Doors, who now
decided to talk about Kamala in a new parody song.

Speaker 8 (49:42):
You always say what is untrue. You are the master
pulsive fire.

Speaker 5 (49:50):
Somebody backs you like a chamelion, A change of a tire.

Speaker 8 (49:57):
A big bad fire, trauma, a big fat that's all fire.
The time to jack a ling is through that. The
botin's condition is die. Now the party turns to you.

(50:22):
It's time to claim what you.

Speaker 13 (50:23):
Did too, big tuma, a big fat fire. Dia Lile
that's all.

Speaker 1 (50:39):
God man, those those are pretty good parodies. I love
parody songs, and these two about Kama Kama Kamailed the
Chameleon and now Kamala the Big.

Speaker 3 (50:49):
Fat Liar That's on Fire. That's on Fire.

Speaker 1 (50:52):
Great song, by the way, But I think that was
pretty that that's a lot of fun.

Speaker 3 (50:56):
It's creative and it's all true. What was it you
master the fire or something like that. I mean, it's
just fun. It is.

Speaker 2 (51:07):
But again I think that that's that is what the democrats,
the leftists, they don't want you to nothing's funny anymore.
Everything everything is either off of their you know, off
their red sheet of music, or you're suffering a moral
failing or an intellectual failing.

Speaker 3 (51:23):
Yeah, that's it. There's nothing funny. You can't.

Speaker 2 (51:25):
That's why I think even comedians have just decided that
they're done. They're gonna be funny. They're gonna tease things,
they're gonna say the things that people think but they
don't say out loud, and they're gonna That's what comedians
have always done, and they've actually been cultural on the
front lines of cultural shifts because they talk about these
things and they make fun of them. Yeah, Well, we've
gotten into a climate where the cancel culture. Everything else

(51:46):
is certainly the Democrats, they're just humorless. There's nothing funny.
Everything is serious, everything is turning one against each other.
It's everything's tearing down. Whatever it is that this country,
it's foundational, you know, bedrocks.

Speaker 3 (51:59):
Anyway, I think that's it. I just do.

Speaker 2 (52:01):
I think that this the lack of comedy, the seriousness,
the accusations, the the division that they want to create.
How about in Pittsburgh they go to this spice store,
this NC Spice or whatever it is, and she talks
about divisiveness of Trump in a place that is legendary
for not wanting Republicans to darken the door of their shop.
They have signs that say, if you're a Republican.

Speaker 3 (52:23):
Don't come me. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1 (52:24):
I want to mention you were talking about comedians, right,
comedy nowadays A guy who thinks he's funny, but I
don't think he's very funny at all. I'm talking about
Jimmy Fallon on The Tonight Show NBC. Right, yep, they're
cutting back his show. They announcedore of the weekend four
days a week now instead of five days a week.

Speaker 2 (52:43):
It's a miracle those shows are late night TV has
gone as far as I'm.

Speaker 1 (52:46):
Considered, they're funny. No, and Fallin tried to be funny.
I always thought he was just stupid.

Speaker 2 (52:52):
Kimmel, Colbert, Fallon, none of them. It's not like the
Johnny Carson years or the David Letterman years. It's just
all it's all changed for the worst.

Speaker 1 (53:00):
Yeah, but Jimmy Fallon tonight's show going to four days
a week instead of five days week. Well, apparently they're
going to run rerounds on the fifth day if they
can't find any.

Speaker 2 (53:09):
Yeah, I mean, in their ratings won't be any different now.

Speaker 1 (53:12):
Now, all right, we're all talk about the debt incurred
by schools when it comes to school lunch program. That's
coming up next on the Rod and Greg Show. Welcome
our number three of the Roden Gregg Show. Rolling right along,
Rolling right along on a Monday.

Speaker 3 (53:32):
That's right.

Speaker 2 (53:32):
We got some local news that we've there's stuff happening
even in the state. You know, we were really concentrating,
as I think appropriately so, on this national race for president.
It has massive consequences. But we've got some some things
going on public policy wise, here in the state of Utah,
and I think it's worthy of our listeners consideration.

Speaker 3 (53:51):
Yeah, what did you think about the school lunch when
you went to school?

Speaker 2 (53:54):
I hated school lunch. And I'll tell you why. Why
because my mom was poor and so we can afford
give me the money and so, and I was too
proud to take the free produced lunch. It was a
different color and it was a stigma. So I would
just what not eat, you know, or I would I
would like say, oh, I forgot my my my lunch,
so they'd write my name down and say oh, I

(54:14):
forgot again today, and then I'd be saying I'd harass
my mom for some bucks so I can get my
debt cleared. It was just it was just drama as
a little kid, and I hated it.

