The Rod and Greg Show Daily Rundown – Friday, July 31, 2026
Joshua Monnington, Assistant Editor at The Federalist, joins the program to discuss his piece on how Barack Obama fathered today’s Marxist Democrat party.
Josh Wood, Executive Director of Them Before Us, joins Rod and Greg to discuss his piece in The Federalist about how the Left will never be able to erase both moms and dads.
jennifer Weber, K-12 Education Policy Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, joins the program to discuss how anti-disciplinary policies in schools have not worked to control student misbehavior.
Conn Carroll, Commentary Editor for the Washington Examiner, joins the show to discuss his reaction piece about the Texas State Board of Education’s decision to require bible passages be read in public schools.
Today’s CEO You Should Know is Scott Porter of San Diablo Artisan Churros.
Joshua Monnington, Assistant Editor at The Federalist, joins the program to discuss his piece on how Barack Obama fathered today’s Marxist Democrat party.
Josh Wood, Executive Director of Them Before Us, joins Rod and Greg to discuss his piece in The Federalist about how the Left will never be able to erase both moms and dads.
jennifer Weber, K-12 Education Policy Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, joins the program to discuss how anti-disciplinary policies in schools have not worked to control student misbehavior.
Conn Carroll, Commentary Editor for the Washington Examiner, joins the show to discuss his reaction piece about the Texas State Board of Education’s decision to require bible passages be read in public schools.
Today’s CEO You Should Know is Scott Porter of San Diablo Artisan Churros.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back to the Rod and Greg Show on Funday, Friday,
last day of July on Utah's Talk Radio one oh
five nine canter S and everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
I'm Citizen Hughes and.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
I'm Rod our kid. Coming up at the bottom of
the hour, we'll have a conversation about the left just
can't seem to let go of this effort to erase
mom and dad from our daily discussions. Apparently they don't
like the word mom or dad.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Isn't that something?
Speaker 4 (00:24):
Yeah? I mean, yeah, here we are, didn't it all? Right?
Speaker 2 (00:29):
You know, there's a real struggle going on within the
Democratic Party as these radical left socialists have moved in
and are scaring the daylights out of the establishment. But
as we've talked about on the show before, there's one
person behind all of this, and it started when he
was elected President of the United States back in twenty twelve.
We're talking about Barack Obama. He may be the one
(00:50):
who has fathered the Democrats socialist movement. And joining us
on our Nounsmaker line to talk about that is Joshua Montington.
He is an assistant editor of the Federalist Rash. Were
thank you very much for joining us. We shouldn't be
surprised maybe that Barack Obama's name comes up when you
talk about the roots of socialism now in the Democratic Party.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
Should we.
Speaker 5 (01:11):
No? I mean, I think so many times you see Barack.
Speaker 6 (01:14):
Obama sort of in the background and you're.
Speaker 5 (01:16):
Wondering what he's doing.
Speaker 6 (01:17):
And I think the thing that he's done is created
this new Marxist Democratic Party. You look at his policies,
you look at so many of the things that he did,
regardless of whether or not his rhetoric sounded moderate, I
think he'd laid the foundation.
Speaker 5 (01:35):
And what we see with.
Speaker 6 (01:36):
The Democratic Socialists of America and people like Zora on
Mom Donnie, they're simply walking in the footsteps of Barack Obama.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
I agree.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
I mean, Obamacare is a socialization of our medical of medicine,
and and prices have gone up at least eighty percent
since the Affordable Care Act passed. He also has radical friends,
just like Mom Bonnie does. But you know when he
throws his arm around Caitlin Clark and says, hey, don't
believe the hype is was he just better at hiding
(02:06):
his agenda than the socialists of today? Was he just
cut from the same cloth, but knew how to disarm
people so he could get away with more.
Speaker 6 (02:15):
I think that's exactly I mean, when you think about
politicians on the left, Barack Obama's got to be easily
the most talented politician, and so you know.
Speaker 5 (02:24):
It's when to dial it in and sound moderate.
Speaker 6 (02:26):
But you look at what he did during his presidency
to sort of weaponize issues of race or really normalize
the use of the Marxist oppressor versus a press matrix.
I mean, he inserted himself into situations like the riots
in Ferguson, Missouri. He said it was understandable. He indicated
(02:49):
that the police there had acted some wrongly when in
the shooting of Michael Brown, which was proven not.
Speaker 5 (02:55):
To be the case. You saw that.
Speaker 6 (02:57):
Also the case of Triathon Trayvon Martin. He said, if
I had a son, he would look like Trayvon, which
had nothing to do with what happened there. He criticized
the Cambridge police and issue of a mix up, and
he painted it as a racial issue. And you see
it also with his anti Americanism. He ran on the
platform of fundamentally transforming America. He said that the Constitution
(03:22):
was stained by the original sin of slavery. He criticized
American in front of foreign leaders, saying we'd been arrogant,
that we had been derisive, we have been dismissive, and
you know, most infamously, perhaps he criticized Americans, who he
said clung to guns and religion. So there was consistent
(03:43):
oppressor versus oppressed matrix that he pushed, along with an
anti americanism as well.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
You know, Josh, what I find interesting, we've all heard
the expression walk to talk. Well, Barack Obama was very
good at talking a good game, but the walk was
a little bit different. I think many of the socialist
candidates out there have learned from that.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
They can talk.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
You know, we're centrist, we're moderate, we don't want that
radical move. But then the in the walk, they're doing
something different, aren't they.
Speaker 5 (04:10):
Absolutely.
Speaker 6 (04:10):
I mean it's like you can't go a week without
zoron Mom Donnie doing something even more radical, whether it's
the government grocery stores, whether he's entertaining the possibility of reparations,
or you know, docsing New Yorkers who have second residences.
It's just clearly but this is the direction of the
(04:31):
Democrat Party right, it's consistent escalation, consistently becoming more and
more radical, And I would argue it's not a dramatic disconnect,
it's a logical next step.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
Some details that get missed in the story of President
Obama when they talk about him today, or if there's
a moment where he's being nice to Kalin Clark so
everyone thinks he's a moderate, A couple of things come
to mind. We learned that in his final days of
his second term with Susan Rice and others, he was
really weaponizing or pairing an attack on incoming president President
(05:03):
Trump that was being planned. And then oddly, but I think,
and this is my question to you, he stayed in Washington,
d c. There was always talk of, you know, of
cabinet members visiting or him living in Georgetown and him
staying in close proximity to the White House.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
Did he ever leave?
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Did he was Was he maybe shadow governments to draconian?
But was his presence not just his fingerprints when he
was on the clock. But he continued to be an
architect even after he left office.
Speaker 5 (05:33):
Yeah, you know, a lot of it happens behind the scenes.
Speaker 6 (05:35):
In my opinion, Barack Obama is not the sort of
guy who goes away.
Speaker 5 (05:39):
I think I mentioned the article.
Speaker 6 (05:40):
There's the interview where Barack and Obama are being Barack
and Michelle are being interviewed, and someone asked him what
comes next, and he says fun.
Speaker 5 (05:48):
He's too much of a politician to just move to fun.
Speaker 6 (05:51):
As you mentioned, it's so critical you think of law Fair,
We think of the more recent cases against Trump, We
think of Jack Smith, things like that.
Speaker 5 (05:59):
The case was Army Daniels. Barack Obama.
Speaker 6 (06:02):
He was a leader in bringing Lawfair into the political
realm with targeting people with the Irs and then, as
you mentioned, launching the Russia collusion hope that launched under
Barack Obama's administration, Barack Obama's FBI, Barack Obama's Department of Justice.
And yeah, again, as you said, I don't think he's
the sort of guy whoever goes away.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Why are Republicans, in your opinion, Josh, a little reluctant
to talk about Obamacare, because that's socialized medicine. What Barack
Obama did was take what about twenty five percent of
the nation's economy and turn it into socialism, and it's
a disaster. Everybody talks about the high cost of healthcare. Well,
doesn't Obamacare play into something like that? And why aren't
(06:44):
more people talking about that?
Speaker 6 (06:47):
Absolutely, and it's so ridiculous. You know, socialists, they're exploiting
the issue of affordability. Well, part of the reason we
have such a big problem with affordability is because of Obamacare.
Speaker 5 (06:59):
And this is where you know, you just wish.
Speaker 6 (07:02):
That Republicans would have would have as much spine as
the Democrats did when they rammed this legislation through and
they've acted like they wanted to repeal Obamacare, and I
think it's just one of those things where it becomes
embedded in the system and you really need courage to
root it out and come up with a better plan.
But that's not really something Republicans seem to have done
(07:25):
a good job of.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
That's right, josh Thank you very much. That's Joshua monting
Ton talking about Barack Obama's influence on today's Democratic Party.
We're coming up on the Rowden greg Show and Talk
Radio one oh five nine Cannis, Rod and Gregor with
(07:52):
you on this Friday afternoon. A hot one on the outside.
So what's new. We've been hot for like the last
three weeks.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
I know, I'm I I'd rather be hot than.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
Cold on it says is that I'm with you.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
So everybody gets excited because you know college football is
coming up, but always that always means the days are
getting shorter and the weather's going to get colder. And
I love football, but I just love the I do
love the heat. I love the summertime.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
Yeah, I love the summertime in the evenings, when it's
a warm evening on the outside.
Speaker 4 (08:20):
I love that.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
The other day, you know, I left, I went to
that my niece your concert, went to post Malone and
it was like eighty six degrees eighty five degrees at
ten at night, ten and eleven night and which is
warm but without a sun.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
It felt great.
Speaker 4 (08:33):
Yeah, it feels good.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
I used to like to go to a late, late,
late night movie like it, you know, starts at like
ten thirty or eleven. Yeah, and you get out like
a one and it's just nights on the outside.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (08:46):
I can't do that now because I fall asleep.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Yeah, now you'd be I'd be asleep.
