The Rod and Greg Show: Birthright Citizenship; Forest Service Moves to SLC; Trump Correct on Iran

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
They knew what we do each and every day, and
they said, you know, we got to get on Wednesday
because that's the day that Rod and Greg do wing
Man Wednesday.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
Ingman Wednesday is the day to go to the moon.
After all these all what decades, and yeah, in a while,
it just goes to show this show is closely monitored.
I mean, everybody on the right letter they all watch
what we're saying because you know, we kind of know
so it is. But I mean they were, they're very indecisi,
like I didn't know if this whole thing was going

(00:27):
to go down here in what twenty four minutest. Yeah,
so we were you know, we've got to we just
have such a stack show and we've got important people
to interview. So I don't know that we're going to
be able to go live to the take off.

Speaker 1 (00:39):
We'll cover it and we'll we'll keep you up to day.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
Atter than Abby Bonell in terms of giving us the
news and the deats, so folks, you will know everything
we know, and we know a lot.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
You know, big comes in today, Big day today the president,
first time ever that a sitting president went to the
Supreme Court. He went today to list of the arguments
on birthright citizenship.

Speaker 2 (00:59):
Did he really yes? Because here's my question.

Speaker 1 (01:01):
It's April foest. Oh you're thinking I have to look.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
At everything twice. Like I woke up today and I
read that that the Washington commanders are going to change
their name back to the Redskins, and I was so happy.

Speaker 1 (01:14):
Ap okay.

Speaker 2 (01:16):
I keep getting tricked on this online everything I read them.

Speaker 1 (01:19):
Like, we don't read it. Don't I love that?

Speaker 2 (01:21):
Or this is great news or this is bad news?
And then I find out, So I'm questioning everything today.
Is NASI even going to do this today?

Speaker 3 (01:29):
Is this?

Speaker 2 (01:30):
Is this a trick? Is this April fole joke? I
don't even know. I I don't I don't know what
to trust right now because today is the day everybody
comes and tries to trick you.

Speaker 1 (01:39):
So you're you're saying that NASA has had four people
sitting on top of this very big candle about four
hours April.

Speaker 2 (01:48):
I think there might be an April Fools at the
end of the countdown.

Speaker 1 (01:51):
Now, we do have a lot of we have a
lot of eyewitnesses today who actually did see the president
in the Supreme Court.

Speaker 2 (01:57):
They saw him.

Speaker 1 (01:57):
Yeah, he was physically there to your point that you
have ticket, don't. He didn't even get acknowledged now when
you asked, and I think the Chief Justice would at
least say, mister President, thank you, We we recognize you
being here today.

Speaker 2 (02:11):
You mentioned the show, and I thought they wouldn't. I
didn't think what I think. It's a separation of powers.
They're not going to sit in and make it if
they don't do that normally, they're not going to make
an exception in that case.

Speaker 1 (02:23):
And he's the President of the United States.

Speaker 2 (02:25):
I get it. But I'm just telling you that I
think that his presence there is going to have different interpretations,
and so I don't think they're going to play into
his presence one way.

Speaker 3 (02:35):
Or the other.

Speaker 1 (02:35):
Did you see what the Attorney General for the state
of California said today about him being there. No, he
was trying to intimidate him.

Speaker 2 (02:42):
Yeah, well, they're going to assign bad motives. But I
was I've met the man. I'm not saying that we're
you know, we're bff's, but I'm telling you I've been
around him on multiple occasions. I know his son a
little bit better. That man is a is inquisitive, he
is genuinely curious, and I really think he cares a
lot about this issue. Sure is on the pros and
cons and the legal challenges with it on both sides.

(03:04):
And he wanted to hear with his own ears. And
you can say, well, I'm sure he could have got
some you know, live feed or something, but I think
he wanted to be there to see how that debate
rolled out. And and it's there is a side of
him and you can't deny it that has that kind
of curiosity and he wants to he he is a
proactive guy. He has a bias towards action. He wants
to be in the room where it's happening, and he

(03:26):
wants to hear it. And it's genuine too, it's not
meant to intimidate.