Speaker 1 (54:24):
That's tough, and I think a lot of kids are
feating that here in the state of Utah. Now, as
you know, I went to a parochial school, small school,
parkil school, and we ate.

Speaker 2 (54:33):
Well, I was just gonna say he got the fine.
You got fine dining because we didn't eat meat on
Friday back now nobody does. So we got we got
fish sticks and macaroni and cheese almost every Friday.

Speaker 3 (54:46):
You didn't get pizza. No, no, we got pizza plic school.
There could be meat on the pizza.

Speaker 2 (54:52):
So no, we didn't do pepperoni pizza because it was
a predominantly Catholic community.

Speaker 3 (54:56):
Did you go through this school? Really? Yes, it was.
It was cheese, peas and we all love pizza. Yeah,
well we only got like fish sticks and macaronis. Actually
I don't mind fish sticks. I like them.

Speaker 2 (55:08):
You yeah, I like them a lot. Yeah, Okay, I
don't know what you're looking at.

Speaker 1 (55:13):
Eight years of it.

Speaker 2 (55:14):
You know, they exist as a meal, like people eat
them or they want to eat them.

Speaker 3 (55:18):
But you look at me like it's sardines.

Speaker 2 (55:19):
It's not you don't actually like sardines. Well, then you're
crazy because I don't know who eat you. But I
do know fish sticks? Rape or college kid?

Speaker 1 (55:27):
You don't. We'd have sometimes sardines and Dorito's and a sandwich.

Speaker 3 (55:31):
That's disgusting.

Speaker 2 (55:33):
That is the worst thing I've ever heard.

Speaker 3 (55:37):
So much in college.

Speaker 2 (55:38):
We have a money don't like Journey as a rock band,
and you ate sardines and dorito sandwiches.

Speaker 3 (55:44):
Yeah, crazy, goodness.

Speaker 1 (55:45):
Crazy. Well, here in the state of Utah, there is
an effort now to do something about school lunch debt.
The figures are pretty staggering in this state about school
lunch debt and what could be done. Should we create
a program where kids who need it would get both
a free breakfast and a free lunch program. Yes, pretty
worthy idea, I think. Well, joining us on our news

(56:07):
Michael Line ran to talk about that is stay Representative
Tyler Clancy, who's exploring this representative. Thanks for joining us tonight.
What direction do you think the state should go when
it comes to a free breakfast and free school lunch
program for some students?

Speaker 14 (56:22):
Well, thanks for the question, Rod. I think it actually
poses a broader question of how our welfare programs out
of work? Do our welfare programs need revision? And I
think they do. I mean families are feeling the squeeze
now more than ever with Bidenomics and massive inflation that
families are particularly feeling. At the grocery store, we're seeing
the school lunch debt pile up. Almost seventy to eighty

(56:46):
percent of that school lunch debt is from families who
are on the reduced price category. So these are families
who are struggling to afford fifty cents for breakfast and
launch for their kids. And I think that's just a
symptom of a larger problem. So what I'm hoping to
do is really take a tailored approach, make sure people,

(57:06):
you know, families aren't being penalized for getting married or
taking mom more hours at work, you know, getting a
raise something that push them just above the income threshold,
and then they're on the hook and really struggling to
pay off that meal debt.

Speaker 3 (57:21):
Representative.

Speaker 2 (57:22):
I really appreciate your voice and a conservative approach on
this issue. The thing that really strikes me, and it's
one that I've actually lived when I was a kid
and I'm raised by a single mother, is these kids
have no choice in terms of what family household income
they're born into, what the circumstances are when they go
to school every day. And it is often the case
that these young young students, it might be the only

(57:42):
square meal they're going to see during the day, but
they can't afford it. And I know when I was
a young boy, I didn't want to have a different
colored lunch ticket than the other kids, and so I
was there was a stigma to that. Tell me, how
did you come to this issue where you've identified that
we have some young people that just need help and
this reduced Lanne lunch and it's debt climbing is not

(58:02):
solving the problem. How did you come by this issue?