Speaker 7 (08:49):
You know what.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
I've tried, Speaking of that, I've tried to watch some
shows and I fall asleep watching them, trying to watch
some shows.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
And yeah, anyway, life's so tough, first world problem. I
was about to say this, all right, let's talk about
this stuffy. What did they call that? They came up
with that term a couple of weeks ago, a couple
of months ago. Greg, they call it a a gestating
human or person to describe a woman. Right, yes, right,
what a ridiculous thing. Well, it's just part of the
(09:17):
left in their effort to erase mom and dad from
our daily vernacular. Joining us on our news maker line
to talk about all of this is the executive director
of them before us. His name is Josh Wood. He's
on our news Maker line right now. Josh, thanks so
much for joining us. Why on earth? It seems ridiculous though,
that the left is trying to erase mom and dad.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
What is going on?
Speaker 7 (09:38):
I mean, we should have all seen this coming down.
I think this is what I think, if anything, teach stuff.
We cannot be careful enough right now in making sure
words still have real definitions.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Let me ask you this question. We have a mother's Day,
we have a father's Day. Is this a bridge too far?
Is this so counterintuitive to the general public without in
regard to political affiliation that it exposes the nonsense that
we're living through right now.
Speaker 7 (10:06):
Well, I think you've even seen it in Mother's Day
and Father's Day celebrations over the last few years. It's
if you do that and you don't acknowledge every mother
or father figure every and look, there's like a lot
of good things about that that I have had significant
figures in my life who are not my mother or father.
But what we've also lost is that term being weaponized
(10:28):
to try to normalize this child acquisition by the LGBTQ agenda,
which intentionally deprived the child of their mother or father,
which is a totally different issue.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Josh, your organization put up a series of billboards across
the country and it really tend to raated some controversy
because I love the message no child has two dads,
no child has two moms. What was the thinking behind this,
knowing that you were going to get really attacked, which
you did.
Speaker 5 (10:59):
Well.
Speaker 7 (11:00):
I think it's important in this day and age to
challenge the fact that we are trying to redefine what
mother and father mean and why.
Speaker 5 (11:10):
Is that important?
Speaker 7 (11:11):
It goes beyond just having inclusive mother's days and father's days,
because when we redefine what it means to be a father.
Right now, in my mind, what I believe everybody agreed
with the last hundred years. Barack Obama agreed with this.
A father is the person that creates a child, and
they have obligations and responsibilities to that child. They have
(11:32):
obligations and responsibility to the person they created a child with,
which is always a woman, and that's his mother. That
definition creates protection and provision for the child. Now, when
we redefine all of that, suddenly the child gets redefined.
When father is just a feeling, it's just something you
can opt into or opt out of, the child suddenly
(11:53):
becomes this kind of commodity or asset. It has nothing
to do with creation. Now, so when the child pops
out of the womb, we the adults get to decide
who are they assigned to. They're an asset and child.
This kind of state mandated child assignment, parents assigned at
birth is a very dangerous concept.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
You know, the statistics show that there's a lot more
children being born to single moms than there used to be.
Is this a language just trying to, you know, blur
the difference between a mother and a father. Does it
in some way encourage or allow for, or make more
socially acceptable the fact that you may have single parents
(12:35):
raising a child all by themselves, which is a lot
harder and comes with all of its own challenges, but
it might be great for social engineering if the government
wants to be a stronger hand or a heavier hand
than that child's raising that child does these words in
the way it's being described, is it also trying to
normalize or justify single parenthood, which is tough on the
(12:56):
on the parent and the child.
Speaker 7 (12:59):
Well, I mean go with me here. So if I
say to a single mother, all family forms are equal,
and the child actually doesn't have necessarily a mother and
a father, they have whatever adults we decide, that single
mother goes well, Actually, my child, the person that helps
me create this child, his father walked out, and I
think it's brutal's I think he's a deadbeat. I think
(13:22):
that the child deserves to be to feel wronged. I
think that that parent opted out of an important relationship.
I think I've been wronged. What this inclusion does it
tries to act like it's kind. What it actually does
is remove this space the context for compassion. Because if
every family structure is equal if it nothing is different.
(13:43):
When a child has their father walk out because he
could just be replaced by any other individual, whether it
was his father or not. You actually don't give that mother,
who was the hero, who's stuck around any room to
feel she has lost something. More importantly, you don't give
the kid who did lose something the father in his life.
You don't give him any room. What is he thought
(14:04):
to complain about. You should just be happy you have
adults that love you. Well, wait a second, you don't
have an adult. You have a mother and a father.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
Josh, I've always been bothered by one thing when it
comes to gay marriage. Gay marriage is fine. If they're
old enough, they want to do it, they do it right.
What bothers me is the raising of children in a
gay relationship, because I think at a certain point a
young man will be very uncomfortable getting on the floor
with one of his mothers and wrestling with her. And
I think a young girl would be very uncomfortable having
(14:36):
one of their fathers explain the maturation process to him.
That's what bothers me about the raising of children in
these same sex marriages. And I don't think people talk
about that enough.
Speaker 7 (14:47):
Well, I tell you, we went through the craziness of
twenty twenty to twenty twenty five with we had quotas
for everything, including the fact that you had to have.
Speaker 5 (14:56):
A number of women.
Speaker 7 (14:57):
I believe it was the Boeing board that mandated a
number of women that had to be on their corporate
board because you just couldn't possibly run a company if
you did not have diverse perspectives from different genders. You
mean to tell me we need that in our boardrooms,
but not in the most important institution in all of society,
that mothers and fathers are optional in that but not
(15:17):
in running Boeing. It just exposes the hypocrisy the two
people who create the child are also necessary for their
protection and development.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
You know, Josh, this discussion and your work on this
and is so critical and I probably have never heard
anyone describe it as succinctly and as well that the
mother is wronged and the child is wronged when you
somehow try to normalize or pretend that that family is
exactly the same as a two parent family with a
mother and a father. My question, and there used to
be the symphasis that fathers need to step up and
(15:49):
be fathers to these children? Do we ever get there?
Can we expect that of our men in this country?
Do we demand there be a real fuck forget these
names and these words. We're using a father and a
mother with ecal responsibility for the child that they create.
Can we get back to that as a society.
Speaker 7 (16:10):
Well, now that's a tough question. We do are pessimistic
or optimistic about society. I think that as if we
could get around as a culture and as a society
demonstrating really positive examples that the most the happiest couples
are those in long term relationships, who are married raising
their children. The people who have the most sex sorry,
(16:32):
are married religious people. You are the happiest, You're the
most protective of your children. Your children do best. I
just don't think that message is getting out because there's
a lot of forces. And I'll remind you these forces.
They talk right, they talk left and live right. They
talk about you can do whatever you want, pair with
whoever you want, have sex with whoever you want. You
(16:54):
don't have to get married, delay fertility, all these different things.
All the people pushing those messages, these elite progressives have
strong families they're all married, they all their kids go
to nice schools, they don't get divorced. It's insane. There
is a hypocrisy built into it. So I think one
of the first things we have to do is, man,
(17:15):
if you're married and you have kids, we need to
stop complaining about it on social media and realize that
every single one of our individual lives are a platform
to push back on the anti dad, anti child propaganda.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
And there's a lot of it out there.
Speaker 5 (17:30):
Anymore, is there?
Speaker 4 (17:31):
Yes, there is all right on our.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
News maker line Josh Wood, executive director of the group.
Then before us more coming up on the Rod and
Greg Show. Well, welcome back. How we're number two of
the Rod and Greg Show with you on this Friday afternoon. Finally,
I think we're close to operating on all cylinders.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
I feel it, and I feel like we're just kicking
out the ghosts out of the machines.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
We're getting there.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
A few days of some unique issues with the machine,
you know, the machines took over. We couldn't even get
into it and stop it.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
No, it's just it's ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
And I think that the Chinese are very intimidated by
the Rod and Greg Show, and I think I'm just
gonna blame I'm gonna blame the uh, the intelligent foreign
intelligence community from trying to shut us down.
Speaker 3 (18:15):
They try to ban, they try to censor us.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Yeah, I think it's socialists here in Utah. I think
Ben mccadams is blinded.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
Like I said, the Chinese, you know, communist intelligence agency.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
I think that's synonymous with what you just said.
Speaker 7 (18:27):
Greg.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
I'm reading this on social media, and I'm not seeing
any other reports on this, but there is a posting
on social media right now and it says this, finally
John Thune cave to MAGA pressure and decided to cancel
August recess.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
I am suspect of it.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Yeah, I don't know if you've said anything on that,
but it says thank you to the nine Patriot senators
who refused to take vacation before the SA Act passed.
Now we did see another US senator has joined Mike
Lee in his effort. That's Mike Crapo. He is a
Republican Fromo. So they're close to twenty, but this one
I don't trust.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
So just yeah, I'm not going to take I think
we saw a list of up to twenty Senators, Where's
I want to see ran Paul's name up there. He's
you know, he fancies himself a bit of you know,
of a maverick, and I would like to see him there.
By the way, disappointing op ed by our Senator John Curtis.
At the same time we're talking about this and wanting
to see them work get this done, he wrote an
(19:26):
op ed in the Wall Street Journal, which, by the way,
who's your audience in the Wall Street Journal? Would that
be the Utah constituency?
Speaker 3 (19:31):
And you serve Wall Street Journal?
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Seems like he's speaking to a different, different audience, but
he boils it down to I don't want to change
the filibuster. Well, I would argue that a marathon debate
on that Senate floor about an issue that seventy and
I'm being generous when I say seventy it's probably eighty percent,
but seventy plus percent of America, without regard to political
party affiliation, support the Save America Act. To have that
(19:55):
marathon debate that the American people, by large, by and
far larger, all of the support to stay there and
have that debate and pass that is that is the filibuster.
Even it contemplates that marathon debate. It contemplates you sitting
there and you staying until you have that debate, until
and once you've done it and there's not enough opposition
(20:18):
to keep throwing out amendments, then you can you can
pass it by a simple majority. That is what the
filibuster did. They want they want to mail it in,
they want to be able to call it in. They
want to do it ahead of time, that sixty vote
clture without actually any debate. That is not how the
Civil Rights Act passed. That's not how it works, or
it didn't work. It works now that way. But you
aren't hurting any Senate precedent by having that marathon debate
(20:40):
on something American people cared that much about.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Vote Vote for it, folks. I mean, come on, guys,
just get it done. All right, Let's move on. Talk
about another topic that I know you're very well versed in. Yes,
and we're talking about school discipline. Yes, with the issue
of discipline.