Speaker 1 (03:29):
And like you said, he's been talking about this for
a long long time, on the whole issue of birthright citizenship.
So we're all talk about that coming up at about
four to fifteen a little bit after a break at
four fifteen, about the hearing today and what one of
the experts who watched it it will get their take away.
A little bit later on, we'll talk with Mike Schultz
about the US Forest Service deciding to make Salt Lake

(03:50):
City at home, get out swamp well into.

Speaker 2 (03:53):
The place where ninety percent of our forest US forest
lands are, that's the Western States. What a no better
hub than Salt Lake for that, for Utah for that
to happen. So good news and we'll learn more about
that on the program today.

Speaker 1 (04:06):
Oh and there's one letter thing going on. The President
is talking to us tonight, well not to you and
I specifically, but to the rest of the country tonight.
A nationwide address on the part of the President today, big.

Speaker 2 (04:15):
Big announcement, and we don't know exactly what it's going
to be. We do know that Starmer from the UK
has had a national address to the people of Britain
and has said there will be thirty five countries convening
in Britain to talk about the future of the Strait
of Hormuz. And you have Netanyahu who's also put out
a statement that Iran no longer poses an existential threat

(04:37):
to Israel. So there's some things are moving. Things are moving,
and we'll see today tonight around seven o'clock from the
President what he has to say.

Speaker 1 (04:48):
Now, the President, it'll be interesting to see what he
says about NATO because the President is very, very frustrated
that NATO has not stepped in to help us in
this in this war at all. Had what country's saying,
you can't land here? What is Spain? The UK and
Italy up to this point have said you can't land
your warplanes. And let's let's let's define help.

Speaker 2 (05:08):
We're not asking him to go do anything, just make
the basis of which we man, of which we have helped,
you helped. Those countries have strong bases for the common
defense of and as an alliance, they will not let
the United States access those bases as they are out
there fighting forward. They will argue or not only the
United States interest, but really of Europe if they can't.

(05:30):
If they can't access those bases, and that's the help
they're looking for, then this this alliance is not it's
not I don't think by definition that is an alliance.

Speaker 1 (05:39):
Well luckly, yeah, let's let's do what Marco Rubio has
to say about this, because he explained it very well
last night he was on Shan Sean Handdy. Because there
are rumors the President could say tonight we're out of NATO.
Here's how Marco Rubio explained it last night.

Speaker 4 (05:52):
If now we have reached a point where the NATO
alliance means that we can't use those bases, that in fact,
that we can no longer use those bases to defer
in America's interests.

Speaker 5 (06:01):
The NATO is a one way street.

Speaker 4 (06:03):
The NATO is simply about us having troops in Europe
to defend Europe.

Speaker 5 (06:07):
But when we need their help, not their help.

Speaker 4 (06:09):
We're not asking them to conduct air strikes when we
need them to allow us to use their military basis,
their answer is no.

Speaker 5 (06:16):
Then why are we in NATO? You have to ask
that question.

Speaker 4 (06:18):
Why do we have billions and billions of dollars hundreds
of billions of dollars over the years, trillions of dollars
and all these American forces stationed in the region. If
we can only use we can in our time of need,
we're not going to be allowed to use those bases.

Speaker 1 (06:31):
Yeah, I mean, Marco ruby Are explained it very well
last night with Andy. He said, look, if they aren't
going to be our friends or allies so to speak,
I mean, you know, why do we want to be
a part of NATO. And it's a really interesting discussion
because we've been there since the end of World War Two.
We were there to protect Europe against any possible invasion
from the Soviet Union at that time. And things have

(06:52):
changed the world has changed, and the question is do
we really need to be a part of it anymore.

Speaker 3 (06:55):
Well, the.

Speaker 2 (06:57):
Range of missiles that Iran is denied they ever have,
now has been proven that they have the the how
critical of a of a passageway and for oil and
for commerce. Frankly, the strait of horror news is for
Europe more so than the United States, for all of
those interests that really impact Europe more than they impact
the United States, but does impact our country. We want

(07:19):
to deal with that. We want to get that right.
When they refuse, they're the ones that they're there. They
I think a simple thank you would have been good
in that moment, not a no, but thank you. I mean,
that's that's really what we're talking about.