Speaker 14 (58:07):
Well, Greg, you mentioned that personal aspect, seeing it firsthand
when you're in the lunch line. I've had the opportunity,
through work with in the nonprofit sector and law enforcement,
to come across many of these young kids who, like
you said, they're doing the best they can right they
don't have an option to pick up more hours at

(58:27):
work if they're eight, you know, six, six, seven, eight
years old. When you can textualize it. We spend seven
billion dollars on education in the state of Utah. And
imagine if you said we want to spend more money
on pens or pencils because kids don't have the utilities
to write. I don't think anyone would call that a

(58:48):
waste of money. Well, when we have two point eight
million dollars of school lunch debt or you know, somewhere
between the rows of thirteen percent of kids at school
that are hungry, that are are not getting the adequate
food they need, do we think that they're going to learn.
Do we think that seven billion dollars of tax payer
money is going to be spent effectively if we have

(59:10):
that same kind of group of kids who are who
are just not eating, they're hungry, they're not going to learn,
and it's not going to be a good use of
our uh that stewardship that we have over our taxpayer
money representative.

Speaker 1 (59:22):
How important is a good school breakfast, in school lunch
or just a breakfast or lunch for these kids, especially
in these early ages. How important is it for these
kids have a well balanced meal that they that will
fuel their bodies to learn, to you know, to absorb
the education they're being given.

Speaker 3 (59:37):
How important is it?

Speaker 14 (59:40):
It's critical. I mean we know from you know, even
a social science standpoint, the hierarchy of needs, those physical
needs such as food and nutrition, that's at the very
bottom of that pyramid that we you know, discuss, but
I mean think of it, you know, even as professionals,
as adults, folks who you know, I'd like to think
that we all have good emotional regulation, get social skills.

(01:00:03):
If we're missing two meals during the day and someone's
asking us to learn a new subject at one pm
or two pm, that's not going to happen. Now, take
that same scenario to a young child who hasn't even
gained those skills to develop and grow socially and emotionally
and all those things. It's a recipe for disaster. So

(01:00:25):
for me, I think it's a critical point because we're
already spending the money, we already have these programs. We
got to make sure that they're actually hitting the families
who need it most.

Speaker 3 (01:00:34):
REBSTV. Here's a challenge.

Speaker 2 (01:00:36):
And I don't know if this is too deep in
the weeds, but I think if you were to provide
all free lunches for every kid in schools, you'd see
a lot of food thrown away. You'd see a devaluation
of actually some of this food. How people come by it.
I don't think everyone should walk into a school and
necessarily receive a free school lunch, but there are those
that need it. Is where do you draw that line?

(01:00:56):
What is the income or how do you want to
find those that are in need versus I've been I've
served meals at the Homs Shelter at Saint Vincent's, and
I've seen people throw away food that you know, take
three bites and throw the whole plate away. We don't
want that to happen. So how do you find that,
how do you strike that balance?

Speaker 14 (01:01:13):
Well, listen, As a common sense conservative, I think that
social safety net should be just that, a safety net.
You know. I always kind of shake my head when
I hear Bernie Sanders talk about medicaid for all, you know,
medicaid is the last resort. You don't want to be
on Medicaid. You want to have better insurance than that.
I think it's a similar a similar framework. Right now,

(01:01:34):
the federal Poverty Guideline set what's called the Community Eligibility
Standards for free reduced school launch. Right now, at the
very end of the scale for the reduced price one
hundred and eighty five percent of the poverty line, you're
looking at a family of five a little under fifty
thousand dollars a year, and so three four years ago,

(01:01:57):
I think during the Trump era, I think you can
make that work. It's obviously still going to be a stretch.
But nowadays, when you're hearing stories of families to go
to the grocery store and their grocery bill for the
same exact food they're buying is almost double. I mean,
this is just something we've got to address. Obviously, we
need to continue as a state to really be an

(01:02:19):
economic engine to hit on that inter poverty, intergenerational poverty.
But ultimately, if we've got hungry kids at school, they're
not going to learn and we are just burning that
money that we're spending on the education system into the ground.

Speaker 1 (01:02:32):
From what I've been able to read, Representative Clacy, about
eight other states have done this already or in the
process of doing this. Would you pattern what we wanted
to do here in Utah after those other states that
have already initiated a program like this.

Speaker 14 (01:02:46):
You know, I've looked at different states, and I've heard
from different lawmakers from across the country, but I really
think we've got to take a Utah centric approach. We
have an incredible community supports. Don't believe that exists in
any other states from a religious standpoint from the nonprofit,
So what we're going to do is build a really

(01:03:07):
a grassroots thing. We're listening to families, We're hearing those stories,
We're doing data. We're looking at the data. How much
has the process of a healthy meal gone up in
rural Utah versus you know, our urban core across the
Wassatch Front. We're going to build a solution that's based
on Utah. We're not going to use, you know, a
state like Maine or whatever the different states are as

(01:03:28):
a model, because I think we're so unique.

Speaker 1 (01:03:31):
You know, I really like to answer that last question.
You know we're going to pass Yeah, yeah, Thank you
representative for being on the show. But I really like
the fact they said we're going to do it the
Utah way, whatever that means.

