The Rod and Greg Show: Battle Over Birthright Citizenship; False Reporting on Ballistics in Kirk Case

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All the cold temperatures, all the snow, all the rain,
none of it matters. So I just shouldn't. I don't
know why we should even get excited.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
About or we're way behind, that's for sure.

Speaker 1 (00:10):
Well's see, it's always glass half empty. It always is
with This is never a good thing. So why do
I have to put up with it? If it's not
going to be good news that we you know, we
just solve the problem, then why put.

Speaker 3 (00:22):
Up with it?

Speaker 2 (00:23):
We'll deal with it. We just heard Lindsay say more
snow is coming tomorrow morning.

Speaker 1 (00:27):
I just heard I This morning, I kid you not,
I heard birds singing. I thought I heard some weird sound.
I thought, what's squeaking? It was? It was still dark
and I'm listening. It's birds. Birds are singing like it's spring.
They're singing. What are these birds doing right now while
it's snowing? You know, they usually leave, they go south
when it starts to snow. These poor birds, they must.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
Be they're confused. They're confused. They're very confused. How are you? Everybody?
Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show on this Thursday
afternoon right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five.
Dine can arrest live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. I'm
rod our Kit citizen Greg Hughes. Well, let me tell
you what Donald Trump.

Speaker 4 (01:04):
You know, he.

Speaker 2 (01:07):
Didn't he doesn't like downtime. He apparently doesn't. He did
not like downtime. Now, it was a big day yesterday.
You had the birthright citizenship going on, you had the
Artements two taking off. They're about ready to head to
the moon, by the way, I guess they've been given
the go okay, whip around the Earth and head to
the moon, and they're about to do that. And then

(01:27):
Donald Trump addressing the nation on the situation in Iran.
So you'd think, all right, he's gonna take it easy today.
H No, first thing this morning we get word that
he's made a decision on the future of Pam Bondy.
She's no longer Attorney General.

Speaker 1 (01:42):
Yeah, apparently, if you believe news reports, before he addressed
the nation last night, he had already let Pam Bondy
know that she was no longer her services were no
longer needed as Attorney General, and he was going to
move in a different direction. So the guys, you know,
he's letting no dust settle. And then you see today.
Also in addition to the Attorney General. And by the way,
there's a great we're going to get into some of

(02:03):
the talk about who would take his place. There's some
names out there that I think are worth talking about.
The Secretary of War Pete hegseeth he lets go. Army
chief of Staff is let's see he lets him go there.
So Secretary of War Pete head Sth asked the Army
Chief of Staff, General Randy George to step down immediately
and retire. So he's retiring, and you know that's some

(02:27):
you know, the speculation is that the war's not going
as well as you want.

Speaker 4 (02:31):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (02:31):
It looks like the place is an ashtray to me.
I don't know what more you want out of that war.
It seems like they're winning big ley.

Speaker 5 (02:37):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:37):
So I don't know what the backstory is with the
Pentagon at the moment, but it doesn't look like the
Trump administration is not going to suffer from complacency. I
don't think that's going to be one of the criticisms
pointed at this administration.

Speaker 2 (02:52):
They do not like that. So we'll talk about that.
A major operation against fraud in California today JD Vans.
The President has directed Jade Vance to get after fraud
in this country. There was a major bust in that today.
We'll talk about that a little bit later on. We'll
talk about how parents are taking control control of education
that's finally starting to take place, among other things. So

(03:14):
we've got a lot to get to today, and as always,
we do invite you to be a part of the program.
If you'd like to join in our discussion eight eight
eight five seven o eight zero one zero eight eight
eight five seven o eight zero one zero on your
cell phone dial pound two fifteen and say hey, Rod,
or leave us a message on our talkback line by
downloading the iHeartRadio app. All right, Pam BONDI been rumored

(03:36):
for several days, if not weeks, that she was on
thin ice with the President. I don't know what triggered it,
but the President announced today that she is no longer
attorney general. He has named Todd Blanche to be the
acting Attorney general until the decision has made a lot
of speculation out there. Greg leaves Eldon as one of them.
Keep Todd Blanche, make him permanent attorney general. But there

(03:59):
is another name that is surfacing now someone you are
all familiar with that know may be part of the discussion.

Speaker 1 (04:07):
Now, Look, if I were king for a day, I
would say that our great senior Senator Mike Lee, I
would like to see him on the US Supreme Court.
I think that if you have a a Clarence Thomas,
he's seventy seven, and you want to make sure you
keep a solid conservative court, you would maybe see a
change there. And I would love to see Mike Lee

(04:28):
as a Supreme Court justice. However, it is being reported
that Senator Mike Lee's name is being circulated not just
in the White House but amongst senators themselves, that he
ought to be considered for attorney General. A report that
came out today said some Senators are pushing the White
House to appoint Senator Mike Lee as attorney General and

(04:50):
plan to pitch Trump directly on the idea. This is
according to two sources with knowledge of the matter. Some
people are already starting to say, you know what this
really is. This is senators trying to get rid of
Senator Lee and his Save America Act. They don't want
to deal with that anymore, and this is a way
to kind of give him a new job and send
him on his way. Some think that he is eminently

(05:11):
qualified to be the attorney general and be a phenomenal
attorney general. So there's that. So that's one name. But
as you said, the EPA, the Environmental Protection ageres Elton
Cabinet member LEEZ Eldon, his name is one you hear.
I've heard quite often since the announcement that he's one
that's being considered for the position as well.

Speaker 6 (05:29):
Well.

Speaker 2 (05:30):
There's a lot of a lot of praise for Leeds Eldon,
and there are a couple of points. First of all,
he knows Washington. You know, he understands how Washington works.
He's getting a lot of praise for what he's done
with the EPA.

Speaker 1 (05:41):
Well, I need him to clean up that Tijuana toilet
a river. I need him to stay on that job
for a while. He cannot give that one up.

Speaker 2 (05:47):
But apparently they're saying he's very well liked. He's done
a great job with the EPA. He's moved in the
direction that the President has wanted it to go, eliminating
some of the stupid green regulations out there. He has
cut the staff, reduced the expense of the EPA. So
his name is really being talked about. Todd Blanche who
is the Assistant Attorney General now, is the acting ag,

(06:11):
very close with the president, supports the president. He defended
the president in the criminal cases against him leading up
to the election. So you've got and and the name
of Mike Lee made sense to me. I'd hate to
lose him. Uh, And maybe that's just they're throwing that
name out. We'll have to see, if you know, Mike
is not afraid to get under the put a burr

(06:33):
under the saddle of a lot of the established Republican
senators in the Senate. And they may be trying to
get him out of the Senate because then I have
to deal with the guy.

Speaker 1 (06:44):
Well, it might be a twofer for some of those senators.
They think he'd do a very good job as Attorney general.
But it also would end the hassle that they have
to deal with the Save America Act, which I would
not want to see the Save America Act disappear if
there was a different appointment or if he accept if
Senator Lee accepted that appointment to be Attorney General, I
would not want to see the Save America Act whither
or away. I hope that would still pass. But all

(07:07):
that said, you got to look back. Let's look at
Pambondi for a second. I remember there was a time
where when Dan Bongino was the second in charge of
the FBI that there was talk that they got into
a big time and one of the reasons that was
attributed to him leaving maybe sooner than people thought, going
back to podcasting and his role prior to going to
the FBI, was because it was an untenable relationship with

(07:30):
the Attorney General and he at the FBI. You have that,
you have the amaze I think justifiable disappointment about the
binders and the Epstein files. It turned out not really
to be binders of anything. We eventually got to some
pretty disturbing information that frankly I probably discounted didn't know
it would be as severe as it was that but

(07:50):
she certainly did not handle that in the onset the
way it should have been handled. But then you have,
as you pointed out before the show as we were talking,
you know, the president said and listens to the oral
arguments that the government and his administration is making for
the birthright citizenship issue, and he might have been disappointed.

Speaker 2 (08:09):
Yeah, it wasn't more compelling he may have been. I
mean they sat next to each other, they were spiling.
Matter of fact, she wasn't at an event last night
with the president and when he told her maybe it
was during that event, who knows, but he got you know,
he gave her the word that thank you, Pam, and
she's going to now go to the private sector.

Speaker 1 (08:28):
And I was going to say that he had a
very nice post post about Pam Bondi and that she
has been great, she's been great serving in his administration,
and that there is a private sector job of which
she will do great things and that she will thrive
in That is going to be announced later, but that
is where the direction she is going. So he's trying

(08:48):
to put a good face on the change itself. And
I don't know. I think I think that what I
like about Wellther I like Center Leon so many fronts,
so but so that goes without saying. But with Lee Zelden,
what I like is I think he has moved the
needle on a lot a lot of issues and there
hasn't been the controversy and you haven't seen the drama

(09:10):
and you haven't He hasn't made himself vulnerable for vulnerable
to the leftists attacks like other cabinet members have fallen,
you know, have fallen prey to and so maybe that's
the way he does it. Maybe he's an administrator that's
smart on how he does that. If he does, there's
no more important then Department of Justice is probably the
most important place where you would want less drama more action.

Speaker 2 (09:33):
Yeah, you won't get the job that kind of leadership.

Speaker 1 (09:35):
If that's what is going on into EPA and you
needed more of that going on at the Department of Justice,
I could see him being a good fit there.

Speaker 2 (09:41):
Well, I have to wait and see important decision coming
up for the president. How soon he'll act, We'll have
to wait and see. But a shake up today in
the president's cabinet. So you have Christy Nome. She's gone.
Good move, I think on the part of the president. Yes,
and Pam Bondy. There are a lot of conservatives who
have not been happy with Pam Bondy and she has
gone as well. So we'll have to see what the

(10:01):
future holds for the president and his cabinet. All right,
when we come back, an effort to crack down on
fraud this time in California. That's coming up on the
Rod and Greg show right here on Utah's Talk Radio
one oh five nine can arrests. We found out about
the fraud in Minnesota. You may remember that, Greg, but
a lot of people were saying at that time that
is really just the tip of the iceberg. Wait until

(10:22):
we get to California. Well that's exactly what happened today
in California. The chickens came home to roost today. First
Assistant United States Attorney for the Central District announced that
the chickens have come home to roost. In coordination with
a Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, federal law enforcement officials
executed several arrests and search warrants in Los Angeles this

(10:43):
morning targeting hospice and healthcare fraud. And it's going to
add up to millions, if not billions of dollars. Greg,
It's pretty amazing, and it's just the tip of the
iceberg in California.

Speaker 1 (10:53):
And it doesn't surprise me. The state hasn't had good
competent leadership for a long long time, and so it
has felt like the fix has been in in that
state for a while. And when you saw Minnesota, you thought,
man if Minnesota looks this way. What does California do like.