Speaker 3 (20:58):
I'm on the receiving end of that school discipline.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
I was never one. I would never work for a
school district, never a teacher. But I was a student
and I was simple to Yes, school discipline.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Yeah, yeah, well we all were. I was too, and
uh it's an issue. But all of a sudden, the
idea of disciplining a student who gets out of hand
has apparently gone away. Apparently teachers can't do that anymore.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
Man, I would have ruled that school at my age
if I when I was going through this, and there
were consequences to my conduct, which I appreciate.
Speaker 3 (21:29):
I don't look back at it and wish it any different.
It's but if you if you get if you did, if.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
You didn't have consequences, I don't know what you know,
Little Greg would have looked like, because you know, I
think I would have enjoyed no comment.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Well, this started years ago with a directive from the
federal government warning schools to be careful when he comes
to disciplining students. And joining us on our NEWSMAGA line
right now to talk about that as Jennifer Weber, she
is a K through twelve education policy view fellow at
the Manhattan Institute. Jennifer, thank you very much for joining
us tonight. How did this lack of discipline in the
(22:05):
classroom and in the schools begin?
Speaker 8 (22:07):
Well, I mean really since two thy fourteen, when the
federal government really started to treat this as a means
of discrimination. So in that initial letter that Obama had written,
he had pretty much in his administration had said that
(22:29):
if a district suspension number differed by grace, even if
those rules were being applied evenly to every student, that
gap could then trigger a civil rights investigation. So over
the last more than a decade, we've really seen that
schools across the nation just kind of learn to manage
(22:50):
the numbers. So maybe on paper there were less suspensions,
but you would hear within the classrooms there was just
so much chaos and misbehavior that just wasn't able to
get to get addressed. And then at the same time,
there were these alternative approaches that we're getting that we're
(23:10):
becoming very popular, like restorative justice, social emotional learning, trauma
informed instruction, that we're kind of taking the place of
behavior based discipline.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
So every action should have a consequence, good and bad.
Maybe share with this, I know it's in your column,
but share with us what what does it even mean
to have restorative justice practices instead of a suspension When
when a kid is when a student is just disrupting
the classroom, it's hit a level where that would have
been the consequence. What is a restorative justice consequence?
Speaker 3 (23:44):
What does that? What is that.
Speaker 8 (23:47):
Restorative justice consequence is literally creating a mediation circle where
the teacher or a counselor and the child's kind of
talks through what happened. And so it became this kind
of conversational approach. But really, if you look at it
(24:07):
more behaviorally, the kid who was maybe misbehaving or disrupting
whatever it may be to get out of doing work
still is now getting out of doing work. So it's
not a suspension, but the kid is still out of
the classroom, but now just engaging in a conversation.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
Jennifer, how difficult is this for teachers to deal with?
We've had teachers call into this show before talking about
discipline in the classroom and basically saying there's nothing we
can do here. We're told we can't do anything. I mean,
that almost makes your job impossible at times, doesn't it.
Speaker 7 (24:44):
It does.
Speaker 8 (24:44):
I used to do a lot of work in public
schools and charter schools really focused on behavior. My background
is in behavior analysis, and you would see there was
always so much red tape where there really weren't any
consequences being provided, and the kids would see it, and
(25:06):
you would just see more of that occur. I remember
actually being in a classroom and watching a kid the
row of chrome book at the teacher. The kids then
in the classroom watched the teacher get escorted out like
to go to the emergency room by ambulance. And after that,
(25:28):
the kid, at twenty minutes after the converse, the resorative
circle the kid had with another staff member was back
in the classroom. The teacher was gone, but he was
back in the classroom.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
So, uh, you know, we've Rod and I have shared
the ur experiences in school. It was a long time ago,
longer for Rod. By the way about he went. He
went to a Catholic school, and he had the nuns,
and they had rulers, and they you know, they he
had knuckles, and they used to meet quite a bit.
Speaker 3 (25:56):
Or he had to stay, he had to stay in
a corner.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
I in the seventh grade, I got paddled through separate
in a public school. I got paddled three separate times
in three different classes for things that pale in comparison
to what you just described about throwing a chrome book
at a teacher. I don't think we're going to go
back to paddling. I don't think we're gonna go back
to rulers on knuckles. But but but but throwing a
chromebook at a teacher and having them taken out medically
(26:18):
by versus a restoratives? What is the happy medium here?
How do you create consequences so that you're not just
not for the just for the student themselves, but for
the whole classroom to deliver education successfully?
Speaker 3 (26:29):
What is that? What should we be striving towards?
Speaker 8 (26:33):
Absolutely? And I think that's where it all got. I mean,
it all got really misconstrued because it isn't it. Of
course isn't a one size this all, but it has
to be behavior based and really looking at the why
the behavior is occurring and then providing consequences based off
(26:54):
of that. So there are, of course, of course, there
are times when spension is most certainly warranted, but that's
not you know, but that's not all the time, And
we've got to look at why this, why this happened,
and then really provide a consistent consequence based off of that.
(27:14):
So a kid who is trying to escape doing a
math worksheet, it's that consequence should be very different than
a kid who's disrupting a class to get the teacher's
attention first, a kid who is throwing a chromebook at
a staff member. All of those things, there's such our
(27:34):
specific behaviors, and they all occurred for different reasons, so
they all weren't a different kind of consequence. And that's
what I think that everyone has gotten so wrong, particularly
when the federal government really put out the notice and
made it so much about race, race and not discriminating
(27:55):
against race. It completely lost consecuating kids based.
Speaker 2 (27:59):
On Jennifer Why do I Why shouldn't I not be
surprised that I suspect there are some kids who become
wise to this and they know they can also almost
get away with murder in a classroom, and that's got
to be affecting them as well, right.
Speaker 8 (28:16):
One, I mean one percent. Like I said, when I
was working in schools and more of a consultant role,
I would sit in on some of the conversations that
that the principal would have with the students, and some
of the responses that the students would give would be
because I can, and so they know exactly what they're doing,
(28:38):
and they also know that when there are no When
there are no consequences, they can just keep doing the
same thing. And we see that in society all the time.
When you don't have consequences, you just get more more
of the same behavior. And the kids are smart, they
absolutely know that.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Jennifer, thank you very much for joining us. Jennifer Weeber
with the man heattan insto talking about discipline in schools today.
Greg you, as I mentioned with Jennifer, you talked almost
any teacher out there.
Speaker 4 (29:06):
It's an issue in the classroom, it.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
Is, and I have spoken to teachers in Utah and
it is an issue.
Speaker 4 (29:11):
What can be done about it?
Speaker 3 (29:13):
Look, I know.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
Examples of teachers that have been harmed by the content,
just like not a chromebook and an ambulance call, but
serious harm to a student, to a teacher, an educator
by a student. And now there was no consequence to
that student.
Speaker 4 (29:26):
And that's not right.
Speaker 3 (29:27):
No, No, I mean there's.
Speaker 1 (29:28):
Even hospital bills, and you know there are consequences to
the student did not exist, YEA, So it is. It's
there's no way that when I know when she's sharing that,
and I can think of an exact example similar in
our schools here that's not the only time it's ever
happened in Utah, and I just happen to be privy
to it. I think it's happening enough that these stories
(29:50):
are common enough that I would know of an example.
Speaker 2 (29:53):
Why on earth would you want to be a teacher
knowing your hands are tied when it comes to disciplining
a disruptive student.
Speaker 4 (29:58):
In the class.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
I don't think think it's in the brochure. I don't
think they're letting the teachers know that when they're entering
this career. I don't know that they know they're at
the mercy of these kids who can almost do whatever
they want.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Now, look, if there's good teachers out there, they able
to show consequences to students' bad behavior. I hope that's happening,
But I do know circumstances where the teachers are unable
to do anything about it.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
Sad.
Speaker 5 (30:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
All right, Moore coming up, brought in Greg with you
on this Friday afternoon right here on Utah's Talk Radio
one O five nine. Okay, n rs, let's continue with
the third hour.
Speaker 4 (30:30):
Greg.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
You know, there's so many people who talk about this
all the time, but I don't think we talk about
it enough. The importance of the Bible in the founding
of this great country, and how are founding fathers use
the Bible to kind of influence many of the important
documents that were written, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution,
two which are were very important and still are.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Yeah, if you want to omit the relationship of this country,
the founding of this country with Christianity specifically but even
generally faith. Yeah, and freedom of religion, you're missing the story.
And so under the banner of separation of state, you
cannot omit these things.
Speaker 4 (31:03):
Now you cannot.
Speaker 7 (31:04):
Well.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
Joining on sound our newsmaker line to talk more about
that is Con Carroll. He's a commentary editor at the
Washington Examiner. Con thanks for joining us ince evening. Let's
talk about the Bible and America. Why is it so
important and why aren't people talking about it enough?
Speaker 9 (31:17):
Con Sure, Well, I mean, the Bible is important because
it's the foundation of our political thought and the way
we understand the world pecifically for our founders, which is
something we don't appreciate today in today's secular world. The
Texas State School Board recently required certain readings throughout K
(31:38):
through twelve of both the Old and New Testaments, and
the Democratic Party said that this was in contradiction to
the freedom of religion, and they're just wrong, and they
have a faulty understanding of how the Founders viewed Christianity
and the importance of it for our nation.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
You're so right, and so there's a history oracle perspective,
and if you don't share the historical perspective, you're missing
a large part of the story. Maybe share with our audience,
what are some of those historical moments that if you
don't mention Christianity, if you don't mention its role, you're
missing America's story.