Speaker 3 (01:03:42):
But they're might come up to the plan that serves
Utah's just as I pose kids.

Speaker 2 (01:03:47):
Get to the representative. There's so many ways you could
ruin this by just giving it to everyone. No one
cares that, you know, the food's getting wasted. There is
a need out there, but it is important to draw
a smart line and really looky, look at what it
costs rurally versus the you know, the Wassatch Front.

Speaker 3 (01:04:01):
Things like that.

Speaker 2 (01:04:02):
And then we also have whether it's our churches, our
faith based organizations, but we have also the private sector
that's looked at trying to help those that are in need.

Speaker 3 (01:04:10):
To all hands on deck, I say.

Speaker 2 (01:04:13):
Don't just leave it to faceless government to do.

Speaker 3 (01:04:17):
You know what.

Speaker 2 (01:04:19):
Cheney, not just Liz Chaney. Now we knew she was
a hater of Trump, you know, she's made that clear
for a long time. But now old Pops Uns Dick
Cheney's coming up and he's just joint locking arms with
the Democrats and the Libs. He's they're all cut from
the same cloth. Apparently he has just come out and
announced that he's going to go ahead and put country

(01:04:40):
over partisan politics and he's going to support Kamala Harris.

Speaker 1 (01:04:45):
It blew me away this weekend, Greg the amount of
coverage on the various weekend talk shows that the announcement
that Liz Chaney, surprise the prize, was going to vote
for Kamala Harris, and then Dick Cheney, her dad came
along that he's going to vote for Kamala Harris. The media,
the leg see media in this country just thought it
was the biggest thing next to slice bread and who cares.

Speaker 2 (01:05:05):
These were people that couldn't say the name Cheney without
venom without Now they're just giddy they have the Cheney's
on their side.

Speaker 1 (01:05:16):
Yeah yeah, And you know, I thought, putting in a
back Sarah Sanders, who is now the governor of Arkansas,
one time spokesman for the Trump campaign.

Speaker 3 (01:05:24):
I'm really impressed with her. She is she's phenomenal, she
is really good.

Speaker 1 (01:05:28):
Well, she was on one of the Sunday talk shows,
I think on ABC. This was her reaction to the
announcement that the Cheney's we are endorsing Kamala Harrison.

Speaker 12 (01:05:37):
I'm not trying to be rude, but you don't get
to call yourself a conservative or Republican when you support
the most radical nominee that the Democrats have ever put up.
That doesn't make you a conservative. It certainly doesn't make
you a Republican. I think it makes you somebody who
wants to protect the establishment. Frankly, I don't think this
is news. It should come as no shock that Liz

(01:05:58):
Cheney is not supporting president. But what should come as
a shock is that she is trying to call herself
a conservative, Republican, or either one of those two words
while supporting somebody who so clearly does not represent conservative principle.

Speaker 1 (01:06:13):
She put that so, well, how dare you call yourself
a conservative when you're endorsing Kamala Harris.

Speaker 3 (01:06:19):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (01:06:19):
And here's the thing, they say, Well, we have to,
you know, we have to put away this whole Trump
wing of the party. First off, you've never seen more
Americans vote for a Republican ever than when Trump's been
on the on the ballot.

Speaker 3 (01:06:30):
But what is it?

Speaker 2 (01:06:31):
What Republican party do they want to return to? The
only one I can track is the one that the
Biden and the Democrats are pursuing, and that's wars, the
military industrial complex, big corporations, you know, and big government,
Lincoln together, arm in arm.

Speaker 3 (01:06:47):
What is it that they want?

Speaker 2 (01:06:48):
The stuff they want are not reflective of what the
American people need or are looking for right now.

Speaker 1 (01:06:53):
Now, We've been talking about some articles today that have
come out kind of explaining the mistakes that Kamala made,
should in fact, she lose the election in November. One
was by Malco Mark Alpert Mark Halperin, who was spot
on on the resignation of Joe Biden during.

Speaker 3 (01:07:09):
The Arts that pleasure.

Speaker 1 (01:07:11):
He has been a spot on listen of what he
had to say. Kamala's too big mistakes so far.

Speaker 6 (01:07:17):
I think if she does lose this race, there'll be
two decisions that she made that people will look back
on and say, wow, those were decisive early on. One
was not picking Josh Shapiro as her running maybe Gouver Pennsylvania,
and the other on was choosing to hide, to not
do media, to not talk to voters, to not paint
a portrait of herself in anything but gauzy terms from

(01:07:39):
the Chicago convention on where she stands on things, And
there are good reasons for that apparently, But what's on
the website now is belated and it's not out of
her own math. Not very many Americans are going to
go look at that website, so she does have to
give people, even her own age would say, more of
a sense of what she's about, what she'd be like
as president. I've known her a long time, I've covered
her a long time. No idea what she would be.