Speaker 2 (11:08):
That be interesting? Well, why don't liberals confront fraud? Joining
us on our news maker line to talk about that
is Nathaniel Blake. Nathaniel is a senior contributor to The Federalist,
joining us on our Newsmaker line. He wrote about this
this week. Nathaniel, how are you welcome to the Rod
and Greg Show.

Speaker 7 (11:25):
I'm doing well. Thank you so much for.

Speaker 2 (11:26):
Having me and Nathaniel, what do you think of the
news coming out of California today with the arrest targeting
hospice and healthcare centers. Apparently a lot of fraud out
there and the arrest have just begun. What do you
mean surprised by this at all?

Speaker 7 (11:38):
Nathaniel, No, I don't think anyone's really surprised. I think
we've all sort of come to expect that this is
exactly what we were going to see, and indeed we
are seeing it.

Speaker 1 (11:51):
So here's what's confusing to me. I know, there's nothing
about federal bureaucracy that's simple. There's nothing that's like here,
just say you want some money, and we're just gonna
go ahead and mail it to you. There seems to
be so many forms, so many things, so many things
you have to do. How did we get to a
place where because I saw a post by I think
it was Steven Miller that said, there's nobody checking. Everybody

(12:12):
assumes there's verification for the you know, for the healthcare,
for the daycare, for the you know, whatever it may be,
but it's not. It's just being sent by application without
any kind of checks, uh, verifications. That doesn't that doesn't
square with the level of bureaucracy that I think the
federal government imposes upon people when they do try to

(12:32):
interface with the federal government. Where what am I missing?
And in the fraud, the rampant fraud, but the endless
bureaucracy and paperwork that you that I think comes from
the federal government.

Speaker 7 (12:44):
Well, I think that part of what's going on here
is if you're part of a favored group for Democrats,
they're going to be much more willing to shovel money.
And part of it, too, really goes back to COVID.
You remember just how much pressure there was to just
get money out the door. Christopher Rufo just highlighted that

(13:05):
in his piece I think just yesterday on fraud in California.
How so much of the safeguard, even what little safeguards
are were, were just shredded there, and part of its
risk For ordinary law abiding citizens, we're afraid to commit fraud,
both because it's wrong and because it would ruin our
lives to be arrested. But if you're a low life,

(13:25):
you're willing to take that risk. And it turns out
there are a lot of low lives out there who
are happy to rip off American.

Speaker 2 (13:31):
Taxpayers, Nathaniel, Is it in part as well that the
left believes the solution to everything as government and the
bigger the government will solve the problems when we know
that's not the case. But is that what the left believes?

Speaker 7 (13:45):
I think so? I mean, I was writing just the
column that I think got this conversation started was a
piece on New York Times Calumnist to make Christoff, who
is complaining about how much we're spending on the war
in Irran and whether or not that it's a good
idea at we were really dropping real bombs there. So
he spent all of these you know, why don't we

(14:06):
spend the money on all of these other programs, and well,
a lot of that money as we can see, it
would be stolen or would be used inefficiently. But there's
definitely that sense on the left where we just need
to spend money that's secure to socials. And I think
it's easier for the left to believe that than to
face up to the hard questions of what's really wrong

(14:26):
in the human heart, how do we really address that,
because those are questions of sin, of repentance, of cultural change,
and it's a lot easier to say, let's just throw
money at the problem.

Speaker 1 (14:36):
I remember when during the Biden administration, FEMA was in
that and I think it was in North Carolina where
they had a devastation from a hurricane, and the stories
began to emerge that if you had a Trump sign
in your yard, the FEMA people weren't stopping by to
see if they could help, there was very little help,
or if there was, it was highly partisan. And then
you hear stories about how the IRS has targeted a

(14:58):
more conservative nonprofits versus those that are liberal. If there
is a double standard, if the liberals the leftists go
after with a vengeance anyone that's normal, anyone that's maybe
a conservative, while just giving blank checks, literal blank checks,
to those on the left who serve them politically. How
do you turn that ship around? How do you begin

(15:20):
to confront that. I'm not sure that the American people
are aware of such a double standard.

Speaker 7 (15:27):
I think they're starting to see it. And I do
think that there was an assumption for older Americans that
at least there would be non partisan ship in administering
these government benefits. At least everyone wanted to stamp out fraud,
and we're seeing that that's not the case anymore. That
government services are weaponized. They're a way to pay off cronies,

(15:48):
to pay off voting blocks on the one hand, and
then to punish enemies with audits or withholding aid in
the case of that hurricane in North Carolina. So we're
seeing both of those and it's really horrible because that
destroys the foundation of the republic.

Speaker 2 (16:07):
What is it going to take, Nathaniel, do you think
to win the war against fraud? Not that we can
ever win everything, but at leads reduce it and feel
that we are making progress against fraud. What do you
think it's going to take?

Speaker 7 (16:19):
But I think it would take a couple of things. One,
it would help tremendously just to reduce the size of government.
A smaller government means there's less to be stolen. But secondly,
would be going after fraudsters and giving them strong, hard
prison sentences. And unfortunately, we just saw in Minnesota some
of the people who are convicted for an early example

(16:41):
that fraud stealing money from programs meant to feed children,
and they're getting very light sentences. They stole millions and
they're getting a year half a year in prison. And
so we're going to need to have Republicans at the
federal level one handing out strong sentences. Finally, add that

(17:02):
cutting off funding from states. Republicans should be willing to
and Trump has done this to stomach sip to say,
if you don't control fraud, the federal government will not
send you money to be stolen.

Speaker 1 (17:14):
Bal briefly, Governor Wallas in Minnesota, Governor Newsom in California,
are they are they complicit? Meaning they know what they're
doing here and there is fraud and they are facilitating it.

Speaker 7 (17:26):
I don't know if they're complicit or not. I know
that they don't seem to care. And in the at
the end of the day, that's the same thing.

Speaker 2 (17:33):
Yeah, it sure is Nathaniel, Thank you. We appreciate your time,
enjoying the weekend. Thank you, Nathaniel.

Speaker 7 (17:38):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (17:39):
Crazy the same to you, sir. And Nathaniel Blake, Senior
contributor to The Federalist. Talking about fraud in America, big
moves today against it in California. More coming up on
the Rod and Greg Show and Talk Radio one oh
five nine Canterus. This was right near, you know, the
heart of COVID and dealing with COVID.

Speaker 3 (17:57):
Greg.

Speaker 2 (17:57):
Yeah, that a lot of people were saying that that
midterm election in twenty twenty, it would be the year
of the parent. Parents were very upset with the fact
that their kids couldn't go to school. There were so
many restrictions and parents were rightfully upset. And that's why
that's when here in Utah, and I think around the country,
you started seeing school choice programs emerge as strong alternatives

(18:19):
to public schools.

Speaker 1 (18:20):
Absolutely. I mean, they just on a dime said okay,
we can do online. They had the education establishment had
always opposed any kind of innovation and delivery of education,
but when COVID hit, they just overnight said okay, we'll
just do everything online. Unprepared to do it, the delivery failed,
The year over year progression of students and aptitude just plummeted,

(18:40):
and and we've had we have almost a lost generation
of kids. Parents notice those things, Yeah, okay, and they're
not going to just be like, well, okay, we're just
going to be okay with that. There has been a
very strong reaction, i think even nationally from what happened
to our kids over COVID.

Speaker 2 (18:55):
Well, let's talk more about that. Joining us on our
any hour Newsmaker line right now is doctor Carey Ingramme.
She is a senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, director
of the American Center for Transforming Education, and a senior
Fellow with the Independent Women's Forum.

Speaker 8 (19:08):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (19:09):
Doctor ingram thanks for joining the Rod and Greg Show
this afternoon.

Speaker 5 (19:13):
It's great to be with you appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (19:15):
Do you get a sense, doctor ingram that parents feel
they are slowly gaining more control of education or have
they taken big steps in that direction already.

Speaker 5 (19:26):
Well to your earlier point, you're exactly right when parents
had a front row seat through those haphazard remote zoom sessions,
the prolonged school closures that went on spanning three school
years in some States. Parents saw that what the teachers
were teaching were not core academics, but so much of

(19:46):
it was infused with these far left radical ideologies, and
so much class time was wasted. They saw their children
fault farther and farther behind, and when they spoke up,
they were either ignored or they were silent, and so
parents had enough and began the Great Parent Awakening and
then the mass public school exodus. And it has continued

(20:08):
as these teacher unions drive radical policies that have nothing
to do with the education of children, and they're at odds.
They we've been driving a wedge between the child and
their parents. Parents are going elsewhere, and thanks to leadership
in many state, school choice programs are expanding. Before COVID
in twenty twenty, there was fewer than one percent of

(20:30):
children in our country that had access to school choice
unless their parents had thousands of dollars a year for
tuition money or the feasibility to homeschool. Fast forward to today,
five years later, we have seventeen states with universal school
choice the free market, and coming next year, we already
have twenty eight states that have opted into the new

(20:50):
federal tax credit scholarship so so much progress is being
made and more is on the horizon.

Speaker 1 (20:56):
Doctor. Everything that you're saying resonates with me, and I
think in the state of Utah, we're seeing those educational
opportunities really bloom here in our state as well. Here's
my confusion. You would think is the introduction of competition.
Once parents have some options that they might not have
had before, you would see our public schools react to
that and say, look, we can compete for and we

(21:17):
can win the hearts and minds of these kids and
their families. But what I see a lot of times
in our public schools is that they're doubling down on
the scary things that threaten children. We're finding material in
our libraries that we can't believe are in the libraries.
We're finding children being sexualized taught and things being spoken
that are not age appropriate. We're finding DEI, We're finding

(21:38):
all these different curriculums that would actually I think repel
parents even more. Am I seeing it wrong? Or is
public education just not getting it that they are not
providing what parents need to educate their kids.

Speaker 5 (21:54):
You explained it so well. They are doubling down. And
when they double down, the teacher union and just these
radical so called teachers who are really activists in the classroom.
They are fueling the advancement of education freedom across this country.
So the more they double down, the more parents leave.

(22:15):
And then we see in states where they've had school
choice for years and it's continued to grow, that that
competition forces public schools in due time to improve. So
let me give you just one example. Let's look at Florida.
So Florida in two thousand and one, so very early

(22:35):
adopter of school choice. They launched this modest tax credit
scholarship program to help low income students have different school options.
There's roughly fifteen thousand students that participated that first year
in two thousand and one. Well, today Florida, between their
different school choice programs, has over five hundred thousand students participating.

(22:57):
The data that's come out to show, whoh, you know
what happens to those students, Well, the students who exit
see tremendous gains in their learning, but the students who
remain also experience very significant education outcome increases just because
of the competition. And this is more on a large scale.