Speaker 1 (07:34):
Well, it'll be interesting to see what the President has
to say about that tonight, and again we'll carry that
live at seven o'clock right here on the Rotten Greg Show.

Speaker 6 (07:41):
We are guaranteed human. We are, and that's what we've
been told, that's what we've been doing. Our next guest
is not is not an AI bought.

Speaker 1 (07:48):
We have got breaking news all over the place. We'll
get to our interview here in just a second. The
countdown for Artemis Artemis two is on hold, yeah, ten minutes.
Apparently they've got an issue with it and with the launch,
so they're changing. And now we're getting word that the
Republicans in the US House have caved.

Speaker 2 (08:03):
I know, I'm hoping all this is April fools. I'm
just to trust anymore. It looks like the very deal
the Senate made on Friday then slithered out of town
and the House called garbage. Sounds like they're all, at
least the speaker Johnson saying he's okay with now. I
don't know again what to trust on April first. But

(08:23):
on the NASA front, they stopped the countdown clock at
ten minutes. Is NASA works through some issues. The issue
is a battery in the launch aboards system has been
it's been resolved. The engineers conclude the temperature reading the
battery is faulty, not a problem with the battery. So
they're just working through that. You got to get all
that right.

Speaker 1 (08:42):
You want it right.

Speaker 2 (08:43):
You ask me, would you go into space? I would,
but not with any of this going on. Ye, I
want to get all that worked out.

Speaker 3 (08:47):
I have it right.

Speaker 1 (08:48):
Well, we started the day off with the first the
first time a sitting president has attended a hearing before
the US Supreme Court. Donald Trump was there when arguments
were made today about birthright citizenship. And joining us on
our Newsmaker line to tell us what happened in the
court today is Matt Crapo. He's director of litigation for
the Federation for American Immigration Reform otherwise known as Fair Matt,

(09:10):
How are you and welcome to the Rod and Gregg Show.

Speaker 7 (09:13):
Thanks for having me on.

Speaker 8 (09:14):
I appreciate the invitation, Matt.

Speaker 1 (09:16):
I keep on hearing the words skeptical and describing how
the judges felt about this today. What are your thoughts
on it?

Speaker 7 (09:23):
Well, I think that it's probably a fool there and
to try to prognosticate how the Court's going to rule
in the oral arguments, so I wouldn't. I'm actually, you know,
cautiously optimistic. I think that the law is on President
Trump's side with the executive order, and I think it's
the Supreme Court us to follow its president. I think

(09:46):
it will actually uphold the executive Order, at least in
large part.

Speaker 2 (09:51):
You know, we're hearing some commentary from the right people
that want the Supreme Court to rule on this birthright
cismship and what is done, and are supportive of it
in concept or and theory. But they then go on
to say that legally this is actually a higher hill
to climb, that there's a very strong argument on both
sides of this issue. Do not assume that it's just

(10:13):
it's an obvious conclusion that ought to be made. Do
you subscribe to that or do you think that it's
clear that who they were speaking of and what that circumstance.
If you're a originalist interpreter of the Constitution, this isn't
a hard decision or even a coin flip.

Speaker 7 (10:29):
Well, I, you know, I think there's a persuasive argument.
You know, the Supreme Court over one hundred years ago,
back in the late eighteen hundreds, held that the subject
to the jurisdiction in the Fourteenth Amendment meant that somebody
has to owe the country.

Speaker 8 (10:46):
It's a complete.

Speaker 7 (10:48):
Subject to the complete jurisdiction of the political jurisdiction of
the country, and that means that they owe it direct
in mediate allegiance and may claim the protection of the
United States. And in Wang Kim Mark, the Supreme Court
said that that extends to aliens who are reside who
are permitted to reside in the United States, And that

(11:09):
just kind of makes sense because the American concept of
citizenship has always been based on an idea of mutual consent,
and so you know, by seeking to reside here, the
alien would consent to the jurisdiction, and by permitting them
to reside here, then the nation would have their reciprocal

(11:32):
consent to them being here. And you know, nobody can
convince and convincingly contend that illegal aliens have demonstrated such
allegiance such that their own protection, and instead they're present
here in violation of the law and in direct contravention
of the country's political will. So I don't know how

(11:52):
you you know, if you really sit down and think
about it, how how the country has consented to their
presence when they're they're actually here subject to deportation if
they're if they're you know, found within the country, Matt.