Speaker 14 (01:08:00):
Like this president?

Speaker 5 (01:08:01):
Boy?

Speaker 1 (01:08:01):
Is that telling? He's covered her for a long time
and he has no idea what she'd be like as
a president.

Speaker 2 (01:08:06):
Mark Halprin, he was a victim of that councel culture
a while ago, but he used to do that Showtime
the Circus. He was part of that show. He's covered
so many presidential campaigns to hear him say I have
no idea what kind of president she would be. For
a guy like that, that's on that inside, and it's
been covering politics and candidates and all of that. It's
actually scary to have him say that because usually they're

(01:08:26):
kind of winking and nodding with each other and they
kind of know what they're going to do. He has
no idea, And I think that it's also worth, you know,
pointing out that she doesn't look like this idea that
we're just going to be you know, macaroni and cheese
and hardware stores and Joy is actually selling. It's you
got to have something there. You've got to be presidential.

Speaker 3 (01:08:47):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:08:47):
He brought up a very good point, Greg And this
is a mistake I think that politicians will make sometimes,
the mistake that she has made in my opinion, by
hiding in the basement or not talking to the media. Right,
she has a lot her opponents to define her. Yes,
you never want your opponent to define you, and now
they've defined her. She's a flip flopper. She is a

(01:09:08):
radical San Francisco liberal, maybe the most liberal. She doesn't,
you know, she can't control her staff. That is how
her opponents have been able to define her, because she
hasn't been able to define herself. I don't know if
she knows who she is to beget with.

Speaker 2 (01:09:24):
Well, that's that's her challenge is she doesn't know how
to She doesn't have any retort, she doesn't have any
substance to point to otherwise. And so that just keeps going.
And I'm going to tell you that they made a
calculated decision with a hyper fast election cycle with no
primary or anything to worry about, that they could just
you know, glaze their way through. Where are the people going,

(01:09:46):
I'll lead them there. Just try to do it on emotion,
not your substance is joy. And the biggest tell I think,
Rod is that when you are afraid of a Dana
Bash interview, when that was a forty minute interview and
the best they could do is get you seventeen minutes.

Speaker 3 (01:10:00):
Out of it, when you had to bring along Timmy,
and you.

Speaker 2 (01:10:02):
Had to bring along your chaperon, your comfort pet, Tim
Tim Walls. But there's no one else. Nobody else is
getting an interview. She will not interview with anyone, even
with the friendliest ABC. Did they did a media matters
or not media matters, but the group that kind of
accounts for accuracy in the press.

Speaker 3 (01:10:19):
ABC.

Speaker 2 (01:10:20):
Since she's been announced in July has done one hundred
percent positive stories about Kamala Harris ninety three percent negative
against Trump. She won't she won't interview, sit down with ABC.
There's something there to pay attention to, and she won't
meet with the friendliest of media.

Speaker 1 (01:10:37):
One other note about this campaign, of course, the Democrats
are hoping to maintain Greg the US Senate in twenty
twenty five. Right, they're hoping, but they've got a hill
to climb. And now we're getting this word today out
of Montana, where a new poll found that forty nine
percent of Montana voters back Republican Tim Sheehey forty one

(01:10:58):
percent supporting Combany John Tester. That is a huge lead.

Speaker 3 (01:11:03):
That is in Montana.

Speaker 2 (01:11:04):
I'll tell you this, it's not a coincidence that Tester
didn't go to the National Democratic Convention. Yeah, eighth in
the show game there because he knew that he's on
the that that's his state that he represents. Wants nothing
to do with what they were doing there in Chicago.

Speaker 1 (01:11:20):
Yeah, and Jim Justice there in the state of West Virginia,
where Joe Manchin has held that down for a long
long time, has a thirty four point lead in his race.
So there could be some sat in the US Senate.

Speaker 2 (01:11:33):
Yeah, West Virginia gives them at fifty to fifty fifty
fifty centers to fifty centers if they win Mountana Republicans
take control of the Senate.

Speaker 3 (01:11:41):
That's a big deal.

Speaker 1 (01:11:41):
It sure is, all right. More coming up It is
the Monday night edition of the Rod and Greg Show
right here on Utah's Talk radio one oh five nine
kN RS. Just a reminder again the presidential debate tomorrow
night between Donald J. Trump and Kamala Harris in Philadelphia
tomorrow on ABC, but you'll hear it live here on

(01:12:02):
Talk radio one oh five nine. Can arrest great they
were able to share it with us and we'll be
able to bring it to you.