(23:19):
So when there's school choice in a community, you know,
it might not be that first year, it's going to
take a while, but when there is that robust school choice,
those schools have to improve. And so just looking at
the impact of this Florida study on the kids that
remained in the public school, just because of the element
of school choice, not more spending, nothing else, their learning

(23:42):
went up as much as one hundred and twenty one
additional days of reading instruction, So that's nearly two thirds
of a school year, more simply by market forces. And
we see that market forces of competition work in every
other sector. So education is long overdue to employees to
the benefit of kids who exit public schools for alternatives,

(24:04):
but also for those who.

Speaker 2 (24:05):
Remain doctor ingram, do you think there are a lot
of parents who are kind of taking a wait and
sea attitude on the school choice. They're seeing what the
movement that is taking place. They may have, you know,
neighbors who kids have selected school choice. They're kind of
taking a wait and sea attitude to see the results
of this, and as the positive results come in, you'll
see more and more parents opt in for school choice.

Speaker 5 (24:28):
I don't see it that way at all antecdotally, as
well as the data that we have parents desperately want
their children out. They do not want this social justice,
this radical ideology, this anti American worldview being infiltrated into
the hearts and minds of their children while their children
aren't learning reading, writing, reasoning, just basic things that they

(24:50):
send them to school. Parents absolutely want out, but in
many states that have not advanced the sweeping school choice yet,
they're trapped. So they are waiting. They're waiting for the
policy to catch up with the reality that public schools
no longer can hold children captive. We have to empower parents.

(25:11):
It saves the state enormous money when they're school choice
because those parents receive only a portion of the public
education funding, so it's fiscally responsible, but it also increases
the outcomes again for the kid to exit as well
as for those who remain. And so it's common sense.
But we've got to state by state keep advancing education

(25:34):
freedom so every parent in our country is empowered with
that option for their child, but they absolutely want out.

Speaker 2 (25:40):
DURINGRAM, thank you very much for joining us, and enjoy
the Easter weekend. Thank you for joining us. Have a
good weekend you as well. Thank you all right joining
us on our Newsmaker line. That's doctor Carrie Ingram, senior
fellow with the Discovery Institute, director of the American Center
for Transforming Education, also a senior fellow with the Independent
Women's Forum. Me up on the Rodd and Greg Show

(26:01):
and Talk Radio one oh five nine Cannists. We're going
to have a discussion.

Speaker 4 (26:04):
Greg.

Speaker 2 (26:05):
There was a you know, this hit the news. The
Daily Mail Occurs reported this over the weekend. We're dealing
with the trial of Tyler Robinson and his alleged assassination
of Charlie Kirk. Questions about the bullet it didn't match. Well,
we'll give you the truth behind what's really going on
there with an expert on that. That's coming up at

(26:26):
five oh five here on the Rod and Gregg Show.
All right, Greg, we were just talking about parents and education, right, Yes,
this is the story where I think we do need
more parents. Like this story of a woman her son.
This in Baltimore. Her son robbed a food stand one
of these walk up places, you know, outdoor, outdoor drive through,
I guess, but he robbed the food stam of about

(26:49):
thirty dollars and he took the money out of the
tip jar. Well, mom did not like that in the
leads bit. So I want you to listen to what
she did, because she went back to this food stand
and offered to pay for what her son did.

Speaker 9 (27:03):
A little while ago, a young man came to your
stand and said, oh, yeah, yeah, tipjo, I'm his mother.

Speaker 5 (27:10):
Oh how much.

Speaker 9 (27:11):
Did he take from you?

Speaker 1 (27:13):
Like something I couldn't pay attention?

Speaker 6 (27:16):
Like, what do you think he took from you?

Speaker 1 (27:20):
I see, I see the first I couldn't seen the secondest.

Speaker 9 (27:23):
How much do you think he took.

Speaker 1 (27:25):
From a bought thirty dollars?

Speaker 4 (27:27):
Like, you don't need to pay.

Speaker 9 (27:28):
No, I'm gonna pay it because my son wasn't raised
like that.

Speaker 4 (27:32):
Why here's this I don't want I don't want to
ask for no.

Speaker 10 (27:35):
No, listen to me.

Speaker 9 (27:36):
My son wasn't raised like that. My son drinks, and
when he drinks, he does stupid stuff. I want to
pay you back because you don't deserve to be stolen
from them. You're here to do a service. I appreciate it.
He took it from your tip jar, thirty dollars. Go
back to your tikjob. God bless you.

Speaker 2 (27:56):
I love what that mom did, but you know what
she should have just brought her son in her with
her and said, sir, what can he do to pay
you back and make him work it off?

Speaker 1 (28:05):
Yeah, that kid, he's drinking and she's talking to me.
He's probably an adult, and she's just trying to make
right with that guy. But I that you're right. I
think that the individual that stole the money should there
should be some accountability there. I'm sure there is actually
some accountability coming from mom. She's not she doesn't sound
like she suffers fools lightly and that she's not happy
with her kid. But I I just I just do

(28:28):
like that. I like that she wants to make it
right with someone who was stolen from and she said,
God bless you, you don't deserve to be treated that way.
And then I hope that kid gets a whooping.

Speaker 11 (28:37):
Man.

Speaker 1 (28:37):
I hope he's twenty one, and I hope he gets
gets a beat just with a stick.

Speaker 2 (28:44):
Why do I think mom would do that? In a minute, Yeah,
it sounds like a tough mom.

Speaker 1 (28:47):
Yep, go put a put a catcher's met on his
head and just go after him, you know.

Speaker 7 (28:52):
All right?

Speaker 2 (28:53):
Now, you've heard, of course about DUI driving under the
influence d W I right, you've heard about the Have
you ever heard about g u I you're ready for this.
That's a crazy story. Galloping under the influence. Oh, okay,
a Kentucky the driver Kentucky police saw this driver who

(29:15):
had just left a liquor story, smell of alcohol and
was found partially slumped over controls of his brown vehicle.
His brown vehicle happened to be a horse galloping gallousy,
So they they kept their eye on this guy and
he went on the sidewalk on the road, but he
slumped over his horse and the horse is just walking

(29:36):
down the sidewalk, and they pulled the horse over and
basically said, sir, we're going to arrest you. Galloping under
the influence. Yeah, never heard of that.

Speaker 1 (29:44):
That could have been, mister ed. The you know, I
mean that horse might have been you know, might have
been a smart horse. I mean the horse wasn't wasn't inebriated.
So why you know, if the horse is driving, why
is it?

Speaker 12 (29:54):
Why is it?

Speaker 1 (29:55):
Why they why are they getting judging on the horse?

Speaker 2 (29:57):
I can't I can't believe you remember, mister Ed.

Speaker 1 (30:00):
Yeah, horse is a horse, unless, of course talk door.

Speaker 2 (30:04):
Yeah, it's called galloping under this.

Speaker 1 (30:08):
I don't know you've got to hold out. Yeah, I
wouldn't be judging the horse. It's not the horse's.

Speaker 2 (30:12):
Fault, that's true, all right, Yeah, but galloping under the influence.

Speaker 13 (30:18):
There you go on.

Speaker 2 (30:20):
All right, our number two Rod and Greg coming your
way on Utahn's Talk Radio one oh five nine Canada.
Coming up in a little bit. There was an interesting
study released today. I guess it's the Survey and the
Deseret News talking about why members of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints are bucket national trends
with political identification and leaving. I guess ten percent no

(30:43):
longer identify themselves as Republicans from what I can understand.
And you have a theory on that, I sure know,
and we're going to get into that and get your
reaction to that coming up. But I want to start
off this hour with this story. You may have recalled.

Speaker 4 (30:55):
What was it?

Speaker 2 (30:56):
There was a hearing Monday and on Tuesday the UK Deal,
which is a great source of information for a lot
of people out there, including myself, I look at it
every day. I think really stepped in it, so to speak,
with this so called reporting about the bullet that killed Charlie.

Speaker 1 (31:12):
Kirk, yes, yep, there was. I think it's an incredibly
irresponsible headline that would suggest that they cannot match the
bullet with the gun, suggesting that it's not the bullet
that was fired from that gun, which is not actually
the case.

Speaker 2 (31:27):
Experts are having a field day with the Daily Mail
for this report, and one of those is Tom Knighton.
He is a writer at Bearing Arms, joining us on
our newsmaker line right now. Tom, thank you very much
for joining us. How bad was the report from the
UK Daily Mail?

Speaker 3 (31:41):
Tone, Let's see, on a scale from one to ten,
they scored a fish.

Speaker 1 (31:54):
That I like.

Speaker 2 (31:56):
That sounds about right.

Speaker 6 (32:00):
It doesn't, frankly it stakes.

Speaker 2 (32:01):
Yeah, Well why are they so off?

Speaker 3 (32:03):
I mean?

Speaker 2 (32:03):
What do they miss in this story in misleading the public?
I think in many ways, well.

Speaker 3 (32:09):
A lot of it I think stems from ignorance about firearms.
Most reporters, even the best intentions, don't know what they
don't know. And so what happened was the Daily Mail
simply assumed that because there was no match, that this

(32:31):
somehow discredited the idea that the gun associated with Tyler
Robinson was used in the assassination. That's not what how
ballistics works. What you're dealing with is a lead filled
copper jacket that is fired through a metal tube where

(32:56):
it's rubbing against the interior and a supersonic velocity, and
then going through the air, which creates other friction, and
then hitting, in this case a human body. All of
these things can create grooves on the bullet that can
be matched, but because of the amount of friction, a

(33:19):
lot of times that copper jacket will rip off and
what you end up with is its fragments of a bullet.
And so while prosecutors and investigators will try to match
the bullet with the rifle, a lot of times they
can't get that match. It doesn't mean that gun wasn't

(33:39):
used in the assassination. You know, that gun wasn't used
in the homicide or whatever violent crime and they're investigating it,
just means they can't definitively prove that it was fired
out of that gun.

Speaker 1 (33:54):
Tom is, Yeah, I was gonna say that. I agree wholeheartedly.
In fact, it reminds me you remember when the regime media,
the clueless New York Times type, those kinds of reporters
were accusing the Border Patrol of whipping people when they
were riding their horses and they had their reins in
their hands, but they didn't know what they were looking at.
So they were reporting it in a way that where

(34:15):
people wouldn't know, if they didn't know the difference, would
take their word for it. It looks like if you
didn't know anything about ammunition and you didn't know how
what happens when it hits a body or if you're
hunting or whatever, you'd be using the rifle for that.
These are not This isn't a scandal, This isn't something
that's a big hole in any case. This is if
you know ammunition, you're going to understand this process a

(34:35):
lot better. So how do you put the genie back
in the bottle? I guess that's all that is to say.
Where they were The Daily Mail and others and the
conspiracy theorists have gotten this so wrong, and they've actually
misled the public into thinking that there's something there. How
do you how do you how do you make the
case otherwise? Or is it just going to suffer under
this misconception.