Speaker 8 (32:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 9 (32:17):
Absolutely, you know, I think when you look at the
Founding documents, not just the regular for Independence, because of
course specifically alludes to a creator in God that gives
us all these natural rights. But we look to the
Federalist papers themselves. You know, Madison wrote in Federalist fifty one,
if men were angels, no government would be necessary. You
(32:38):
have to have an understanding of the Bible and understanding
what he's talking about there. In Federals thirty seven, again
Madison describes a constitution as evidence that there is an
almighty hand that's repeated aid of the nation and his
referenced the finger of God, you know, draws on biblical
language that readers need to understand. There's just a moral
language and vocabulary that we have only if you read
(33:02):
and understand the Bible that we need as a nation
to have that common culture.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
Con I don't think most Americans realize that our founders,
and you list them, many of our founders came from
different religions. It was Christianity, but they all weren't one religion.
I don't think people realize that, do they.
Speaker 9 (33:22):
Right, So, you know, people say some people say that,
you know, we are Christian nation, and we are. But
there's also specific parts of the Constitution itself, which which
as a document does not mention God, you know, but
you have the parts of the Bible that you specifically forbid,
you know, articles fix the Constitution for BID's religious tests
(33:42):
for qualifications for offices with the United States. And that's
because at our founding there was a wide variety of
Christian sects that were thriving with the United States. Congregationalists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, Lutherans, Methodists, Arabians, Mennonites, Catholics,
(34:02):
even you know. So there's this wide flight of people,
and all of these groups had very different understandings of
theology and everything else, but at the same time, they
still shared a belief in God and like I said before,
a moral vocabulary, in a shared conception of human nature.
And it's not just those who are those who belonged
(34:22):
to those sects. You also had Benjamin Franklin and Thomas
Jefferson who were deists, you know, who did not necessarily
believe in the divinity of human Christ, but still at
the same time believed in the necessity of having that
same shared cultural language of the Bible, and that there
was a higher power that we answer to.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
So I'd like, I'm curious your thoughts. Is this an
overstatement or do you think this is relevant. I've heard
this say before that if you want to talk about America,
you don't go to the tea party Boston tea party,
you go to Plymouth Rock. And I know that's pre
you know, the founding of our country. But is that
the critical moment that we should talk about more than
(35:04):
even the tea party, the Boston tea party, Well.
Speaker 9 (35:07):
I mean, I mean yes, and no right, because Plymouth
Rock was a theological theological enterprise that explicitly excluded and
kicked out people who weren't Puritans, right, And so.
Speaker 3 (35:22):
Freedom religious freedom.
Speaker 7 (35:25):
No right. Right.
Speaker 9 (35:26):
And so you want to have a federalist religious freedom
where you can go and participate in communities that are
like that, but under a larger federal umbrella of protecting
each man's right to a conscious of faiths. And and
and that's the balance that the that the founders found
within the Constitution and the declaration that that we are
(35:47):
a nation that that is under God, but that we
can't allow u Securian tests to affect who is in
the government and whose deciding policy is gon.
Speaker 2 (35:57):
How important is it do you think that we bring
the bable back into the classroom for kids to study?
I mean, I noticed the state of Texas is moving
in that direction, not you know, in no way trying
to convert people to Christianity, but to be able to
study its importance in the founding of this great country.
Speaker 4 (36:13):
How important is that do you feel?
Speaker 9 (36:15):
I mean, I feel it's exactly essential, right, I mean
I mentioned that the Democrats, you know, really complained when
the Texas school Board announces these things, and they said that,
you know, Texas is home to millions of people of
countless fates and beliefs, and that's why Texas shouldn't teach
the bottom of the school. But I would argue, it's
the exact opposite. It's because there are so many faiths
(36:35):
and because there are so many different beliefs that we
need to teach inner public schools. What is the common
belief that we're founded on, so that we have that
common more language to talk to each other and to relate,
and you know, to be perfectly honest and up front,
you know, I was raised in the secular household. I
was never a Christian. I'm not a Christian. But at
(36:57):
the same time, I was first taught the Bible an
English class, you know, as as literature in the sense
that if you're going to go on and read you know, Chaucer,
Milton and Shakespeare and Shelley and Keats and even American
authors Melville and Twain and Faulkner, you have to have
an operating understanding of the narratives of the Bible. Otherwise
(37:19):
you're just not going to know what anyone's talking about.
And so that is why it is so essential now
that we are so fragmented, now that we are so diverse,
that we need to have that teaching of what the
Christian Bible is in our public schools.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
Gott Carol joining us on any of our Newsmaker line
talking about understanding America, try and do that without the Bible.
Speaker 1 (37:38):
What a unique perspective from con himself. I mean, he's
looking at this as you describe his is he described
his life in a very objective way. He says he
not Christian, so he wasn't raising it. He was raised
in a sector of household. So I mean when he's
talking about you need the Bible in there, no one's
putting their thumb on the scale.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
No sure, And all right when we come back, we'll
begin our listen Back Friday segments right here on Utah's
Talk O one O five nine knrs CEOs. You should
know it's a conversation with some of the top business
leaders here in you saw. We'd love to explore the
ups and downs of creating and running their business. And
it's so great to have Scott Porter, the owner the
founder of Sandy Oblo Artists in Churos with us today.
Speaker 4 (38:19):
Scott, welcome to CEOs you should know. It's great to
have you here.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
Now, we want to get to know you a little
bit better, okay, before we talk about the success of
your business. So what we do is throw a lot
of quick questions at you. These are simple choice questions,
just to get to know you a little bit, okay,
and we like to put a stopwatch on it. Uh
you in sixty driving or writing?
Speaker 4 (38:41):
Writing? Salty or sweet? Salty? Superman or Batman? Uh? Superman?
All right? Favorite song? Uh?
Speaker 10 (38:55):
Oh my gosh, there's so many, that's my answer.
Speaker 4 (38:59):
There's too many choices, Okay.
Speaker 10 (39:00):
Sunrise or sunset sunset? Beatles or stones, beatles, chocolate or
vanilla chocolate, beach or mountains.
Speaker 4 (39:12):
Oh god, I.
Speaker 10 (39:18):
Just love ball beach all right. Star Trek or Star Wars,
Wars Coker PEPSI neither skateboard or snowboard? Uh skate or okay?
Listening to music or playing music listening? Uh TikTok Instagram
or x Instagram?
Speaker 4 (39:38):
Cats or dogs? Cats are dogs neither? Okay. Well, I'm
not a bad guy, You're not. Let's talk.
Speaker 10 (39:48):
I like animals, I just don't want them around me
all the time.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
Okay, that's fine. Yeah, there are people who are animal
people and people are not. I get that as well.
All right, let's talk about your career itself. I was
writing your You're a serial entrepreneur. I love that title.
Why go into all the different things that you've been into?
Speaker 5 (40:08):
That is a really great question.
Speaker 10 (40:11):
I mean it's a I've had a really eclectic career
path and been involved in a lot of different industries.
I am. The entrepreneurial gene is so strong in me,
and I just I can't, I can't deny it.
Speaker 5 (40:30):
It's nothing.
Speaker 10 (40:31):
It's something that has always been a part of me
ever since I was a kid. I mean, I started
my first venture when I think I was about eight
or nine years old. We did a neighborhood newspaper. So
I was the I wrote about I interviewed my friends
and their families and their parents, like what their jobs were,
(40:52):
where they went on vacation, wrote up little articles and
sold it back to everyone in my neighborhood for like
twenty five cents. So it was It's just it's something
that is in me. I've asked my mom, was I
always like that? And yeah, it's just I think my
dad's an entrepreneur. And so that was that I learned
(41:14):
by experience and watching him, and it's really hard. But
I've also just always gravitated toward things that were hard
and difficult and like something that no one had ever
done before, and starting something from scratch.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
And all right, tell me a little bit about San
Diablo artists in Turro. Yes, where did that idea come from?
Why did you venture into that area?
Speaker 4 (41:38):
Totally?
Speaker 10 (41:39):
It's so fun because I just got back from where
this idea was born, in Mexico City. I got back
just a couple of days ago. I went to the
very place where I had my first fresh filled churros
when I was an intern there for the summer one year,
and I was like, wait a second, these are so
insanely good. Why I hadn't you know, apparently hadn't lived
(42:03):
before that moment, and this is like I it really
became just this mission responsibility. I even said, like, I've
got to take something this good to back home. We have,
you know, mostly mediocre turros here in the United States
(42:23):
at that point, and I'm like, we got to do
something about this. It was an idea that I had
way back then. And then fast forward several career lives later,
ten years ago, is when I decided it was the
right time to to bring that bring all that goodness
and that happiness.
Speaker 4 (42:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (42:38):
Yeah, Here in Utah we have a lot of entrepreneurs.
You certainly are one.
Speaker 5 (42:42):
What amazing what?
Speaker 4 (42:44):
Yeah? What recommendation or.
Speaker 2 (42:46):
If if you have someone come to you and say,
I've got an idea, I want to turn it into something,
what do you recommend they do?
Speaker 4 (42:53):
Because you've been through it, You've done it.
Speaker 10 (42:54):
Yeah, I mean like join the crazy crew that all
these crazy people.
Speaker 4 (42:59):
That want to start their own business.
Speaker 10 (43:03):
And so first of all, take take a get ready
for a wild ride.
Speaker 4 (43:09):
So just like sign yourself up for that.
Speaker 10 (43:13):
One of the things that's been really successful for us
and helpful for us is is real time testing of
whatever it is, Like you asking my friends and family,
Like I'm always bringing new stuff to family gatherings, to
parties and stuff.
Speaker 4 (43:32):
Hey do you guys want let me try this?
Speaker 10 (43:33):
Or you know, I brought Churos to parties for a
year or so before I actually launched the business because
I wanted to get real time feedback from people. Have
we nailed it? Like getting that real time feedback is
absolutely crucial.
Speaker 2 (43:49):
So funny question for you, Scott is there, you're a
successful entrepreneur. For those who are successful, and there are
a lot of them out there, is there a secret
sauce that all you entrepreneurs have?
Speaker 4 (44:02):
Uh? And if so, what is that secret sauce that
makes you successful?
Speaker 10 (44:05):
I mean I do love sauce, period, So yeah, secret sauce.