Speaker 3 (01:12:07):
And it's just going to.

Speaker 1 (01:12:09):
Be fascinating to see what happens tomorrow night, how how
she responds and how he responds. Who's the greater pressure on?
Do you think tomorrow n her?

Speaker 3 (01:12:17):
Is it all her way?

Speaker 13 (01:12:19):
So?

Speaker 4 (01:12:19):
What?

Speaker 3 (01:12:19):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (01:12:19):
And here's my prediction, for whatever it's worth. She's going
to call him a criminal for how how long is
this debate? For ninety minutes? She will play prosecutor. And
I've heard this from other people too, This isn't just
original content for me, but I one hundred percent I
thought this before I read it, and I concur with
what I've read. That is she is going She has

(01:12:40):
no substance. She has nothing to profer to the American
people by way a vision of what your lives are
going to be, how it's going to be better, or
what she's done that's actually contributed to a you know,
a better quality of life, like get the government out
of the way. It's all been government authored and it's
all been carnage. So what she's going to do is
she wants you just to vote against him. She needs
you to vote against Trump, not vote for her. She

(01:13:02):
needs you to vote against him. And so what she
will spend an hour and a half doing is trying
him as a criminal to the American people so that
they don't want to vote for him. She will give
them not one single reason to vote for her, only
reasons to not vote for him. That's all she has.
It's fear. She only has fear. She has nothing to proffer.

(01:13:23):
That's that's aspirational.

Speaker 1 (01:13:24):
Well, that's what the Democrats have been running on for
what the past four or five yearslutely fear of Donald Trump. Yes,
that's all they have.

Speaker 2 (01:13:31):
That's why they that's why the deep spate, the deep
state raised from the ground, got right up in our
face and we saw law fair, legal, law fair, from
the DJ and everything else. They're they're convicting their political
enemies like a Banana Republic, and they don't care because
they can't bear the thought of him ever winning.

Speaker 3 (01:13:49):
So it's all fear. It's all based in fear.

Speaker 1 (01:13:51):
Well, let's stay in Washington right now. The government runs
out of money at the end of September. Yes, so
they'll come up with a new continuing resolution. Now. Mike Plea,
along with other Republicans, have been pushing an amendment to
tack onto that bill, which would basically say you must
be a citizen to vote in federal elections. It's what
a novel idea.

Speaker 2 (01:14:11):
Yeah, and look, I don't want to spend more money,
and I get those our budget hawks that know that
we can't keep printing money and be in stay on
any sustainable course. But the reality is this, they will
not just shut it all down and stop spending. If
you can get the Democrats and Schumer in those sen
in the Senate to say we won't. We won't approve

(01:14:31):
the budget because we can't bear the thought of there
being a law that illegal immigrants aren't allowed to vote.
I don't know what greater spot like to put on
these Democrats, and that that to me, put a bow
on it.

Speaker 3 (01:14:43):
That's what you got to do.

Speaker 1 (01:14:44):
Yeah, yeah, Well, joining us on our newsmaker line to
give us an update on the Save Act is Ira
Melman with the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Ira, thanks
for joining us tonight. Can you give us an update
as to where this Save Act is in relationship to
the Continuing Resolution?

Speaker 15 (01:15:00):
Well, the status is that it has already passed the
House of Representatives, including with some Democratic support. It is
going nowhere in the Senate. Chuck Schumer is not going
to take it up. He has no interest in doing this.
But there is an opportunity that is still out there,
the Continuing Resolution that we need to pass in order

(01:15:21):
to keep the government funded beyond the end of the
fiscal year, which is September thirtieth. That is order number
one in business for Congress. When they come back, actually
they are back now, they're going to have to pass
this Continuing Resolution. And the Republicans Speaker Johnson has said
that he is going to attach He has attached the

(01:15:42):
say back. It's an acronym, it's systematic alien verification for election,
something to that effect. I don't remember exactly what the
acronym stands for, but it is now on the House
version of the continued Resolution. Obviously, there is going to
be an effort in the Senate to strip it off.
But you know, the Republicans need to stand strong that

(01:16:04):
they have now gone through two years and control of
the House, haven't passed their own budget, haven't succeeded in
putting any meaningful immigration to force legislation on these continued
Resolutions that have been funding the government. This is their
last opportunity to show the American public that they can
do something, especially with voter integrity being such a big

(01:16:25):
issue in this whole election cycle. The American public needs
to feel confident that whoever wins one because the majority
of the American public vote for him or her.