Speaker 3 (34:56):
It's a certain amount of it was going to suffer
under into the misconceptions because the grifters out there that
are lashing onto this conspiracy theory, or they're truly delusional
enough to believe it. I don't know, but I know
that there's no evidence you can provide them that will
dissuade them. They will dismiss anything else you say. They

(35:21):
will accuse the messengers of being part of the conspiracy itself.
You're not going to get that genie in the back
in the bottle. And for most of the public, I
don't know if f'llare familiar with the term dell Man amnesia.

Speaker 2 (35:35):
No, no, all right.

Speaker 10 (35:37):
Well, it's basically a phenomenon where someone will be reading
a newspaper or a website or whatever, and when they
read a story that they're familiar with on a subject they're.

Speaker 3 (35:49):
Familiar with, they see all the inaccuracies. They know this
story is bunk. They know this is shoddy work, they
know this is not how things work. Then they go
to the next story and it's something they're not familiar
with and they take everything verbatim. They forget how much
was wrong elsewhere, And so yeah, you're not Unless people

(36:14):
know the ammunition know about ammunition, like you say, you're
not going to convince them that easily that what they
were told was wrong. I read it in the newspaper,
I read it on the on the website, on the news.
You know, they're convinced that it's gonna be very, very hard.
You know, it's it takes other resources, other news outlets

(36:39):
repeating the truth, and maybe you get through some of
these people's heads. But the problem is the ones that
actually understand it are usually more right leading media because
we're the outlets that have shooters.

Speaker 2 (36:55):
Yeah, that's a good point.

Speaker 8 (36:58):
Tom.

Speaker 2 (36:59):
You've heard the phrase you can on see what you've seen,
you can on hear what you've heard. How big of
a job will it be for the prosecution to say
you need the whole story, you need the whole issue here,
the whole concept here to understand what they're talking about.

Speaker 10 (37:14):
It.

Speaker 3 (37:15):
It really depends on what the jury has been exposed to.
I know they try to get people who are as
disconnected from a trial as possible, and so it won't
be that hard in that context, because when they bring
in the defense is talking about using this as a
sculptory evidence, they're going to cross examine their the expert

(37:40):
and say how often does this happen? And they're going
to find that it happens a good bit of the time,
you know, and considering you know, we're looking we're dealing
with a guy who told three different people he did it.
I don't even know that they need to get to
that point.

Speaker 2 (37:59):
On our new Smaker line, Tom knighton he is a
writer with bearing arms, talking about the story involving the
bullet and the trial of the Tyler Robinson accused of
assassinated Charlie kirk All of Mick greg When I when
I first saw that headline on Tuesday, what's this all about?
And then you read more? Yeah, they didn't totally understand it.
And the reporter who put this together didn't understand it,

(38:20):
didn't even check with an expert for an explanations to
what they found.

Speaker 1 (38:24):
I don't even think it's incompetence or sloppy journalism. I
think it's clickbait.

Speaker 7 (38:28):
Think.

Speaker 1 (38:28):
I think he'd get rewarded for drawing people's interests on
things that are not true, but will will be salacious
enough that people will look into it.

Speaker 2 (38:36):
Definitely could be all right Moore coming up rodding Greg
with you here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five
nine knrs here. So that would likely give the Democrats
an edge as we head into the midterm elections, but
some new research by our good friends Harry Enton at
CNN kind of explains that the American people thought the
Democrats right now are atrociously awful.

Speaker 12 (38:59):
These numbers are just atrociously awful. A double A for
the Democrats here, I mean, just take a look here.
Congressional Dems have the right priorities.

Speaker 2 (39:07):
Look at this.

Speaker 12 (39:07):
Overall, seventy four percent nearly three and four say no.
Just twenty five percent overall say yes. You might say, okay, well,
at least Dems like Democrats, Uh, not the case.

Speaker 2 (39:21):
Look at this.

Speaker 12 (39:21):
The majority of Democrats are independence who lean Democrats. Look
at this, fifty five percent say no, Congressional Democrats do
not have the right priorities. And then you just see
a minority forty five percent of Democrats say that Congressional
Democrats have the right priorities. This to me just jumps
out of the screen because it screams primary challenges all
over the map. And it says that even if Democrats

(39:42):
don't like Donald Trump, they don't like their own party
either when it comes to Congress and overall, I mean,
my goodness.

Speaker 2 (39:48):
Gracious, Harry Enten, So when they say they don't have
the right priority. Greg, does that mean it's too far
left or it's not left enough?

Speaker 1 (39:58):
You know, our audience would think that that means that
they've gone too far to the left. But I suspect
that the dissatisfaction for Democrats, among the registered Democrats is
that they're not radical enough. I think the base is
pulling that party and it's elected leaders further to the left,
further to you know, away from common sense and the

(40:21):
normal people of this country, which is why I don't
I think I think that they're happy that they've closed
Department of Homeland Security and there's no terrorist act that
could happen in this country that would persuade them that
they've made the wrong choice, and even that's not radical
enough for their base.

Speaker 2 (40:36):
Yeah, that's true.

Speaker 14 (40:37):
Well.

Speaker 2 (40:38):
Steven A. Smith, who you know, agree or disagree with them,
He's always an interesting guy, appeared on the Sage Steel
Show yesterday. Sage Steel, the former ESPN reporter who just
said I'm done with the ESPN and walked away. Well,
he told Sage Steel during an interview that he actually
regrets voting for Kamala Harris.

Speaker 15 (40:57):
Also believed that she was the the person that if
the power existed in one one House of Congress, if
not both, that she was somebody that you get to
acquiesce and work across.

Speaker 16 (41:12):
The isle in order to get things done.

Speaker 2 (41:14):
That was my belief.

Speaker 16 (41:16):
And then when I saw how things were unfolding and
how out in the clouds the Democratic Party was, even
after they lost it like that, I said, this is
no hope that I said, I don't know what the
hell I was thinking about believing that y'all would get it,
because you still don't get it. You really really don't Trump.

(41:37):
You bring up the indict that, you bring up his behavior,
you bring up all of these different things, and America
still said he's more normal than y'all, and he still
don't get it.

Speaker 2 (41:46):
They don't get it. They don't realize that the American
people look at Donald Trump and say, yeah, he does
things that we may not like, but at least he's
at least kind of normal compared to Democrats.

Speaker 1 (41:57):
It's one hundred percent true. This is why they don't
have to save a Maya Act. Is why they want
people that are here illegally to vote. They want to
count them in census so they get more congressional seats
in blue states. They don't. They have run away from
and they don't really have an interest in bringing back
or going back to themselves, gravitating back to normalcy. They don't.
They are firmly to the far left and they just

(42:18):
need a new voter base because they don't have one. Yeah,
and they thought that the four years of Biden got
them exactly what they needed. If they can't get the
ones that came across for those four years to vote,
certainly with this birthright thing they can, they'll have kids
and they'll be on their selling Yeah.

Speaker 2 (42:31):
Well, that leads us right into the story that we
want to talk with our listeners about today, and we'll
open up the phones to you here in a minute.
But there was a story today in the des Read News.
It was about a new survey that was taken. It
shows it raises a question as why members of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Latter Day
Saints are bucking national trends on political identification. Now, some

(42:51):
of the key points according to this article about this
survey found that Republican affiliation among Latter day Saints has
fallen ten percent points since two thousand and seven. Ten
percentage points. GOP affiliation increased in nearly every other religious
group over the past two decades, but not in the

(43:12):
LDS demo. Okay, this hole in LDS enclaves were by
far the most likely to rank polarization as the top issue.
Now take this story and we'll talk a little bit
more about this. But you've got a story about what's
happening with the Catholic Church. Yeah, so what's become one
of the hottest spots to hang around in. So let's

(43:32):
talk about this same demographic of young people. Let's see,
let's see what's happening nationally. And this story comes out
of New York City. Now New York City is no
you know, this isn't a religious bastion by any measure
for me.

Speaker 1 (43:44):
But here's the story. They're saying that if you want
to go to the most hot, the hottest spot taking
over or young people are gravitating to, and there's no
cover charge and there's no VIP section, you need to
go to the old Saint Patrick's Cathedral or Saint Joseph's
Church in Greenwich Village and you're going to see a
bunch of young twenty and thirty somethings. And if you

(44:07):
go on Easter this weekend, you're going to see them
in spring dresses and young men and their press collared
shirts and button downs and ling and they're staying after
chirt after Mass and they're talking and there's an energy
and a warmth that is going on. And you're seeing
young people that are gravitating to this more and more,
and they're observing this in New York City. One viral

(44:27):
tweet recently described a pack Sunday Mass in Manhattan as
the hottest club in New York City right now, and
she wasn't exaggerating. Something major is happening with young people
going to church across this country. And the things that
generations you're looking for is that they want the church's
framework of femininity and masculinity and truth and they want

(44:50):
to find God. Now, when you talk about femininity and masculinity,
what does the left offer you on those two topics.

Speaker 2 (44:56):
There's no difference between the two.

Speaker 1 (44:57):
They're fluid, they're fluid, they're toxic ma masculinity. So certainly,
if gen Z is looking for these things, it's not
the same as the radical left because those roles of
masculinity and femininity and truth. This is taking them further
away from the radical left and more to God, which
would also bear out in the story from the Desert
News today that young people except for the Church of

(45:18):
Jesus Christ Lottery Saints, young people are by percentage becoming
more conservative or identifying more as Republicans. You would you
can spot that in this story about New York City
and the young people standing room only going to church
on Sunday, going to matt Catholic Mass.

Speaker 2 (45:33):
They talked about this on Fox News this morning, and
I caught a discussion about this, and one of there
were a couple of things they brought up. First of all,
they part of it they blame on COVID because during
COVID you felt alone, you felt there's no hope out there.
And now you have you have young people realizing some
in part thanks to Charlie Kirk and talking about this
openly talking about this, that young people are starting to

(45:56):
feel find a reason to carry on. They have some
and going to church gives them a community because there
are other people just like them who are searching for
that purpose. And that's what they're finding. And that's why
I think this survey among Latter day Saints who are saying,
now we're leaving the Republican Party. Some are going to
join the Democratic Party, others are not going to have

(46:17):
any affiliation. Runs counter to everything we're seeing around the country.

Speaker 1 (46:22):
Interesting it is, and you see it in the enclaves,
meaning the places where you have a culture of the
church more than just the faith itself and its existence,
but it's in such a large number it also becomes
part of the culture of that area. And I think
there when we get back from the break, if we
talk about this, and we'd love to hear from you
are our listeners on this topic. I think the culture

(46:42):
is what is misguided. I don't think our church, the
church is I think there's a culture that thinks that
niceness takes priority over everything else, masculinity, femininity, truth, niceness
is the rule of to day.

Speaker 2 (46:55):
And we'll get into that. And your phone calls eight
eight eight five seven eight zero one zero on yourself
owned dial pound two fifty and say hey, Rod, leave
us a message on our talkback line by downloading the
iHeartRadio app. Here's the question, why are members of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints bucking national
trends when it comes to political identification, your calls and
comments coming up.