I mean I I honestly think there is just an
an unusually high uh tolerance for crazy for uh, the
unusual for uh, the ability to continue to push through
(44:29):
the nose that you get and the rejection that you
get and continue and and that an unusually high ability
to believe in in what you're building as well. I
mean that is that's that's uh, that is probably I'm
just trying to think what the common the common thread
(44:52):
in in entrepreneurs that have been successful is, and that
to me seems to be something that stands out.
Speaker 4 (45:00):
Scott.
Speaker 2 (45:01):
Great to get to know you. Thanks so much for
your success. Thank you all right. Bringing you insights from
business leaders who are achieving success. We call it CEOs.
Speaker 4 (45:09):
You should know right here on iHeartMedia
Welcome back to the Rod and Greg Show on Funday, Friday,
last day of July on Utah's Talk Radio one oh
five nine canter S and everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
I'm Citizen Hughes and.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
I'm Rod our kid. Coming up at the bottom of
the hour, we'll have a conversation about the left just
can't seem to let go of this effort to erase
mom and dad from our daily discussions. Apparently they don't
like the word mom or dad.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Isn't that something?
Speaker 4 (00:24):
Yeah? I mean, yeah, here we are, didn't it all? Right?
Speaker 2 (00:29):
You know, there's a real struggle going on within the
Democratic Party as these radical left socialists have moved in
and are scaring the daylights out of the establishment. But
as we've talked about on the show before, there's one
person behind all of this, and it started when he
was elected President of the United States back in twenty twelve.
We're talking about Barack Obama. He may be the one
(00:50):
who has fathered the Democrats socialist movement. And joining us
on our Nounsmaker line to talk about that is Joshua Montington.
He is an assistant editor of the Federalist Rash. Were
thank you very much for joining us. We shouldn't be
surprised maybe that Barack Obama's name comes up when you
talk about the roots of socialism now in the Democratic Party.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
Should we.
Speaker 5 (01:11):
No? I mean, I think so many times you see Barack.
Speaker 6 (01:14):
Obama sort of in the background and you're.
Speaker 5 (01:16):
Wondering what he's doing.
Speaker 6 (01:17):
And I think the thing that he's done is created
this new Marxist Democratic Party. You look at his policies,
you look at so many of the things that he did,
regardless of whether or not his rhetoric sounded moderate, I
think he'd laid the foundation.
Speaker 5 (01:35):
And what we see with.
Speaker 6 (01:36):
The Democratic Socialists of America and people like Zora on
Mom Donnie, they're simply walking in the footsteps of Barack Obama.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
I agree.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
I mean, Obamacare is a socialization of our medical of medicine,
and and prices have gone up at least eighty percent
since the Affordable Care Act passed. He also has radical friends,
just like Mom Bonnie does. But you know when he
throws his arm around Caitlin Clark and says, hey, don't
believe the hype is was he just better at hiding
(02:06):
his agenda than the socialists of today? Was he just
cut from the same cloth, but knew how to disarm
people so he could get away with more.
Speaker 6 (02:15):
I think that's exactly I mean, when you think about
politicians on the left, Barack Obama's got to be easily
the most talented politician, and so you know.
Speaker 5 (02:24):
It's when to dial it in and sound moderate.
Speaker 6 (02:26):
But you look at what he did during his presidency
to sort of weaponize issues of race or really normalize
the use of the Marxist oppressor versus a press matrix.
I mean, he inserted himself into situations like the riots
in Ferguson, Missouri. He said it was understandable. He indicated
(02:49):
that the police there had acted some wrongly when in
the shooting of Michael Brown, which was proven not.
Speaker 5 (02:55):
To be the case. You saw that.
Speaker 6 (02:57):
Also the case of Triathon Trayvon Martin. He said, if
I had a son, he would look like Trayvon, which
had nothing to do with what happened there. He criticized
the Cambridge police and issue of a mix up, and
he painted it as a racial issue. And you see
it also with his anti Americanism. He ran on the
platform of fundamentally transforming America. He said that the Constitution
(03:22):
was stained by the original sin of slavery. He criticized
American in front of foreign leaders, saying we'd been arrogant,
that we had been derisive, we have been dismissive, and
you know, most infamously, perhaps he criticized Americans, who he
said clung to guns and religion. So there was consistent
(03:43):
oppressor versus oppressed matrix that he pushed, along with an
anti americanism as well.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
You know, Josh, what I find interesting, we've all heard
the expression walk to talk. Well, Barack Obama was very
good at talking a good game, but the walk was
a little bit different. I think many of the socialist
candidates out there have learned from that.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
They can talk.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
You know, we're centrist, we're moderate, we don't want that
radical move. But then the in the walk, they're doing
something different, aren't they.
Speaker 5 (04:10):
Absolutely.
Speaker 6 (04:10):
I mean it's like you can't go a week without
zoron Mom Donnie doing something even more radical, whether it's
the government grocery stores, whether he's entertaining the possibility of reparations,
or you know, docsing New Yorkers who have second residences.
It's just clearly but this is the direction of the
(04:31):
Democrat Party right, it's consistent escalation, consistently becoming more and
more radical, And I would argue it's not a dramatic disconnect,
it's a logical next step.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
Some details that get missed in the story of President
Obama when they talk about him today, or if there's
a moment where he's being nice to Kalin Clark so
everyone thinks he's a moderate, A couple of things come
to mind. We learned that in his final days of
his second term with Susan Rice and others, he was
really weaponizing or pairing an attack on incoming president President
(05:03):
Trump that was being planned. And then oddly, but I think,
and this is my question to you, he stayed in Washington,
d c. There was always talk of, you know, of
cabinet members visiting or him living in Georgetown and him
staying in close proximity to the White House.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
Did he ever leave?
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Did he was Was he maybe shadow governments to draconian?
But was his presence not just his fingerprints when he
was on the clock. But he continued to be an
architect even after he left office.
Speaker 5 (05:33):
Yeah, you know, a lot of it happens behind the scenes.
Speaker 6 (05:35):
In my opinion, Barack Obama is not the sort of
guy who goes away.
Speaker 5 (05:39):
I think I mentioned the article.
Speaker 6 (05:40):
There's the interview where Barack and Obama are being Barack
and Michelle are being interviewed, and someone asked him what
comes next, and he says fun.
Speaker 5 (05:48):
He's too much of a politician to just move to fun.
Speaker 6 (05:51):
As you mentioned, it's so critical you think of law Fair,
We think of the more recent cases against Trump, We
think of Jack Smith, things like that.
Speaker 5 (05:59):
The case was Army Daniels. Barack Obama.
Speaker 6 (06:02):
He was a leader in bringing Lawfair into the political
realm with targeting people with the Irs and then, as
you mentioned, launching the Russia collusion hope that launched under
Barack Obama's administration, Barack Obama's FBI, Barack Obama's Department of Justice.
And yeah, again, as you said, I don't think he's
the sort of guy whoever goes away.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Why are Republicans, in your opinion, Josh, a little reluctant
to talk about Obamacare, because that's socialized medicine. What Barack
Obama did was take what about twenty five percent of
the nation's economy and turn it into socialism, and it's
a disaster. Everybody talks about the high cost of healthcare. Well,
doesn't Obamacare play into something like that? And why aren't
(06:44):
more people talking about that?
Speaker 6 (06:47):
Absolutely, and it's so ridiculous. You know, socialists, they're exploiting
the issue of affordability. Well, part of the reason we
have such a big problem with affordability is because of Obamacare.
Speaker 5 (06:59):
And this is where you know, you just wish.
Speaker 6 (07:02):
That Republicans would have would have as much spine as
the Democrats did when they rammed this legislation through and
they've acted like they wanted to repeal Obamacare, and I
think it's just one of those things where it becomes
embedded in the system and you really need courage to
root it out and come up with a better plan.
But that's not really something Republicans seem to have done
(07:25):
a good job of.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
That's right, josh Thank you very much. That's Joshua monting
Ton talking about Barack Obama's influence on today's Democratic Party.
We're coming up on the Rowden greg Show and Talk
Radio one oh five nine Cannis, Rod and Gregor with
(07:52):
you on this Friday afternoon. A hot one on the outside.
So what's new. We've been hot for like the last
three weeks.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
I know, I'm I I'd rather be hot than.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
Cold on it says is that I'm with you.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
So everybody gets excited because you know college football is
coming up, but always that always means the days are
getting shorter and the weather's going to get colder. And
I love football, but I just love the I do
love the heat. I love the summertime.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
Yeah, I love the summertime in the evenings, when it's
a warm evening on the outside.
Speaker 4 (08:20):
I love that.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
The other day, you know, I left, I went to
that my niece your concert, went to post Malone and
it was like eighty six degrees eighty five degrees at
ten at night, ten and eleven night and which is
warm but without a sun.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
It felt great.
Speaker 4 (08:33):
Yeah, it feels good.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
I used to like to go to a late, late,
late night movie like it, you know, starts at like
ten thirty or eleven. Yeah, and you get out like
a one and it's just nights on the outside.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (08:46):
I can't do that now because I fall asleep.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Yeah, now you'd be I'd be asleep.
Speaker 7 (08:49):
You know what.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
I've tried, Speaking of that, I've tried to watch some
shows and I fall asleep watching them, trying to watch
some shows.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
And yeah, anyway, life's so tough, first world problem. I
was about to say this, all right, let's talk about
this stuffy. What did they call that? They came up
with that term a couple of weeks ago, a couple
of months ago. Greg, they call it a a gestating
human or person to describe a woman. Right, yes, right,
what a ridiculous thing. Well, it's just part of the
(09:17):
left in their effort to erase mom and dad from
our daily vernacular. Joining us on our news maker line
to talk about all of this is the executive director
of them before us. His name is Josh Wood. He's
on our news Maker line right now. Josh, thanks so
much for joining us. Why on earth? It seems ridiculous though,
that the left is trying to erase mom and dad.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
What is going on?
Speaker 7 (09:38):
I mean, we should have all seen this coming down.
I think this is what I think, if anything, teach stuff.