Speaker 1 (12:07):
In historical hearings like we had today, you know, people
are always looking for key moments, questions that were asked
comments that were made. Was there a key moment that
you found during the hearing today and what was it?

Speaker 7 (12:19):
Unfortunately, you know, I don't think that. I think that
some of most of the justices and both of the
attorneys kind of missed this concept of consent and and
that reading of Wan Kim mark. There's a lot of
discussion about domicile and yeah, and domicile kind of gets
to it because domicile is the intent to reside here

(12:40):
permanently with the permission of the country. So that's where
the permission kind of comes in. But uh, you know,
I I don't think anyone really made framed it in
the right narrative where it really made sense to anyone.

(13:01):
Everyone seemed to be at at at at you know,
not understand talking past each other. And so hopefully when
the justices, you know, go to convene and discuss the case,
hopefully they'll they'll be able to synthesize looking at their
past precedent. I think that there's they really could. There's

(13:24):
there's a possibility that they will uphold the executive order
in large part real quick as it pertains to illegal
aliens and temporary visitors real quickly.

Speaker 2 (13:34):
In the nineties. I've seen these clips where at President
Bill Clinton and then Congressman Chuck Schumer, we're very, very
critical of people that were coming here illegally and having
children as a as an anchor to be able to
stay here when they came here illegally, and there was
it was just seemed like the criticism or concern was
broad based. It wasn't as political as it is today.
Does any of those sentiments from the nineties, Is there

(13:56):
any drawing back or looking back to that where this
was a bypartis and concern back in the nineties, Does
that have any merit with with the justices or how
this this case was argued.

Speaker 7 (14:09):
You know, I didn't. I didn't pick up on any
of that. The one thing, you know, I know that
some of the justices were curious about the birth tourism,
you know, the how many people had had actually come
here just to give birth and then go back to
I think they were discussing the parents from China. But

(14:33):
I've read news articles where it's up to one and
a half million kids are living in China that were
born in the North Northern Mariana Islands, And you know
that I think that kind of demonstrates the absurdity of
the you know, the plaintiffs view of the case is
anyone born on US soil is just automatically a citizen.

(14:57):
They they kind of read out that subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, out of the Fourteenth Amendment, they do. And
the other thing is, I think that the Supreme Court
could look at section five of the Amendment where it
says Congress couldn't can enact legislation, you know, to enforce this.
Congress could probably pass a statute that defines what subject

(15:18):
to the jurisdiction thereup means.

Speaker 1 (15:21):
Matt, Thank you, We appreciate a fear of your thoughts
on this today.

Speaker 3 (15:24):
Thank you, absolutely all right.

Speaker 1 (15:26):
Joining us on our newsmaker line from a fair is
Matt creg pill Moore coming up on the Rod and
Gregg Show. Welcome back to the Rod and Gregg Show.
We've asked Speaker of the House Mike Shoals, if he
could join us at five oh five. We were going
to talk to him now about the Forest Service. But
seconds away, one minute, ten seconds away from the launch
of Artemis two. It is a return to the moon.

(15:47):
They'll as Abby just described it, they won't land on
the moon. Now, it's going to be a lunar loop, right,
They're going to go around the moon and then slingshot back.

Speaker 2 (15:55):
They're going to go see the dark side of the
moon and then we'll see if there's like a transformer
or something back there.

Speaker 1 (16:03):
We're gonna spart watch too many movies.

Speaker 2 (16:04):
Yeah, there's there's something back there, for sure. We're gonna
find out where If that rocket disappears, that's another story.