Speaker 1 (47:15):
I was gonna say that it must be confusing to
use the listeners like the best of How does it
we're always the best of?

Speaker 2 (47:20):
Well, we tried it.

Speaker 1 (47:21):
We bring the best every day, every true, that's true,
we bring the best. So but we've got some I
think that the show tomorrow will have some of the
highlights of recent interviews and discussions. I think that you'll appreciate.

Speaker 11 (47:34):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (47:35):
Yeah, Well, if you're just joining us now, we're talking
about this interesting survey that there was a story about
it today in the des Read News, and basically what
it said is that members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter day Saints remain the second most Republican
leaning religious group in the US. But there is a
new study that found that GOP advantage has shrunk by
about ten percentage points. Latter Day Saints composition partisan competition

(47:59):
has changed from sixty eight point five percent GOP affiliation
from two thousand and seven to twenty ten to fifty
seven percent from twenty twenty two to twenty twenty five,
So we've seen about a drop of ten percent.

Speaker 1 (48:12):
Greg and I'd say, in that same time, you've seen
the Democrat Party become more radical. You've seen the castration,
chemical castration of children. You've seen adult content, sexual content
exposed to children. You've seen diversity, equity and inclusion, which
means that it's reverse racism and it's at its highest level.
You've seen you've seen the agendas in our public schools

(48:34):
that we I think a lot of us didn't appreciate
were happening in schools or that are happening more now.
How is all of How are all those things accumulating?
And then you're finding, at the same time, young people
that are the latter day saying, younger people are now
gravitating either away from Republicans to being unaffiliated or to
the Democrat Party when it's getting more radical. It's you know,

(48:57):
it's a question that I'd love for our listeners to
help enlighten.

Speaker 2 (49:01):
Let's see what they think. We begin with in Ogden
tonight with Roger joining us on the Rodden Greg Show. Hi, Roger,
how are you.

Speaker 8 (49:09):
Good?

Speaker 6 (49:09):
Greg?

Speaker 3 (49:09):
Thanks?

Speaker 11 (49:10):
And Rod thanks for taking my call. I've been a
lifelong member and I have noticed a softening in the
compliance with the Gospel principles. A lot of people openly,
you know, show that they are going progressive, that they

(49:32):
we need to reach out more to the LGBT community.
And I've noticed most of the people that are that
way are involved somehow with the school system or have
been to college, and I feel like they've gotten brainwashed
in there. But I've noticed, I've noticed a trend towards

(49:54):
you know, progressivism in my ward. I've been attacked for
wearing a Trump pat to an activity once. I mean,
you know, it's like, hey, wait a minute, you know
whose side away on. Anyway, it's it's unfortunate, and I
have noticed that.

Speaker 1 (50:11):
Roger, thank you for the observation. And I think he
points to this, this higher ed these university professors who
don't make it in life, who get to theorize about
anything because they don't get to they don't have to do.
They just teach. Yeah, and they're radicals. They are just
absolute radicals. They get these kids at a young, impressiable
age and they it's not that they're more educated, like
they're smarter than the rest of us. They get radicalized

(50:32):
in these institutions of higher learning.

Speaker 2 (50:34):
Well, someone coming in on the survey said that there
are a couple of factors behind the shift. One said, uh,
greater likelihood of having a college degree. You brought up
what you.

Speaker 1 (50:46):
Brought exposure to these professors, though it's not that they're smarter.

Speaker 2 (50:48):
Yeah, another possible explanation. We talk about this all the
time here in Utah. Dissatisfaction with the GOP among some
latter day Saints, a perceived conflict of teachings about ability,
compromise and compromise nice.

Speaker 1 (51:03):
Can someone tell you what's civil about not having Department
of Homeland Security funded two hundred and sixty thousand Americans
without a paycheck? And we are at higher risks domestically
because of the conflict that I rang goling on right
now with an open border of the last four years
under the last administration. What's not in conflict there? What
is not contentious about the decisions that the Democrats are

(51:24):
making in real time right now? How is that given
a pass? And the Republicans are being painted as the
divisive one?

Speaker 2 (51:30):
Well, I asked you this, Greg, What is non civil
about speaking out about saving the life of a child?

Speaker 1 (51:35):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (51:36):
What is non civil? I disagree with with abortion? Yes,
I believe in the sanctity of life. Oh, you're divisive,
like I be divisive. That was rude you just said.
I just can't even believe you'd say I believe that
boys should not go into a girl's bathroom. Oh why
would I not being civil in saying that.

Speaker 1 (51:53):
I think, I think you must be rude and according
to the sensitivities of certain people. And I look, I
don't think this is faith based. I think this is
culture based. I really do. And I think you can
find pockets in America where there's a majority of a
particular faith and there becomes this group think and it
goes different directions. But I think that that As I

(52:14):
moved here as a young man from Pittsburgh to Utah,
I didn't understand how I didn't fit in culturally very well.
It took it took a while to realize that, Hughes,
you're not passive aggressive, you're aggressive aggressive. And I thought
that brutal honesty was a was a virtue. The brutal
part is not considered a virtue. And I accept that.
I get it, and I understand, I understand the thought

(52:36):
behind that. But what I don't understand is that we
would place as a culture being nice to one another
higher than being honest fighting for what's right. There has
to be moments that we read in Holy Script where
niceness didn't carry the day, fighting for what was right,
being a peculiar people, being you know, standing up even

(52:56):
if it meant conflict, and standing up for what's right.
That has to resonate with a with a faithful people.
And I don't find that the culture of that to
be here in Utah. And I say when I say that,
I'm not talking. I don't even think I'm talking to
our listeners when I say that. But I'm saying just
as a culture generally. When Rogers says he notices these
changes in his own place of worship, I'm just saying

(53:17):
that I have noticed that the civility, the word civility,
first off, only applies to Republicans. I mean, you can
be as rude as you want on the safe, any
any terrible thing you want on the left, and that's fine.
But on the right you can't. That is you're you're
you're not practicing civility, and that is the cardinal sin
that erases anything else. That is that is the top

(53:38):
shelf uh for to condemn a Republican as the lack
of civility in their minds.

Speaker 2 (53:43):
Greg, two names came up in this story about this,
Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake, Yeah, okay. I want to add
a third name, Spencer Cox, right, because I think this
whole disagree better argument was just be nice to each other. Well,
sometimes you can be nice. But I'm with you, Greg,
it doesn't mean you cannot stand up and express what

(54:05):
you feel. And if it ruffles a feather, it ruffles
a feather. But you have to stand up for what
you believe in because if you don't, Greg, you and
I You've been in politics for a long time. I've
been observing it for a long long time. The Democrats
do not play nice. No, no, they do not.

Speaker 1 (54:22):
They do not.

Speaker 2 (54:22):
They are not. They are off in humble business. It
is bare knuckle fighting, folks. And if you play nice
too much, you're gonna get run over.

Speaker 1 (54:30):
And let me tell you that when they when they
bring up examples of Flake and of mid Romney, when
you bring up Epcox, I'll just say it's the politics
and the decisions that they've made. When Romney's one of
only three Republican senators that that votes for that Katanji
Brown Jackson Okay, and she is getting berated by by

(54:51):
Kagan like Democrat appointed, nominated and appointed the justices. She's
not even popular amongst the crowd she's supposed to run with.
And you can look at Ronniey and go, what how,
how did you get right with this person? They clearly
were not qualified. They make jokes of the I mean,
she tried to compare stealing a wallet in Japan to

(55:13):
this whole citizens right, citizenship so in it. But what
they say is if we openly disagree with Rodney and
say that's the craziest thing you've done or that works
against the things that we care Now you're on civil
See there's the civility thing. It's it's when you have
a problem with their politics and you say it out loud.
Now you're not being civil. That's true, and it's and

(55:36):
I would say that you've got to go upstream a
little bit and look at the politics being promoted and
there therein lies the real problem.

Speaker 2 (55:41):
We've got some calls coming in on this. We'll take
a break and get back to your thoughts. It is
the Rod and Gregg Show on Utah's Talk Radio one
oh five nine.

Speaker 1 (55:49):
Okay, all right, let's go to the calls. Let's go
to Thomas and Sugarhouse. Thomas, welcome to the Rod and
Gregg Show.

Speaker 14 (55:56):
Thank you, platitudes. I'd like to say the reason that
I've left the rope the party is they keep on
hiring people like Cox, Romney, Hatch. So many rhinos in
the state Capitol. I can't understand how we can consider
ourselves Republicans in Utah.

Speaker 1 (56:14):
They're all going woke, and he's going I'm out because
I can't stand all the wokes. It's it's coming into
the party. Good observation. I've heard it before. I've actually
heard this before.

Speaker 2 (56:22):
Very good. Thomas. Thank you. We go to provo and
hear what Carl has to say tonight. Carl, how are
you welcome to the show?

Speaker 6 (56:29):
Well, you know, maybe Cox is in my first choice,
but he certainly isn't the last one. I mean, there's
things about Romney and Cox I don't like too, but
you're never going to get everything you want all the time,
So you know, take that one over, Kamela. You gotta
pick here, you know, Yeah, I mean yeah, I mean

(56:50):
Cox has done some good things actually, and Romney actually
did some good.

Speaker 1 (56:54):
Things one, but you've got another. I want you to
be able to.

Speaker 6 (57:01):
Make I go. I have been communicated with some young people.
I'm not even sure if they're all young. Some of
them are a little older. But there seems to be
a trend toward wokeness yep within the LDS Church, and
I'm not sure where it's coming from. I think they're misinformed.
I think they're getting bad information. Uh, you know, and

(57:25):
Dalen Oak's cautioned us about that.

Speaker 2 (57:27):
Yes he has. Thank you, Carl, thank you. We've got
to get to another call. Let's go to Dane in
roy tonight. Dane, how are you welcome to the show?

Speaker 8 (57:35):
Been good, thanks for having me. I actually think it
has more to do with the individual the Ottle office
than it does trend. If you look at the you know,
the trend before, you know, the last twenty years or so,
and you look at the Kennedy era there it was
closer to fifty fifty in the Olds Church, and then

(57:56):
I think Reagan kind of changed that. And it's about
Reagan at that point and what he did and how
we could all get behind him. And then now it's
more about Trump. You know, how bad decisions and policy
may be great, but as you say, the niceness and
maybe the vulgarity. But the question I've got is how

(58:20):
many of those people that have changed over, those ten
percent of eleven percent that have changed over, how many
of those back in the nineties voted for Clinton before
they found out that he was what he was and
did what he did. Yeah, with so and so the
White House.

Speaker 2 (58:38):
Yeah, that's true, Dane, You're right. I think Greg a
lot of it has to do with the person in
the White House. And I still think because he's not
quite I think I think Donald Trump individually is a
very nice person, yep. And he really does do good
things for a lot of people. But on the surface,
there are people who think he's brusque, his language is bad,

(58:59):
and they just they just can't seem to get over
his character.