We cannot be careful enough right now in making sure
words still have real definitions.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Let me ask you this question. We have a mother's Day,
we have a father's Day. Is this a bridge too far?
Is this so counterintuitive to the general public without in
regard to political affiliation that it exposes the nonsense that
we're living through right now.
Speaker 7 (10:06):
Well, I think you've even seen it in Mother's Day
and Father's Day celebrations over the last few years. It's
if you do that and you don't acknowledge every mother
or father figure every and look, there's like a lot
of good things about that that I have had significant
figures in my life who are not my mother or father.
But what we've also lost is that term being weaponized
(10:28):
to try to normalize this child acquisition by the LGBTQ agenda,
which intentionally deprived the child of their mother or father,
which is a totally different issue.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Josh, your organization put up a series of billboards across
the country and it really tend to raated some controversy
because I love the message no child has two dads,
no child has two moms. What was the thinking behind this,
knowing that you were going to get really attacked, which
you did.
Speaker 5 (10:59):
Well.
Speaker 7 (11:00):
I think it's important in this day and age to
challenge the fact that we are trying to redefine what
mother and father mean and why.
Speaker 5 (11:10):
Is that important?
Speaker 7 (11:11):
It goes beyond just having inclusive mother's days and father's days,
because when we redefine what it means to be a father.
Right now, in my mind, what I believe everybody agreed
with the last hundred years. Barack Obama agreed with this.
A father is the person that creates a child, and
they have obligations and responsibilities to that child. They have
(11:32):
obligations and responsibility to the person they created a child with,
which is always a woman, and that's his mother. That
definition creates protection and provision for the child. Now, when
we redefine all of that, suddenly the child gets redefined.
When father is just a feeling, it's just something you
can opt into or opt out of, the child suddenly
(11:53):
becomes this kind of commodity or asset. It has nothing
to do with creation. Now, so when the child pops
out of the womb, we the adults get to decide
who are they assigned to. They're an asset and child.
This kind of state mandated child assignment, parents assigned at
birth is a very dangerous concept.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
You know, the statistics show that there's a lot more
children being born to single moms than there used to be.
Is this a language just trying to, you know, blur
the difference between a mother and a father. Does it
in some way encourage or allow for, or make more
socially acceptable the fact that you may have single parents
(12:35):
raising a child all by themselves, which is a lot
harder and comes with all of its own challenges, but
it might be great for social engineering if the government
wants to be a stronger hand or a heavier hand
than that child's raising that child does these words in
the way it's being described, is it also trying to
normalize or justify single parenthood, which is tough on the
(12:56):
on the parent and the child.
Speaker 7 (12:59):
Well, I mean go with me here. So if I
say to a single mother, all family forms are equal,
and the child actually doesn't have necessarily a mother and
a father, they have whatever adults we decide, that single
mother goes well, Actually, my child, the person that helps
me create this child, his father walked out, and I
think it's brutal's I think he's a deadbeat. I think
(13:22):
that the child deserves to be to feel wronged. I
think that that parent opted out of an important relationship.
I think I've been wronged. What this inclusion does it
tries to act like it's kind. What it actually does
is remove this space the context for compassion. Because if
every family structure is equal if it nothing is different.
(13:43):
When a child has their father walk out because he
could just be replaced by any other individual, whether it
was his father or not. You actually don't give that mother,
who was the hero, who's stuck around any room to
feel she has lost something. More importantly, you don't give
the kid who did lose something the father in his life.
You don't give him any room. What is he thought
(14:04):
to complain about. You should just be happy you have
adults that love you. Well, wait a second, you don't
have an adult. You have a mother and a father.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
Josh, I've always been bothered by one thing when it
comes to gay marriage. Gay marriage is fine. If they're
old enough, they want to do it, they do it right.
What bothers me is the raising of children in a
gay relationship, because I think at a certain point a
young man will be very uncomfortable getting on the floor
with one of his mothers and wrestling with her. And
I think a young girl would be very uncomfortable having
(14:36):
one of their fathers explain the maturation process to him.
That's what bothers me about the raising of children in
these same sex marriages. And I don't think people talk
about that enough.
Speaker 7 (14:47):
Well, I tell you, we went through the craziness of
twenty twenty to twenty twenty five with we had quotas
for everything, including the fact that you had to have.
Speaker 5 (14:56):
A number of women.
Speaker 7 (14:57):
I believe it was the Boeing board that mandated a
number of women that had to be on their corporate
board because you just couldn't possibly run a company if
you did not have diverse perspectives from different genders. You
mean to tell me we need that in our boardrooms,
but not in the most important institution in all of society,
that mothers and fathers are optional in that but not
(15:17):
in running Boeing. It just exposes the hypocrisy the two
people who create the child are also necessary for their
protection and development.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
You know, Josh, this discussion and your work on this
and is so critical and I probably have never heard
anyone describe it as succinctly and as well that the
mother is wronged and the child is wronged when you
somehow try to normalize or pretend that that family is
exactly the same as a two parent family with a
mother and a father. My question, and there used to
be the symphasis that fathers need to step up and
(15:49):
be fathers to these children? Do we ever get there?
Can we expect that of our men in this country?
Do we demand there be a real fuck forget these
names and these words. We're using a father and a
mother with ecal responsibility for the child that they create.
Can we get back to that as a society.
Speaker 7 (16:10):
Well, now that's a tough question. We do are pessimistic
or optimistic about society. I think that as if we
could get around as a culture and as a society
demonstrating really positive examples that the most the happiest couples
are those in long term relationships, who are married raising
their children. The people who have the most sex sorry,
(16:32):
are married religious people. You are the happiest, You're the
most protective of your children. Your children do best. I
just don't think that message is getting out because there's
a lot of forces. And I'll remind you these forces.
They talk right, they talk left and live right. They
talk about you can do whatever you want, pair with
whoever you want, have sex with whoever you want. You
(16:54):
don't have to get married, delay fertility, all these different things.
All the people pushing those messages, these elite progressives have
strong families they're all married, they all their kids go
to nice schools, they don't get divorced. It's insane. There
is a hypocrisy built into it. So I think one
of the first things we have to do is, man,
(17:15):
if you're married and you have kids, we need to
stop complaining about it on social media and realize that
every single one of our individual lives are a platform
to push back on the anti dad, anti child propaganda.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
And there's a lot of it out there.
Speaker 5 (17:30):
Anymore, is there?
Speaker 4 (17:31):
Yes, there is all right on our.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
News maker line Josh Wood, executive director of the group.
Then before us more coming up on the Rod and
Greg Show. Well, welcome back. How we're number two of
the Rod and Greg Show with you on this Friday afternoon. Finally,
I think we're close to operating on all cylinders.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
I feel it, and I feel like we're just kicking
out the ghosts out of the machines.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
We're getting there.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
A few days of some unique issues with the machine,
you know, the machines took over. We couldn't even get
into it and stop it.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
No, it's just it's ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
And I think that the Chinese are very intimidated by
the Rod and Greg Show, and I think I'm just
gonna blame I'm gonna blame the uh, the intelligent foreign
intelligence community from trying to shut us down.
Speaker 3 (18:15):
They try to ban, they try to censor us.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Yeah, I think it's socialists here in Utah. I think
Ben mccadams is blinded.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
Like I said, the Chinese, you know, communist intelligence agency.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
I think that's synonymous with what you just said.
Speaker 7 (18:27):
Greg.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
I'm reading this on social media, and I'm not seeing
any other reports on this, but there is a posting
on social media right now and it says this, finally
John Thune cave to MAGA pressure and decided to cancel
August recess.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
I am suspect of it.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Yeah, I don't know if you've said anything on that,
but it says thank you to the nine Patriot senators
who refused to take vacation before the SA Act passed.
Now we did see another US senator has joined Mike
Lee in his effort. That's Mike Crapo. He is a
Republican Fromo. So they're close to twenty, but this one
I don't trust.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
So just yeah, I'm not going to take I think
we saw a list of up to twenty Senators, Where's
I want to see ran Paul's name up there. He's
you know, he fancies himself a bit of you know,
of a maverick, and I would like to see him there.
By the way, disappointing op ed by our Senator John Curtis.
At the same time we're talking about this and wanting
to see them work get this done, he wrote an
(19:26):
op ed in the Wall Street Journal, which, by the way,
who's your audience in the Wall Street Journal? Would that
be the Utah constituency?
Speaker 3 (19:31):
And you serve Wall Street Journal?
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Seems like he's speaking to a different, different audience, but
he boils it down to I don't want to change
the filibuster. Well, I would argue that a marathon debate
on that Senate floor about an issue that seventy and
I'm being generous when I say seventy it's probably eighty percent,
but seventy plus percent of America, without regard to political
party affiliation, support the Save America Act. To have that
(19:55):
marathon debate that the American people, by large, by and
far larger, all of the support to stay there and
have that debate and pass that is that is the filibuster.
Even it contemplates that marathon debate. It contemplates you sitting
there and you staying until you have that debate, until
and once you've done it and there's not enough opposition
(20:18):
to keep throwing out amendments, then you can you can
pass it by a simple majority. That is what the
filibuster did. They want they want to mail it in,
they want to be able to call it in. They
want to do it ahead of time, that sixty vote
clture without actually any debate. That is not how the
Civil Rights Act passed. That's not how it works, or
it didn't work. It works now that way. But you
aren't hurting any Senate precedent by having that marathon debate
(20:40):
on something American people cared that much about.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Vote Vote for it, folks. I mean, come on, guys,
just get it done. All right, Let's move on. Talk
about another topic that I know you're very well versed in. Yes,
and we're talking about school discipline. Yes, with the issue
of discipline.
Speaker 3 (20:58):
I'm on the receiving end of that school discipline.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
I was never one. I would never work for a
school district, never a teacher. But I was a student
and I was simple to Yes, school discipline.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Yeah, yeah, well we all were. I was too, and
uh it's an issue. But all of a sudden, the
idea of disciplining a student who gets out of hand
has apparently gone away. Apparently teachers can't do that anymore.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
Man, I would have ruled that school at my age
if I when I was going through this, and there
were consequences to my conduct, which I appreciate.