Speaker 2 (01:16:36):
You know, I love the idea, especially you know, the
September thirtieth deadline right in the heart of this campaign.
If Democrats want to fall on their sword and say well,
we can't can let the government continue on because we
don't want to prevent illegals from voting in our elections.
I think the optics of that, actually the substance of
that is just a nightmare for them. Here's my question, though,

(01:16:56):
there's a lot of conservatives like Representative Thomas Massey who
says I'm not vote for his Continuing Resolution to spend
more with that, whether you put a Save Act in
it or not, do we even have the votes to
attach to pass a continued resolution with conservatives that don't
want to see us continue to spend. Does it allow
for more or more reckless spending? If the Save Act
is in there? What's your take on if we can

(01:17:18):
get that even in the House, the Save Act in
the Continuing Resolution itself?

Speaker 15 (01:17:23):
Right, you know, there are outliers like Thomas Massey. You
know he's an outlier on a lot of issues. But look,
I mean it did pass the House. The Save Act
originally passed the House with one hundred percent support from
the Republicans. A small number of Democrats joined. You know,
as you point out, it takes at least two to
create an impasse, So somebody is going to have to

(01:17:46):
step up and explain if they if they decide not
to fund the government beyond September thirty is what their
reasons were. Look, I mean nobody said this is going
to be easy. If it was easy, it would have
already been done. But you know, at some point, after
two years of controlling the House of Representatives, the only
real branch of the federal government that Republicans are ConTroll of,

(01:18:07):
and had to have absolutely nothing to chow for it
for these past two years. That doesn't look good either.
So you know, it does take some political courage. It
does take some maneuvering to make sure that the American
public understands what is at stake and who is holding
things up. You know, we have seen in the past

(01:18:28):
where the Republicans have run scared every time one of
these budget impasses presents itself because inevitably the media pylon
and they get the blame for it. But they have
to do a better job in messaging to the American people.

Speaker 1 (01:18:41):
I wrote, what kind of a spot is a speaker
Mike Johnson? And right now, I mean, how many people
and how close is he being watched in regards to
this measure?

Speaker 4 (01:18:50):
Yeah?

Speaker 15 (01:18:51):
Well, look, I mean he is obviously the second speaker
that they've had in these past two years, we had
a long period where we had no speaker at all.
He's got a very contentious caucus that he is presiding over.
But look, I mean that that is the responsibility of
being a leader. You've got to be able to manage
your caucus, get them in line when they need to

(01:19:11):
be brought into line. Look, I mean he has said
that this is, you know, not the most important, one
of the most important votes that members will be taking
in this session of Congress, and he now needs to
stand by it, including, you know, doing whatever it takes
to twist arms to get people into line. You know,
he's got to find his inner LBTA here and you know,

(01:19:34):
make it work.

Speaker 3 (01:19:36):
So and I agree.

Speaker 2 (01:19:37):
I couldn't agree with you more Ira, because I follow
these betting lines and I talk probably talk about it
too much, but I think it's a far more impactful
where someone's willing to put their money where their mouth
is versus answer polls or anything like that. If you
look at the betting lines, the consensus amongst those that
are willing to put their money there is that the
Democrats will take control of this of the House of Representatives.

(01:19:58):
If you don't have reason to keep this leadership in place.
I don't know what they think is going to happen
when we get to the elections in terms of control
of Congress. So my question to you is do they
find do they realize, do the Republicans realize does the
speaker have the ability to get enough votes really to
say what you've just articulated, this is why you want
us running the House. This is the reason, because of

(01:20:21):
voter integrity, because of hard issues. We're not going to
let Schumer back us down. Are they going to get
that in this election cycle we're in right now?

Speaker 15 (01:20:28):
Well, I guess we're going to find out. But you know,
as you point out, something always beats nothing. And if
you've had control of the House of Representatives for two
years now and have actually produced nothing, you know, in
terms of real changes, particularly on issues that are top
concern to the American public like immigration, like voting integrity,

(01:20:50):
then it's hard to come back to the voters and
say give us two more years. So they need to
recognize that they have to be able to present to
the American voters, hey, we accomplish this. This is something
that we have done. If you give us more time,
we'll do more. But right now, they have very little
to show.

Speaker 1 (01:21:08):
For it, you toss under. Mike Lee is solidly behind
this effort, as you well know, Ira. Any chance of
this thing going anywhere in the Schumer controlled.