Speaker 1 (59:02):
And at the same time, he's probably done more for
religious liberty in this country than we've seen a president do.
He is the only president that's attended the Right to
Life rally in d C. There's a lot that he
has done that does strengthen and support religious liberty in
our country. But you know, and I'll tell you what,
judge not unless you be judged if you want to
go do that, I guess you can, but I think

(59:24):
I've been taught that's a risky prospect.

Speaker 2 (59:26):
You're right, all right when we come back. More about
the debate over birthright citizenship coming up an hour number
three of the routing great show.

Speaker 1 (59:34):
Some people are maybe migrating away from the Republican Party
because it's got too many rhinos, And it's actually not they,
they themselves are going on liberal. It's that there's too
many Libs in it.

Speaker 2 (59:43):
So, yeah, just another program. Note Greg and I and
I Ray will be well. Ewray's going to come in.
He's got some work to do tomorrow, but we'll be
taking a break and be back on Monday. So we've
got a great We've put together a best of show
for you, and we hope you enjoy that tomorrow.

Speaker 1 (01:00:01):
Yeah, it's hard to call it the best of when
every show I think we bring our best, but I
think we're gonna have to. We're have a compilation. This
is like it's like an album, the best of albums. Yea, Yeah,
that's some of the good interviews we have.

Speaker 2 (01:00:12):
I always liked the best of albums. I know I
have to go buy five different albums. I get the
hits on one.

Speaker 1 (01:00:17):
Yeah, Yeah, I agree. I think it's uh so, I
think I think what we put together is a good
episode show for tomorrow, and I hope you enjoy it.
But it's gonna make your good Friday great.

Speaker 2 (01:00:30):
Make it a great Friday, Make it a great Friday.
I wanted to bring this up. Where did this story go?

Speaker 14 (01:00:36):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (01:00:36):
I want to get your reaction to this. Greg, Let
me get back on the microphone.

Speaker 7 (01:00:39):
Here.

Speaker 2 (01:00:40):
The governor of Idaho, we were talking yesterday about the
funeral that was held up in Idaho for the death
of the gay flag at Boise City.

Speaker 1 (01:00:49):
Yes, remember that, it was like a funeral. It's so
obnoxious and it's so sophomore. Is there more?

Speaker 2 (01:00:56):
Well? Yes and no? Okay, you're ready for this. The
governor there has signed a new law into effect prohibiting
the use of public restrooms designated for the opposite sex.
There you go, So if a man goes into a
woman's restroom, he could be fine and given up to
a year in jail.

Speaker 1 (01:01:14):
Is the mayor of boys are going to have a
funeral for just for the bacheloms that eyes can't go
into the girls room?

Speaker 2 (01:01:21):
Probably will well. One of the big stories over the
last twenty four to forty eight hours has been the
Supreme Court of Arguments heard yesterday about birthright citizenship. The
President was there, he left after the case was presented
to the court. It's going to be interesting to see
where this all comes down. I know a lot of
people are expecting that the court will hold up, hold
it up, uphold it. I mean, let's get more thoughts

(01:01:43):
on this. Joining us on our Newsmaker line is Ilia
Shapiro Illly as a Manhattan Institute Director of Constitutional Studies. Ilia,
thanks for joining us tonight on the Rod and Gregg Show.

Speaker 7 (01:01:53):
Yeah, I'm good to be with you.

Speaker 2 (01:01:54):
I would think, Helia, you'd spend some time listening to
those arguments yesterday. What's your take on him?

Speaker 4 (01:02:00):
Yeah, it took a little over two hours, which is
a little long, but still apart for the course, the
president was there for the first half of it, the
first time a sitting president intended. I don't think that
really affected how it was argued or what the what
the justices asked. But in any event, it looks like
the government, the administration is going to lose. I counted

(01:02:21):
two votes Thomas and Alito that looked to be for
upholding the executive order. How the Court is going to
invalidate it is an open question. They spend a lot
of time on the constitutional issue whether the fourteenth Amendment
requires birthright citizenship for everyone born in the country, although
there is a compromise position out there well several but

(01:02:43):
Justice Kavanaugh especially was talking about a statutory solution. That
is the idea that maybe Congress could change the rules,
but the president can't do it acting on his own.

Speaker 1 (01:02:54):
So and you know that that's not the first time
I've heard that, and I get it on the executive
order part. But you know, some people have described the
way birthright citizenship has been abused and these these holidays
that people take and how they're able to do it.
It's been described that we don't have a suicide pact
inside of our constitution, which you can argue that the

(01:03:15):
extremes that are being explored are doing this to our country.
What if that is the case, I don't know if
you believe that is or not, But if what if
we think it's being abused, what and what do we do?
How how do we pivot away from that? If there
if the Supreme Court doesn't see that what the president
has done is adequate or constitutional Well, if.

Speaker 4 (01:03:34):
If if the Supreme Court leaves open the possibility for
congressional action, then that that's what it would take. If
it if it doesn't rule uh that the Constitution of
the fourteenth Amendment requires birthright citizenship for kids of illegal
immigrants or or temporary visitors, Uh, then it would be
up to Congress. And so it's you know, the Constitution

(01:03:56):
is not a suicide pact. Congress could act, is the
answer there. But I agree that. I mean, the thing
is that the whole concept of someone being in the
country illegally, or someone engaging in birth tourism, those were
just not a thing in eighteen sixty eight when the
Fourteenth Amendment was enacted.

Speaker 2 (01:04:13):
Who knows what.

Speaker 4 (01:04:16):
The people in Congress who proposed and drafted and ratified
that amendment did back then would have thought how they
would have changed things. But it's an open question. That's
why this is a very real debate.

Speaker 2 (01:04:28):
Iliah. It has taken several years, and they'll fight against
Roe v.

Speaker 3 (01:04:33):
Wade.

Speaker 2 (01:04:33):
That had to go through several challenges, and over time
it was eventually, you know, changed. Do you foresee the
same thing happening with birthright citizenship? Is it going to
take challenges over the years to maybe get this thing changed.
Could that be happening.

Speaker 4 (01:04:48):
Well, it's a different dynamic than either with abortion with
overturning re vew Wade or guns, the Second Amendment ruling
Heller and then McDonald or affirmative action overturned a case
from the late seventies in the Students for Fair Admissions
case Chevron defference, how administrative agencies operate, It goes on
and on. This Court has been doing a lot of

(01:05:08):
reversing of that precedent from the seventies and.

Speaker 2 (01:05:11):
Early eighties of the Burger Court.

Speaker 4 (01:05:14):
This is a different dynamic with birthright citizenship because it's
not about needing to overturn some past precedent. It's the
president taking a new action changing what has legislatively been
on the books for over one hundred years. So it's
a different kind of dynamic, requiring a different kind of
sustained political pressure more in the political branches. Really, I

(01:05:37):
think been mounting a legal campaign.

Speaker 2 (01:05:40):
Yeah, sounds like it.

Speaker 1 (01:05:41):
Ilia.

Speaker 2 (01:05:42):
As always, we appreciate a few minutes of your time.
Thanks for joining us.

Speaker 4 (01:05:44):
Tonight, my pleasure.

Speaker 7 (01:05:46):
Take care all right, you from.

Speaker 2 (01:05:47):
The Manhattan Institute, Ilia Shapiro here on the Rod and
Greg Show, and I think you know, Greg, the fourteenth Amendment,
it's been long I don't know the exact date, but
it's been on the books for a long long time
since what eighteen sixty eight I think now and you
know it may undergo challenges and challenges after challenges. Will

(01:06:09):
have to see where this goes.

Speaker 1 (01:06:11):
Yeah, it can't. I don't think the status quo because
it doesn't stay static. It just gets worse, and how
they're manipulating the law gets worse. I just think it
has to be dealt with some in some form or fashion,
and we better figure out what that looks like. Because
if this court's not going to say that the President's
case before them this week is compelling, then what And

(01:06:32):
you better have it than what? Because I don't think
this is this is going to This will change the
fabric of our country if you let this abuse continue.

Speaker 2 (01:06:38):
The Solicitor General brought up I think during the arguments yesterday,
what would happen You could have a case, Greag where
twenty million people would come into this country to have
a baby. What is that going to do to the country?

Speaker 1 (01:06:50):
Yeah, I mean, and it's to say to argue that
the fourteenth Amendment was passed for those purposes and contemplating
any of that is It's just not true. It was
under different circumstances for different population. And if you're an
originalist in the with the Constitution and it's reading, you
would see the application today has nothing to do with that. Amouma,
I would say, I who am I.

Speaker 2 (01:07:10):
Well, we're going to continue our conversation about birthright citizenship
after a news update and a brief break. We're going
to talk about, you know, when birthright citizenship goes wrong
and the American people, hopefully they'll educate themselves on this,
but they'll understand that the America America is being taken
advantage of. Yeah, that's what people are.

Speaker 1 (01:07:30):
I want to explore this even further. I think our
next discussion will be very important.

Speaker 2 (01:07:34):
YEP, that's coming up. It is the Thursday afternoon edition
of The Rod and Gregg Show right here on Utah's
Talk radio one oh five. Die can arrest. Well, let's
talk about more about birthright citizenship. Greg, how many Americans
do you think understand what birthright citizenship is all about
and what's going on in the country today with all
these birthing, birth tourism, and birthing factories taking place.

Speaker 1 (01:07:55):
I think about twenty percent of what's going on the
American people would know and now would be being generous.
I think that there is a lot of testimony in
front of Supreme Court that would shock people if they
heard it about these holidays that gained this system in
ways we never thought possible.

Speaker 2 (01:08:10):
Yeah, well, what happens when birthright citizenship goes wrong? Joining
us on our any hour Newsmaker line right now is
Daniel McCarthy. He's a distinguished fellow in conservative thought at
the Heritage Foundation, also editor in chief of The Modern Age. Daniel,
thanks for joining us tonight. Let's talk about your article
you wrote about when birthright Citizenship goes wrong? What do

(01:08:30):
you see going on right now following the Supreme Court
hearing yesterday.

Speaker 17 (01:08:34):
Well, you know, the administration tried to restore sanity with
this executive order that President Trump issued on his first
day back in office. They're trying to say basically that
American citizenship is something that should come from being either
the offspring of American citizens or being a legal resident
and getting citizenship from your legal resident parents. It should

(01:08:55):
not be something that illegal immigrants are able to confer
upon their children because of worse, they have no allegiance
to this country. So the left has actually, you know,
created a pretty radical policy here where anyone who is
an illegal immigrant can give birth in our country and
automatically give their child citizenship by doing so. And in fact,
agents of foreign powers such as China are also exploiting

(01:09:18):
this loophole in order to create you know, basically people
who are under Chinese authority but who technically have American citizenship.
We've seen this in the Middle East and elsewhere as well.