Speaker 3 (21:29):
I don't look back at it and wish it any different.
It's but if you if you get if you did, if.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
You didn't have consequences, I don't know what you know,
Little Greg would have looked like, because you know, I
think I would have enjoyed no comment.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Well, this started years ago with a directive from the
federal government warning schools to be careful when he comes
to disciplining students. And joining us on our NEWSMAGA line
right now to talk about that as Jennifer Weber, she
is a K through twelve education policy view fellow at
the Manhattan Institute. Jennifer, thank you very much for joining
us tonight. How did this lack of discipline in the
(22:05):
classroom and in the schools begin?
Speaker 8 (22:07):
Well, I mean really since two thy fourteen, when the
federal government really started to treat this as a means
of discrimination. So in that initial letter that Obama had written,
he had pretty much in his administration had said that
(22:29):
if a district suspension number differed by grace, even if
those rules were being applied evenly to every student, that
gap could then trigger a civil rights investigation. So over
the last more than a decade, we've really seen that
schools across the nation just kind of learn to manage
(22:50):
the numbers. So maybe on paper there were less suspensions,
but you would hear within the classrooms there was just
so much chaos and misbehavior that just wasn't able to
get to get addressed. And then at the same time,
there were these alternative approaches that we're getting that we're
(23:10):
becoming very popular, like restorative justice, social emotional learning, trauma
informed instruction, that we're kind of taking the place of
behavior based discipline.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
So every action should have a consequence, good and bad.
Maybe share with this, I know it's in your column,
but share with us what what does it even mean
to have restorative justice practices instead of a suspension When
when a kid is when a student is just disrupting
the classroom, it's hit a level where that would have
been the consequence. What is a restorative justice consequence?
Speaker 3 (23:44):
What does that? What is that.
Speaker 8 (23:47):
Restorative justice consequence is literally creating a mediation circle where
the teacher or a counselor and the child's kind of
talks through what happened. And so it became this kind
of conversational approach. But really, if you look at it
(24:07):
more behaviorally, the kid who was maybe misbehaving or disrupting
whatever it may be to get out of doing work
still is now getting out of doing work. So it's
not a suspension, but the kid is still out of
the classroom, but now just engaging in a conversation.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
Jennifer, how difficult is this for teachers to deal with?
We've had teachers call into this show before talking about
discipline in the classroom and basically saying there's nothing we
can do here. We're told we can't do anything. I mean,
that almost makes your job impossible at times, doesn't it.
Speaker 7 (24:44):
It does.
Speaker 8 (24:44):
I used to do a lot of work in public
schools and charter schools really focused on behavior. My background
is in behavior analysis, and you would see there was
always so much red tape where there really weren't any
consequences being provided, and the kids would see it, and
(25:06):
you would just see more of that occur. I remember
actually being in a classroom and watching a kid the
row of chrome book at the teacher. The kids then
in the classroom watched the teacher get escorted out like
to go to the emergency room by ambulance. And after that,
(25:28):
the kid, at twenty minutes after the converse, the resorative
circle the kid had with another staff member was back
in the classroom. The teacher was gone, but he was
back in the classroom.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
So, uh, you know, we've Rod and I have shared
the ur experiences in school. It was a long time ago,
longer for Rod. By the way about he went. He
went to a Catholic school, and he had the nuns,
and they had rulers, and they you know, they he
had knuckles, and they used to meet quite a bit.
Speaker 3 (25:56):
Or he had to stay, he had to stay in
a corner.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
I in the seventh grade, I got paddled through separate
in a public school. I got paddled three separate times
in three different classes for things that pale in comparison
to what you just described about throwing a chrome book
at a teacher. I don't think we're going to go
back to paddling. I don't think we're gonna go back
to rulers on knuckles. But but but but throwing a
chromebook at a teacher and having them taken out medically
(26:18):
by versus a restoratives? What is the happy medium here?
How do you create consequences so that you're not just
not for the just for the student themselves, but for
the whole classroom to deliver education successfully?
Speaker 3 (26:29):
What is that? What should we be striving towards?
Speaker 8 (26:33):
Absolutely? And I think that's where it all got. I mean,
it all got really misconstrued because it isn't it. Of
course isn't a one size this all, but it has
to be behavior based and really looking at the why
the behavior is occurring and then providing consequences based off
(26:54):
of that. So there are, of course, of course, there
are times when spension is most certainly warranted, but that's
not you know, but that's not all the time, And
we've got to look at why this, why this happened,
and then really provide a consistent consequence based off of that.
(27:14):
So a kid who is trying to escape doing a
math worksheet, it's that consequence should be very different than
a kid who's disrupting a class to get the teacher's
attention first, a kid who is throwing a chromebook at
a staff member. All of those things, there's such our
(27:34):
specific behaviors, and they all occurred for different reasons, so
they all weren't a different kind of consequence. And that's
what I think that everyone has gotten so wrong, particularly
when the federal government really put out the notice and
made it so much about race, race and not discriminating
(27:55):
against race. It completely lost consecuating kids based.
Speaker 2 (27:59):
On Jennifer Why do I Why shouldn't I not be
surprised that I suspect there are some kids who become
wise to this and they know they can also almost
get away with murder in a classroom, and that's got
to be affecting them as well, right.
Speaker 8 (28:16):
One, I mean one percent. Like I said, when I
was working in schools and more of a consultant role,
I would sit in on some of the conversations that
that the principal would have with the students, and some
of the responses that the students would give would be
because I can, and so they know exactly what they're doing,
(28:38):
and they also know that when there are no When
there are no consequences, they can just keep doing the
same thing. And we see that in society all the time.
When you don't have consequences, you just get more more
of the same behavior. And the kids are smart, they
absolutely know that.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Jennifer, thank you very much for joining us. Jennifer Weeber
with the man heattan insto talking about discipline in schools today.
Greg you, as I mentioned with Jennifer, you talked almost
any teacher out there.
Speaker 4 (29:06):
It's an issue in the classroom, it.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
Is, and I have spoken to teachers in Utah and
it is an issue.
Speaker 4 (29:11):
What can be done about it?
Speaker 3 (29:13):
Look, I know.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
Examples of teachers that have been harmed by the content,
just like not a chromebook and an ambulance call, but
serious harm to a student, to a teacher, an educator
by a student. And now there was no consequence to
that student.
Speaker 4 (29:26):
And that's not right.
Speaker 3 (29:27):
No, No, I mean there's.
Speaker 1 (29:28):
Even hospital bills, and you know there are consequences to
the student did not exist, YEA, So it is. It's
there's no way that when I know when she's sharing that,
and I can think of an exact example similar in
our schools here that's not the only time it's ever
happened in Utah, and I just happen to be privy
to it. I think it's happening enough that these stories
(29:50):
are common enough that I would know of an example.
Speaker 2 (29:53):
Why on earth would you want to be a teacher
knowing your hands are tied when it comes to disciplining
a disruptive student.
Speaker 4 (29:58):
In the class.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
I don't think think it's in the brochure. I don't
think they're letting the teachers know that when they're entering
this career. I don't know that they know they're at
the mercy of these kids who can almost do whatever
they want.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Now, look, if there's good teachers out there, they able
to show consequences to students' bad behavior. I hope that's happening,
But I do know circumstances where the teachers are unable
to do anything about it.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
Sad.
Speaker 5 (30:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
All right, Moore coming up, brought in Greg with you
on this Friday afternoon right here on Utah's Talk Radio
one O five nine. Okay, n rs, let's continue with
the third hour.
Speaker 4 (30:30):
Greg.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
You know, there's so many people who talk about this
all the time, but I don't think we talk about
it enough. The importance of the Bible in the founding
of this great country, and how are founding fathers use
the Bible to kind of influence many of the important
documents that were written, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution,
two which are were very important and still are.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Yeah, if you want to omit the relationship of this country,
the founding of this country with Christianity specifically but even
generally faith. Yeah, and freedom of religion, you're missing the story.
And so under the banner of separation of state, you
cannot omit these things.
Speaker 4 (31:03):
Now you cannot.
Speaker 7 (31:04):
Well.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
Joining on sound our newsmaker line to talk more about
that is Con Carroll. He's a commentary editor at the
Washington Examiner. Con thanks for joining us ince evening. Let's
talk about the Bible and America. Why is it so
important and why aren't people talking about it enough?
Speaker 9 (31:17):
Con Sure, Well, I mean, the Bible is important because
it's the foundation of our political thought and the way
we understand the world pecifically for our founders, which is
something we don't appreciate today in today's secular world. The
Texas State School Board recently required certain readings throughout K
(31:38):
through twelve of both the Old and New Testaments, and
the Democratic Party said that this was in contradiction to
the freedom of religion, and they're just wrong, and they
have a faulty understanding of how the Founders viewed Christianity
and the importance of it for our nation.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
You're so right, and so there's a history oracle perspective,
and if you don't share the historical perspective, you're missing
a large part of the story. Maybe share with our audience,
what are some of those historical moments that if you
don't mention Christianity, if you don't mention its role, you're
missing America's story.
Speaker 8 (32:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 9 (32:17):
Absolutely, you know, I think when you look at the
Founding documents, not just the regular for Independence, because of
course specifically alludes to a creator in God that gives
us all these natural rights. But we look to the
Federalist papers themselves. You know, Madison wrote in Federalist fifty one,
if men were angels, no government would be necessary. You
(32:38):
have to have an understanding of the Bible and understanding
what he's talking about there. In Federals thirty seven, again
Madison describes a constitution as evidence that there is an
almighty hand that's repeated aid of the nation and his
referenced the finger of God, you know, draws on biblical
language that readers need to understand. There's just a moral
language and vocabulary that we have only if you read
(33:02):
and understand the Bible that we need as a nation
to have that common culture.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
Con I don't think most Americans realize that our founders,
and you list them, many of our founders came from
different religions. It was Christianity, but they all weren't one religion.
I don't think people realize that, do they.