Speaker 15 (01:21:16):
Senate, no, which is why it has to be part
of the Continuing Resolution, and sup why the Republicans need
to fight to keep it there, because look, we all
know Schumer is not going to bring the Safe Cup
as a standalone bill. He has absolutely no interest in
doing that. He does have an interest in seeing that

(01:21:37):
the government is funded beyond September thirtieth, because it's a
bad look for everybody, Democrats and Republicans if we're shutting
down the federal government a month or so ahead of
a big election.

Speaker 1 (01:21:48):
On our newsmaker line, Ara Melman, IRA's with the Federation
for American Immigration Reform talking about the Continuing Resolution, and Greg,
I don't get it. Why are Democrats so opposed to
requiring someone to show their citizenship before they vote in
a federal election?

Speaker 2 (01:22:03):
Because they stuff the ballot box and they voter harvest.
That's why I could it really is the only reason,
I promise you. The New York Times used to rip
on absentee ballots when when the military and seniors used
to put Republicans over the over the top in Florida
and they said it's not safe, it's not not the
right way to do it. And they were saying that
in hindsight because Republicans were winning races with the military

(01:22:25):
and seniors. Now that they're able to voter harvest the
way they are, Oh, all of it's secure. There's nothing
to complain about. Nothing to see here, folks. And how
dare you say that illegal immigrants can't vote? Yeah, I mean,
I mean it's and it's to even argue the premise
or say that we're not going to pass a budget.
If you put that in, it really tips their hand
that that's how bad they are at campaign and elections

(01:22:46):
voters fraud.

Speaker 1 (01:22:47):
Yeah, that's for sure, all right, Moore, Coming up, final
segment of the Rod and Gregg Show right here on
Utah's Talk Radio one o five nine knrs. Don't forget
how or please remember to tune into us tomorrow night.
Live coverage of the ab See Trump Harris presidential debate
from Philadelphia will take the air live at seven o'clock.
It's designed to be a ninety minute debate. Then we'll

(01:23:07):
wrap things up and take you up to nine o'clock.
But that all against underway tomorrow night, seven o'clock right
here on talk radio one oh five nine can arrest
and I can't wait. It's going to be interesting to watch, Greig.

Speaker 2 (01:23:18):
It is I I mean, we can, I we can.
I know what's going to happen. In a lot of ways.
We're going to have her being on the attack constantly.
She's not she can't account for anything, and that'll be fine.
Trump will give a vision, He'll lay out a vision
of what he's done, what he will continue to do
for the American people, which will be strong. At the
end of the conclusion of that debate, you'll have a

(01:23:39):
media that says that Kamala really proved herself. She's she's
put to bed all rumors that she doesn't have substance,
that she did everything she needed to do, and that
Trump lied the entire time. The biggest question will be
when when your eyes and ears tell you otherwise, as
the American people will, will it stick or will the
narrative well they emerge is tomorrow stick?

Speaker 1 (01:24:01):
Well, Hey, we need to mention too. James Earl Jones
ninety three years old passed away today.

Speaker 2 (01:24:06):
Maybe a lot of people remember him from different things.
A lot of people remember him as the voice of
Darth Vader Arby's The Meats?

Speaker 3 (01:24:13):
Was he the voice of man? I don't know? You
sure that I don't know it? Sound like him? I
swear it's him.

Speaker 2 (01:24:19):
I swear it's it's James Earl Jones doing They's commercial.

Speaker 1 (01:24:22):
I remember the Meats. He gave the greatest speech about
baseball in Field of Dreams. Oh that's right, a movie
that I still cry on. A softy, a softie drink.
James Earl Jones passing away to ninety three, ninety three
years old. Good life. What a rich, beautiful voice he yet,

(01:24:42):
yes he did. Every radio announcer in the world wish
they had a book.

Speaker 2 (01:24:45):
You got quite the voice yourself, there pout, unlike all
that doesn't for us.

Speaker 1 (01:24:50):
Tonight, head up, shoulders back. May God bless you and
your family and this great country of ours. Don't forget
the debate tomorrow night at seven. We'll be back tomorrow
and for enjoy the rest of your Monday.

Speaker 5 (01:25:00):
He

All Episodes

Rod and Greg Show - Congress and the SAVE ACT; Rob Bishop and the Must Pass Ut. Constitutional Amendment

Episode Transcript

Rod Arquette Show News

Popular Podcasts

1. Stuff You Should Know

2. Dateline NBC

3. Crime Junkie

.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;}Rod and Greg Show - Congress and the SAVE ACT; Rob Bishop and the Must Pass Ut. Constitutional Amendment

Episode Transcript

Rod Arquette 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;}1. Stuff You Should Know

2. Dateline NBC

3. Crime Junkie

All Episodes