Speaker 1 (01:09:28):
So the rationale and we've had you know, conservatives are
not in unison on this. Some think that some are saying, hey,
get ready, you're not going to be happy with this decision.
They're going to keep it just the way it is.
Some think that this could be changed, but where they
argue that it won't change, as they're saying that just
because you're in this country, if you're in this country,
you're subject to its laws or you're subject to it's jurisdiction. Therefore,

(01:09:51):
if you're born within that jurisdiction, that's how you derive
that citizenship. But if you look at the original intent,
of the Amendment and why it was done. It has
nothing to do with these birthing holidays or these citizenship
holidays at China and everybody else is engaging in and
making a mockery of our process here in the United States.
My question is, let's say that the tea leaf readers

(01:10:13):
believe that the Supreme Court is not going to change
the status quo. Does the status quo still change? There
seems to be. I think we're talking about a lot
of things people in America weren't aware of in terms
of how the Chinese are taking advantage of this, and
there's more than that. Does this change regardless of how
the Supreme Court.

Speaker 17 (01:10:30):
Rules, You know it does? And I think this issue
is not going away. I've compared it, in fact to
Roe v.

Speaker 7 (01:10:36):
Wade.

Speaker 17 (01:10:36):
I think if the Court gets this wrong, just as
they made a bad decision in Roe v. Wade and
imposed you know, abortion up to the point of birth
on the whole nation with that ruling, I think if
the Court goes for an irrational, you know, open ended
version of birthright citizenship with their ruling in this case,
that there's going to be just as big a political
backlash and you're going to have potentially, you know, a

(01:10:58):
years long, maybe even decade long movement to reverse their ruling,
and that will partly take the form maybe of a
movement for a constitutional amendment to clarify and limit birthright citizenship,
or it could also take the form of renewed efforts
within the conservative legal movement to train justices, train judges
who will and law students of course, who will become

(01:11:19):
justices who will make the right ruling on this kind
of question rather than one that is just insane, basically,
this notion that illegal aliens and agents of foreign powers
can give birth on American soil and automatically grant their
children's citizenship.

Speaker 2 (01:11:36):
Dan, let me ask you, knowing that the US, I
think is one of either thirty two or thirty three
countries in the world that have a policy like this,
how frustrating is this? Do you think to the American
people where they look at this and they say, this
is just not right. Something has to change here. How
frustrating is it for a lot of people?

Speaker 17 (01:11:55):
Well, amazingly, And it's you know, the policy that the
courts and progressives have imposed on us here is so
crazy that I don't even think most Americans can believe
that it can possibly be real, so, you know, which
which in a way, you know, it's difficult to get
them to understand that, yes, this is real. This is
what they are really saying and what they're really imposing
on our country. And it makes a mockery out of citizenship.

(01:12:18):
And you know, this is something that I think the
American people would really expect their elected officials, members of Congress,
and the President to be responsible for adopting the right policy.
They do not want the courts deciding that American citizenship
is meaningless and can be granted to anyone who happens to,
you know, contrive to give birth, just on an American.

Speaker 1 (01:12:36):
Patrick Jerk, our own our senator, Mike Lee, posted something
yesterday and he's you know, he's clerked for a Supreme
Court justice, and we like to think he knows his
you know, he knows the law pretty well. He said
that the Constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact,
and if you look at the way it's being manipulated
right now, it does severely damage our sovereignty and how

(01:12:59):
this country tree operates. And so he's I think that
that suicide pact is when you get when you get
all the details, it's I don't see how the how
the United States moves forward if you can see such
an organized and egregious violations or just from the spear
of the law, at least on citizenship. Can we survive
the amount of time Roe v. Wade with seventy seventy two,

(01:13:22):
seventy one to twenty whatever it was. Do we have
that kind of runway on a decision like this if
the Supreme Court goes the wrong way, well you.

Speaker 17 (01:13:30):
Very possibly don't, because of course, the next Democrat who
gets into the White House is going to do exactly
what Joe Biden did and will completely open the borders.
And you know, as a result, you'll have not only
a flood of illegal immigrants, but within a single generation,
all of those illegal immigrants will obtain citizenship for their
children by giving birth here. And so you're going to have,
you know, a transformation of the American electorate which is

(01:13:53):
going to make it harder and harder.

Speaker 3 (01:13:54):
You know.

Speaker 17 (01:13:55):
I mean, already the progressives and the left think that
they have you know, a real advantage here because they
think the courts are going to side with them. But
also they're saying, hey, if you want to change this,
you're going to have to have a constitutional amendment now.
And of course the bar for getting a constitutional amendment
across is pretty darn high, and that's only going to
get higher if you continually add the children of legal

(01:14:16):
immigrants to the American electorate.

Speaker 2 (01:14:18):
On our Newsmaker line, Daniel McCarthy with the Heritage Foundation
talking about birthright citizenship going wrong. As we talked about
how long did it take us to deal with Roe v. Wade,
I don't think we, as you pointed out, we've got
that much time we want to come to birthright citizens.

Speaker 1 (01:14:32):
We fundamentally do not. And if we don't get the
ruling from the Supreme Court, there still has to be
attention paid and action towards getting this right.

Speaker 2 (01:14:40):
Yeah. How is the market and the economy reacting to
the President's comments last night about the war in Iran?
Steve Moore economists will join us next right here on
the Rotten Greg Show. He laid out his case. He
told the American people where we are, he said, hopefully
we'll get this over in a very short period of time.
I think he did what he was trying to do
last night.

Speaker 1 (01:15:00):
I've seen I've watched this and there it seems to be.
Wherever you were before his speech, maybe you weren't moved
too much. If you were against it from the beginning,
maybe this didn't make you feel better. But I do
think that this was a conversation he wanted that with
America that I think was very beneficial and needed to happen.
So I think we're on a good track.

Speaker 2 (01:15:17):
Yeah, well, what impact is that having down the economy?
The price of oil, the price of gasoline. Joining us
on our newsmaker line right now is our good friend
Steve Moore, an economist also co founder of Unleashed Prosperity.
Make sure you get his email sign up for that
every morning. Steve, thanks for being with us tonight. Your
take on what the President said last night and the
impact is having down the markets.

Speaker 13 (01:15:36):
Well, self power, it really didn't have a big impact.
I mean, the price last time I checked a couple
hours ago was about one hundred and five one hundred
and ten dollars barrow. That's a high price. But look,
the fundamental message Trump gave was we are going to
get the straits of her moves open, which is where
you know, thirty percent of the world soil goes through
that port, and then we are going to are going

(01:16:00):
to bring an end to this war, hopefully in the
next few weeks. And I do feel confident in saying
then when that happens, we're going to see gas prices
go right back down to where they were, you know,
at the start of the year, when we had you know,
three and four dollars, I mean, you know, three and
less than three dollars gallon gasoline. We had some states
that you know dollar eighty nine gallon gas. I think

(01:16:23):
we'd all love to see that. I think it is
going to happen once we get the Middle East situation resolved.
And I don't ask me how long that's going to
take because I don't have any other information about that.
But as an economist, I can tell you you know,
what goes up can come down, and it will.

Speaker 1 (01:16:39):
Steve l I'm not an economist. I don't pretend to
be one. I just like to follow you. You do
all that you can do, all the math, I'll I'll
just pairt what you say. But it helped me out
on this because President Trump said something really interesting last
night that I had not heard before. He said, the
United States of Venezuela combined have more oil and oil
reserves than Saudi Arabia and Russia combined. Why is the

(01:17:01):
WTI the West Texas I think index or the why
is our commodity price? When you see supply interrupted in
a place like straight of her news? Why does it
impact our supply or our cost of gasoline? If we
have such strong energy independence and such oil reserves between
US and now an emerging ally of Venezuela, why do

(01:17:22):
we suffer with over one hundred dollars a barrel prices?
If we have a supply that doesn't touch, that isn't
impacted at all by the strait.

Speaker 13 (01:17:31):
I wish I had a diameter every time someone asked
me that question.

Speaker 1 (01:17:35):
Really, I thought I just dumped it up. I thought
I was original.

Speaker 13 (01:17:40):
Well, here's the here's the situation. Oil is a tradable commodity.
Now you are right that Trump is right that we
now actually are the number one produced for oil and gas.
Did you know that we produce more oil on gas
and United Space than any other country? And we also
it is also true, and I was even surprised about this,
that the United States is also in that exporter of

(01:18:01):
oil gas rather than. You know, for fifty years we
were an importer. But thanks to the shale revolution and
tracking and other technologies we have, we have dramatically increased
our and then this president, by the way, who's done drill,
baby drill. I mean, imagine what we'd be paying for
gas right now if we didn't have grilled maybe Bill
paying eight dollars gallon for gas. So but the fact is,

(01:18:23):
it's the price of something like this. A world commodity
is determined by the global demand and the global supply.
And so when you have a cutoff of you know,
twenty five to thirty percent of the world's oil as
we do now, that affects the price everywhere, even in
Texas and North Dakota and in states like Alaska. So

(01:18:46):
that explains it. Once we get the straits open and
you get the by the way, you know, California, for example,
gets its oil from Texas, but they have to go
through like the Bahamas to come and you know, people
in Michigan get their well from Canada. So it's all
distributed globally.

Speaker 2 (01:19:05):
Yeah, Steve, let's move on to another topic. Today, Steve
marks the first anniversary of a Liberation Day. I know
you were not a big fan of tariffs. But in
that year, Steve, assess what you see has happened, how
has impacted the economy, and where it goes from here?
Your thoughts on.

Speaker 13 (01:19:20):
That, well, listen, Liberation Day. One of the things, you know,
when I said President Trump about a month ago, I
said to them, you know, congratulations, you have proved twenty
two a Nobel Prize economists wrong. And we put that
in his inauguration speech. But it is true that we
you know, we have we have had tariffs that they

(01:19:41):
didn't cause the widespread inflation like people thought. Intact inflation
came down, and that was partially because the terroriffs, which
on their own would have been inflationary. We had all
these other policies like the Trump beautiful tax beautiful bill,
that beautiful tax cut. We got the the deregulation that
saved a trillion dollars for companies. We had the Drill

(01:20:05):
Baby Drill, which I was just talking about, that helped
keep prices low in the United States. So on average,
Trump's policies have been anti inflationary rather than pro inflationary.
Now I'm I a big fan of terrorists, No, I'm not.
I do believe in freedom to trade, and trade is important,
you know, because it leaves both countries better off. But

(01:20:26):
we have not seen substantial negative effects from Trump's tariffs,
in part because he's also gotten other countries to reduce
their terrorists on us.