Speaker 9 (33:22):
Right, So, you know, people say some people say that,
you know, we are Christian nation, and we are. But
there's also specific parts of the Constitution itself, which which
as a document does not mention God, you know, but
you have the parts of the Bible that you specifically forbid,
you know, articles fix the Constitution for BID's religious tests
(33:42):
for qualifications for offices with the United States. And that's
because at our founding there was a wide variety of
Christian sects that were thriving with the United States. Congregationalists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, Lutherans, Methodists, Arabians, Mennonites, Catholics,
(34:02):
even you know. So there's this wide flight of people,
and all of these groups had very different understandings of
theology and everything else, but at the same time, they
still shared a belief in God and like I said before,
a moral vocabulary, in a shared conception of human nature.
And it's not just those who are those who belonged
(34:22):
to those sects. You also had Benjamin Franklin and Thomas
Jefferson who were deists, you know, who did not necessarily
believe in the divinity of human Christ, but still at
the same time believed in the necessity of having that
same shared cultural language of the Bible, and that there
was a higher power that we answer to.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
So I'd like, I'm curious your thoughts. Is this an
overstatement or do you think this is relevant. I've heard
this say before that if you want to talk about America,
you don't go to the tea party Boston tea party,
you go to Plymouth Rock. And I know that's pre
you know, the founding of our country. But is that
the critical moment that we should talk about more than
(35:04):
even the tea party, the Boston tea party, Well.
Speaker 9 (35:07):
I mean, I mean yes, and no right, because Plymouth
Rock was a theological theological enterprise that explicitly excluded and
kicked out people who weren't Puritans, right, And so.
Speaker 3 (35:22):
Freedom religious freedom.
Speaker 7 (35:25):
No right. Right.
Speaker 9 (35:26):
And so you want to have a federalist religious freedom
where you can go and participate in communities that are
like that, but under a larger federal umbrella of protecting
each man's right to a conscious of faiths. And and
and that's the balance that the that the founders found
within the Constitution and the declaration that that we are
(35:47):
a nation that that is under God, but that we
can't allow u Securian tests to affect who is in
the government and whose deciding policy is gon.
Speaker 2 (35:57):
How important is it do you think that we bring
the bable back into the classroom for kids to study?
I mean, I noticed the state of Texas is moving
in that direction, not you know, in no way trying
to convert people to Christianity, but to be able to
study its importance in the founding of this great country.
Speaker 4 (36:13):
How important is that do you feel?
Speaker 9 (36:15):
I mean, I feel it's exactly essential, right, I mean
I mentioned that the Democrats, you know, really complained when
the Texas school Board announces these things, and they said that,
you know, Texas is home to millions of people of
countless fates and beliefs, and that's why Texas shouldn't teach
the bottom of the school. But I would argue, it's
the exact opposite. It's because there are so many faiths
(36:35):
and because there are so many different beliefs that we
need to teach inner public schools. What is the common
belief that we're founded on, so that we have that
common more language to talk to each other and to relate,
and you know, to be perfectly honest and up front,
you know, I was raised in the secular household. I
was never a Christian. I'm not a Christian. But at
(36:57):
the same time, I was first taught the Bible an
English class, you know, as as literature in the sense
that if you're going to go on and read you know, Chaucer,
Milton and Shakespeare and Shelley and Keats and even American
authors Melville and Twain and Faulkner, you have to have
an operating understanding of the narratives of the Bible. Otherwise
(37:19):
you're just not going to know what anyone's talking about.
And so that is why it is so essential now
that we are so fragmented, now that we are so diverse,
that we need to have that teaching of what the
Christian Bible is in our public schools.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
Gott Carol joining us on any of our Newsmaker line
talking about understanding America, try and do that without the Bible.
Speaker 1 (37:38):
What a unique perspective from con himself. I mean, he's
looking at this as you describe his is he described
his life in a very objective way. He says he
not Christian, so he wasn't raising it. He was raised
in a sector of household. So I mean when he's
talking about you need the Bible in there, no one's
putting their thumb on the scale.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
No sure, And all right when we come back, we'll
begin our listen Back Friday segments right here on Utah's
Talk O one O five nine knrs CEOs. You should
know it's a conversation with some of the top business
leaders here in you saw. We'd love to explore the
ups and downs of creating and running their business. And
it's so great to have Scott Porter, the owner the
founder of Sandy Oblo Artists in Churos with us today.
Speaker 4 (38:19):
Scott, welcome to CEOs you should know. It's great to
have you here.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
Now, we want to get to know you a little
bit better, okay, before we talk about the success of
your business. So what we do is throw a lot
of quick questions at you. These are simple choice questions,
just to get to know you a little bit, okay,
and we like to put a stopwatch on it. Uh
you in sixty driving or writing?
Speaker 4 (38:41):
Writing? Salty or sweet? Salty? Superman or Batman? Uh? Superman?
All right? Favorite song? Uh?
Speaker 10 (38:55):
Oh my gosh, there's so many, that's my answer.
Speaker 4 (38:59):
There's too many choices, Okay.
Speaker 10 (39:00):
Sunrise or sunset sunset? Beatles or stones, beatles, chocolate or
vanilla chocolate, beach or mountains.
Speaker 4 (39:12):
Oh god, I.
Speaker 10 (39:18):
Just love ball beach all right. Star Trek or Star Wars,
Wars Coker PEPSI neither skateboard or snowboard? Uh skate or okay?
Listening to music or playing music listening? Uh TikTok Instagram
or x Instagram?
Speaker 4 (39:38):
Cats or dogs? Cats are dogs neither? Okay. Well, I'm
not a bad guy, You're not. Let's talk.
Speaker 10 (39:48):
I like animals, I just don't want them around me
all the time.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
Okay, that's fine. Yeah, there are people who are animal
people and people are not. I get that as well.
All right, let's talk about your career itself. I was
writing your You're a serial entrepreneur. I love that title.
Why go into all the different things that you've been into?
Speaker 5 (40:08):
That is a really great question.
Speaker 10 (40:11):
I mean it's a I've had a really eclectic career
path and been involved in a lot of different industries.
I am. The entrepreneurial gene is so strong in me,
and I just I can't, I can't deny it.
Speaker 5 (40:30):
It's nothing.
Speaker 10 (40:31):
It's something that has always been a part of me
ever since I was a kid. I mean, I started
my first venture when I think I was about eight
or nine years old. We did a neighborhood newspaper. So
I was the I wrote about I interviewed my friends
and their families and their parents, like what their jobs were,
(40:52):
where they went on vacation, wrote up little articles and
sold it back to everyone in my neighborhood for like
twenty five cents. So it was It's just it's something
that is in me. I've asked my mom, was I
always like that? And yeah, it's just I think my
dad's an entrepreneur. And so that was that I learned
(41:14):
by experience and watching him, and it's really hard. But
I've also just always gravitated toward things that were hard
and difficult and like something that no one had ever
done before, and starting something from scratch.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
And all right, tell me a little bit about San
Diablo artists in Turro. Yes, where did that idea come from?
Why did you venture into that area?
Speaker 4 (41:38):
Totally?
Speaker 10 (41:39):
It's so fun because I just got back from where
this idea was born, in Mexico City. I got back
just a couple of days ago. I went to the
very place where I had my first fresh filled churros
when I was an intern there for the summer one year,
and I was like, wait a second, these are so
insanely good. Why I hadn't you know, apparently hadn't lived
(42:03):
before that moment, and this is like I it really
became just this mission responsibility. I even said, like, I've
got to take something this good to back home. We have,
you know, mostly mediocre turros here in the United States
(42:23):
at that point, and I'm like, we got to do
something about this. It was an idea that I had
way back then. And then fast forward several career lives later,
ten years ago, is when I decided it was the
right time to to bring that bring all that goodness
and that happiness.
Speaker 4 (42:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (42:38):
Yeah, Here in Utah we have a lot of entrepreneurs.
You certainly are one.
Speaker 5 (42:42):
What amazing what?
Speaker 4 (42:44):
Yeah? What recommendation or.
Speaker 2 (42:46):
If if you have someone come to you and say,
I've got an idea, I want to turn it into something,
what do you recommend they do?
Speaker 4 (42:53):
Because you've been through it, You've done it.
Speaker 10 (42:54):
Yeah, I mean like join the crazy crew that all
these crazy people.
Speaker 4 (42:59):
That want to start their own business.
Speaker 10 (43:03):
And so first of all, take take a get ready
for a wild ride.
Speaker 4 (43:09):
So just like sign yourself up for that.
Speaker 10 (43:13):
One of the things that's been really successful for us
and helpful for us is is real time testing of
whatever it is, Like you asking my friends and family,
Like I'm always bringing new stuff to family gatherings, to
parties and stuff.
Speaker 4 (43:32):
Hey do you guys want let me try this?
Speaker 10 (43:33):
Or you know, I brought Churos to parties for a
year or so before I actually launched the business because
I wanted to get real time feedback from people. Have
we nailed it? Like getting that real time feedback is
absolutely crucial.
Speaker 2 (43:49):
So funny question for you, Scott is there, you're a
successful entrepreneur. For those who are successful, and there are
a lot of them out there, is there a secret
sauce that all you entrepreneurs have?
Speaker 4 (44:02):
Uh? And if so, what is that secret sauce that
makes you successful?
Speaker 10 (44:05):
I mean I do love sauce, period, So yeah, secret sauce.
I mean I I honestly think there is just an
an unusually high uh tolerance for crazy for uh, the
unusual for uh, the ability to continue to push through
(44:29):
the nose that you get and the rejection that you
get and continue and and that an unusually high ability
to believe in in what you're building as well. I
mean that is that's that's uh, that is probably I'm
just trying to think what the common the common thread
(44:52):
in in entrepreneurs that have been successful is, and that
to me seems to be something that stands out.
Speaker 4 (45:00):
Scott.
Speaker 2 (45:01):
Great to get to know you. Thanks so much for
your success. Thank you all right. Bringing you insights from
business leaders who are achieving success. We call it CEOs.
Speaker 4 (45:09):
You should know right here on iHeartMedia
The Rod & Greg Show News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com