Speaker 1 (16:10):
Yeah, it has cover. It has been a long time,
what seventy two since we've been to the moon. I
think that was the last time we went to the moon,
So very historic. How far away are we just covering
thirty two seconds? All right, let's listen in to the
countdown as we get ready for the launch of Artements
two as they head to the moon. Long time since
America has been headed in that direction. Let's listen into

(16:32):
this countdown and lift off of Artements two.

Speaker 8 (16:39):
Fifteen and CLSs go for coursee genginees tart.

Speaker 3 (17:07):
You stud integrity, right, pitch.

Speaker 2 (17:42):
I don't know if this makes great radio, but it
looks like everything seems.

Speaker 1 (17:45):
Everything orry very well right now. You can see it
heading into the sky headed towards space right now artements too.
This is always, I think, like a sight to watch.

Speaker 2 (17:53):
When's the last time you watched a takeoff like this?

Speaker 1 (17:56):
Been a long time since the Space Show.

Speaker 2 (17:59):
I think that's the last time. I always think I've
sat and watched a live takeoff like this.

Speaker 1 (18:02):
Yeah, you can hear the crowd on the on the
ground looking up to the sky and watching this heading
into space. Man, were on have you today? Four people
including three Americans one Canadian on their way to the moon.

(18:22):
They'll get there, I understand Gregan, about five days. They'll
loop the lunar and then be on their way home.

Speaker 2 (18:29):
Yeah, so I think you asked Artemis one. I launched
in twenty twenty two. The launch took place, it was
it was in the dark. It wasn't broad daylight. We've
never seen no one has seen what looked what this
rocket looks like flying in the daytime. So this is
if this daytime launch is unique and gives you kind
of the full flavor of what's happening. It wouldn't if
it was nighttime. All you'd see is a lot of flames.

Speaker 1 (18:52):
I even't know what's going on.

Speaker 2 (18:53):
But you can see the rocket. You can see it
and it looks like it's a successful launch. And you
heard the crowd cheering as well. They're in Florida.

Speaker 1 (19:02):
Yeah, it is amazing the the technology we have that
we can almost follow this rocket almost into space. I mean,
the technology and the visions that we have are pretty amazing.
And you're now seeing it slowly enter.

Speaker 2 (19:17):
Space, the jettison the two booster rocket.

Speaker 1 (19:20):
Yeah, help get it up, Help get it up there.
And now you're seeing shot from the spacecraft itself looking
back on Mother Earth. Always an amazing sight. Copy all Man,
and now day one, of course the launch today, Greg information,
I have day two and four, they'll be it's outbound.
On day six through ten they'll be returning. So day

(19:43):
five it's hey, how about this for a family vacation, Greg.
The spacecraft will pass within forty seven hundred miles beyond
the dark side of the Moon, so they'll go past
the Moon, loop around it and come back. We've never
been that far out in space. When you see the.

Speaker 2 (20:01):
Distance, we talk about space and we talk about those
you know, our space station or whatever it may be,
being out in space astronauts that will you know, orbit
the Earth. When you see the distance of the Moon
and how far you have to travel to get to
the moon in reference to being in space, it is
quite a journey. It's far. It's a lot further when
you see the see it in you know, in scale

(20:25):
than you I would imagine. I didn't realize it was
so far away. It's so bizarre for me to think
that in nineteen sixty nine, July of sixty nine, we
had the technology. Maybe it was as good as a
calculator at the time, but we had something. They got hurled,
you know, people across Neil Armstrong and everyone else out
there to the moon and back.

Speaker 1 (20:42):
Yeah. Yeah, I think Greg, we have more technology in
our iPhones than they did on those flights.

Speaker 2 (20:49):
That's actually corue successful.

Speaker 1 (20:50):
Yeah, so Artimans two has taken off a very successful
launch today. Greg, it's pretty much you know. I you
remember Jay Garen, Senator j Gardes, who flew into space
on board one of the shuttles. I remember when he
came back. I was doing an interview with him where
I heard him say, we asked him what it was
like during liftoff because the forces there are so powerful. Yes,

(21:12):
And I remember he said, and he looked at me
and said, Rod, it will rattle your eyeballs.

Speaker 2 (21:16):
Wow, Yeah, no, I don't doubt that. So it looked
pretty powerful from where, from all the way out here
as they were taking.