Speaker 1 (01:20:35):
You know, you've been predicting for a long time now
that when we start to see our tax returns arrive,
Americans on the whole are going to be a lot
are going to be pretty happy. And I'm seeing some
of those numbers come in about people being able to
no tax on overtime, and that's twenty three percent of
returns right now are reflecting that deduction or no tax
on overtime. But you put out a post today that

(01:20:55):
I thought was very interesting, and you're saying, look, the
average the income that's being a tax or the amount
coming into from the federal government is it's less from
the working classes getting some relief, is what you're pointing out.
And you're saying, look, this is this is helping those
of the lower income brackets. The Democrats will never tell
us this, they'll never admit this, but there's never been
I You've been predicting this for a long time. Talk

(01:21:16):
about the numbers that you're seeing and how you're coming
to these conclusions that there's some real relief coming.

Speaker 13 (01:21:22):
Well, these are just the facts. You know that basically
because of no tax on tips, no tax no overtime,
no tax on you know, some of these other things,
social security benefits, the average tax rate for the you know,
middle class and lower income people fell by more than

(01:21:42):
it did for high income people. And that means that
the percentage of taxes paid by the top one percent
and ten percent increased, it didn't decrease, whereas the percentage
of federal taxes on income tax that were paid by
lower middle income people fell. So why does CNN and
MSNBC and all these Democratic congressmen and woman always say

(01:22:03):
this was a tax cut for the rich where the
tax cut was really aimed at the middle class. I mean,
the average family saved two thousand dollars a year on taxes.

Speaker 2 (01:22:11):
Steve Moore joining us. He's such a good guy. He's
fun to talk to you.

Speaker 1 (01:22:14):
I really do, and I meant it when I said it.
I don't know anything. I don't know math. I just
know Steve Moore. That's all I need to know.

Speaker 2 (01:22:19):
If you know Steve, let him figure out.

Speaker 1 (01:22:21):
Yah, let him do the math. I'll just I'll just
tell you what he said.

Speaker 2 (01:22:23):
All right, what has happened to laughter in the workplace?

Speaker 1 (01:22:28):
This is my wheelhouse. Yeah, we're after in the workplace.
I couldn't live without it.

Speaker 2 (01:22:32):
We're gonna touch on that coming back right here on
the Rod and Greg Show and talk Radio one oh
five nine Cannis. People should know that we like to laugh.

Speaker 1 (01:22:40):
We do.

Speaker 2 (01:22:40):
We laugh at each other, we laugh at other people,
we laugh along.

Speaker 1 (01:22:44):
You know, you know what you know you want to
get Send me to jail, or make me miserable, put
me in a place where you can't laugh, that you
can't joke, that would be that's kryptonite to me.

Speaker 2 (01:22:53):
Well, unfortunately, I think Greg, in some offices around the
country and around Utah, and maybe even here in this building,
sometimes you can't laugh. We do, but you can't laugh.

Speaker 1 (01:23:04):
I laugh at those who don't laugh.

Speaker 2 (01:23:06):
Well, there's a new study out on workplace laughter. There's
the laugh gap at work. This I couldn't believe. Seventy
six percent of employees hold back humor around their senior leaders.
We don't, we do not.

Speaker 3 (01:23:19):
We don't care.

Speaker 1 (01:23:19):
You're the boss man, and we don't care. Can we can?
We can joke around, but no, I think it's this
is this is an important conversation. All kidding aside, because
I think it builds a culture. I think being able
to be comfortable enough to laugh. I want to know
what's going on out there in the workplace because I
think if you lose humor, you're going to lose a
lot more than just the jokes.

Speaker 2 (01:23:40):
Joining us on our Any Hour Newsmaker line right now
is doctor Jonathan Thorpy is the CEO of Quantum Connections.
Did a study on this, research onto this, Doctor Thorpe,
thanks for joining us tonight. Can we still laugh at
work these days? What's going on in the workplace?

Speaker 8 (01:23:54):
Yeah?

Speaker 18 (01:23:55):
Great question, and the survey is pretty interesting. I pulled
a lot of things out of it. The first is
that almost everybody agrees humor's a good thing. And when
we hear a joke, we laugh. That laughter kicks off.
You know, the body's chemistry, dopamine, oxytox and go up,
cortist all goes down. Lots of great things happen when
we laugh, so I think we all want it. The

(01:24:16):
problem is at work, political humor has a tendency to
be divisive and cuts us in half. And if you
look about the last general election, right about seventy plus
million people voted one way and seventy plus million people
voted the other. So in any joke, you know you're
probably gonna miss half of your audience. And so I
think that's what's pretty dicey. There are a couple other

(01:24:36):
things that are interesting too, though, but I can stop there.

Speaker 1 (01:24:39):
Well, this is what I'll ask you about because I
think that you also talk about the culture of a
work environment, and laughter certainly contributes positively to culture, but
it can cut both ways, especially if you have people
have different ages that might have sensitivity to different topics
or things. What about mockri I love mockery. I just
I don't know how to live without mockery. And in fact,

(01:25:01):
the people I feel closest to are the ones I
feel I can mock. If I don't like you or
I don't know you, I won't mock you because that
would be rude. But if I am friends Rod and
I I think we live by this. I think our
show lives by this. So where does mockery and teasing
each other? Maybe it's a tie they wear, is something
they wear to work. That's you're like, whoa you know,

(01:25:22):
is any of that acceptable anymore?

Speaker 18 (01:25:24):
Doctor, I absolutely think it is. I think it's healthy
to actually act like that. But here's the thing most
people walk right past and missed. Is it Humor's not
the tool. Humor's the test. And what I mean by
that is most people think, oh, humor's a tool in
an organization. I can just ask for it if I'm
a leader or manager, and then I'll get a better

(01:25:45):
behavior because I've you know, I've said we should joke
a lot more. But I think the real signal is
how much psychological safety exists. And if there's enough of it,
then people can give each other a hard time and
give them the business and it's healthy, it feels that's right.
But if there's not enough safety present, then all humor
does is reveal that we don't feel safe enough to

(01:26:07):
be ourselves and to risk, you know, taking you know,
taking a chance with comments like that, doctor?

Speaker 2 (01:26:14):
Is politics? Are politics the word that gets everyone riled
up a lot. I mean, Greg and I we do
a conservative talk show. We're talking politics all the time.
We make fun of almost everything, both in the studio,
on the air and out in the workplace, but politics
always seems to be that's the subject you may not
want to go near. Is that fair to say?

Speaker 18 (01:26:35):
You know, it's funny, Rod and Greg? Is that I
think politics has changed in the last twenty thirty Yearsah.
I mean years ago, politics were something that we had
and we had viewpoints and we kind of sprinkle them
through our conversations. But today it's changed, and maybe social
is the reason. But today politics are more of who
we are. They're a part of our identity, and we

(01:26:58):
can't separate that as easy as we once did. And
I think that's what gets so close to the bone
with so many of these comments that that you know,
people make jest or even sometimes are a little more
serious about it.

Speaker 2 (01:27:10):
So should politics almost be off limits or do you
say no, you can't engage any You just need to
be a little more careful.

Speaker 18 (01:27:17):
I think what I do first is actually spend some
time cultivating this psychological safety. And what I mean by
that is, you know, anytime people use the word safety,
they probably principally think of physical safety. And if I'm
at work, that means is there a roof over my
head for weather? Is there a doors that lock to
keep the bad actors away those kinds of physical safety things.

(01:27:37):
But psychological safety is the safety to actually take risks
and make mistakes and know that you'll be welcome back
in and you'll be allowed to belong to this organization.
That's pretty tough to find these days. So maybe to
answer the question, if I'm a manager or I'm an executive,
I would work a lot harder to start with trust
and respect and elevate the levels of safety so the

(01:28:00):
people feel seen and heard. And once that happens, they
can really start to take risks and make the jokey
comment and actually even ridicule or poke a little fun
including politics, and get away with it and be okay.

Speaker 1 (01:28:15):
So it sounds like we say psychological safety, it's also
just getting to know read the room, know your audience,
know the people that you work with. I guess here's
the other issue too, is I was reading through your column.
We come from different generations. We have different things that
were funnier that you could say, even words you could
use that were not offensive to some. But I've got

(01:28:37):
young adult kids. They're constantly telling me I missed the
memo on certain things you can't say in polite company anymore.
And not that I'm boorish, but there's just different standards.
As you have people of different ages that come together
in a workplace, how do you get the memo out?
Is that the psychological safety? We just got to know
each other better because some of us come into this
and not dragging our knuckles. We didn't know what we

(01:28:59):
said was offensive.

Speaker 18 (01:29:01):
Great question. My teenage kids tell me all the time, Dad,
I missed the memos. So I'd love the answer to this.
But I think the reality is, you know, there's at
least four, sometimes five generations at work in most organizations,
so we have to understand that some of the older
generations have to import some new ways of looking at it,
and some of the younger folks have to understand that

(01:29:23):
there have been ways that have worked for decades that
they would probably well serve to respect and incorporate it.
It's kind of a question of inclusivity, which you know
that's a full separate issue, but I think it works
for both, for both ends of the spectrum.

Speaker 2 (01:29:36):
All right, final question for you, doctor Thorpe. As you
look at this, you know all this information, what advice
would you offer people who do want to have some
fun and a little humor in the workplace. What should
they do and shouldn't do.

Speaker 18 (01:29:51):
Here's what I would I'd say three quick tips. First,
lead with respect. Make sure that a culture of respect
first exists and so everybody feels safe to however or
whoever they are. Second, I start by keeping humor inclusive
and make sure if somebody's gonna feel targeted in anything
you say, no matter how small the pace lace they represent,

(01:30:12):
save it. And the third thing is is, like you
just said, read the room, watch for the reactions. Don't
just lean on Well, my intent was for a Joki
Joe comment. I didn't mean anything by it. Instead, read
the faces and the responses, and if only half of
the room participates in the after comments, then you probably know, Ah,
that comment was probably a little too targeted.

Speaker 2 (01:30:33):
It's fun to talk about laughter in the workplace. I
love laughing.

Speaker 1 (01:30:35):
Well, it just shows we were right. You just confirmed
everything we said. I mean, you just said you gotta
have it. It's it's it's important, it's but you gotta again,
read the room. Read the room. Folks know who you're
talking to when you talk to them. But I think
there's a trust that is grown, has developed as you
can kid with each other.

Speaker 7 (01:30:52):
I hope.

Speaker 2 (01:30:53):
So all right. That does it for us tonight. As
a matter of fact, for this week, yes, we take
a break tomorrow. A best of show coming your way tomorrow.

Speaker 1 (01:31:00):
Have a nice weekend, have a great Easter holiday.

Speaker 2 (01:31:02):
Sir, head up, shoulders back. May God bless you and
your family in this great country of ours. We'll talk
to you on Monday.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Kingdom of Fraud

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Rod and Greg Show: Battle Over Birthright Citizenship; False Reporting on Ballistics in Kirk Case

Episode Transcript

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

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Kingdom of Fraud

All Episodes