Speaker 1 (21:24):
Yeah, so it successfully launched. Artemis is now headed toward
the Moon. It will be there in about day number five.
They will loop the moon. They'll go past the Moon,
as a matter of fact, on the dark side of
the Moon, loop around, and then head back home. And
this is really a historic journey. I think, I think
you know, I grew up with a space age. Now

(21:44):
you're a loute too young to remember the space race,
the race for space, but the nineteen sixties were a
very exciting time for this country when it came to America.
And then, of course, in July twentieth, nineteen sixty nine,
Neil Armstrong and Buzz altern stepped on the surface of
the Moon. It was, as I recall, I was what fifteen,
sixteen years old at the time, and it was like
two o'clock in the morning. So yeah, it's it's it's

(22:09):
kind of crazy.

Speaker 2 (22:10):
I have I went to Cape Canaveral in nineteen seventy
nine as a ten year old, wide eyed, and of
what I saw, So it's it's been part of our
American history.

Speaker 1 (22:17):
You're very real quick? Do you want us to break?

Speaker 9 (22:18):
Now?

Speaker 1 (22:19):
Come back with uh? Okay, we'll take a break and
then we'll come back right here. It is the Rot
and Greg Show on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five
nine kN rs. How many Girl Scout cookies did you
buy this year? None?

Speaker 3 (22:30):
Neither did I.

Speaker 2 (22:31):
Man, there's a I don't know if it's I don't
know if it's fake news or for trial, but I was,
you know, with this Maha thing happening where I'm making
America healthy again, some of the ingredients in those Girl
Scout cookies kind of scared me off. Yeah, sounds like
it's worse than what's the ingredients, it's how much of
it you're getting.

Speaker 1 (22:47):
That's right. People all over America now Greg are posting
videos like the one we're about to play, being very
upset over Girl Scout cookies and what they're getting for
six dollars.

Speaker 2 (22:57):
Okay, I need to bring something to your ten t.

Speaker 5 (23:02):
Girl Scout Cookies.

Speaker 2 (23:04):
Where's the other half of the box. You only get
one sleeve?

Speaker 10 (23:08):
Now, let me open it up.

Speaker 1 (23:17):
Oh my Jesus, one.

Speaker 11 (23:21):
Sleeve.

Speaker 2 (23:23):
How much your pay for these six bucks?

Speaker 12 (23:26):
Must it's fine. This is all that's in a sleeve
of Girl Scout cookies. I remember when it used to
be gluttonous to eat a full sleeve. If that used
to be shameful, This is a normal amount of food.

Speaker 1 (23:40):
I love this. So I didn't buy any any Girl
Scout cookies this year is either but six dollars for
one sleeve of cookies in a Girl's Scout box. Greg,
that's a little.

Speaker 2 (23:50):
Much, little much as Yeah, I yep, I'm not. I'm
not buying this year.

Speaker 1 (23:56):
And then and then questions about if they're healthy Junior
who brought that up? Yeah, yeah, he said they contained
things you may not want to eat.

Speaker 2 (24:07):
But represented Chevaler, who in the state House is kind
of the MAHA leader. She's helped, you know, she's helping
me implement a lot of but Robert Rfk is advocating
for She said, I'm allowed to still have my uh
my chips a Hoy cookies. She gave me permission.

Speaker 1 (24:20):
Yeah, but those aren't those aren't Girl Scout cookies.

Speaker 2 (24:22):
Yeah, but I'm still healthy. I'm still healthy if chips
a Hoy cook and oreos, Yeah, gave she gave me
a pass.

Speaker 1 (24:29):
All right, Well, America is on its way to space.
The President will address the nation to night have seven o'clock.
You'll hear that live right here on Talk radio one
oh five nine. Can r Us coming up after hour
Milli's update big news. Yesterday the President and the Secretary
of Agriculture. Agriculture announced the fore service is coming to
you till that's right. That's big, big news.

Speaker 2 (24:49):
We're going to get into that when we come back
after the break. H So you want to hear the
speaker Shultz, he's going to talk to us about that.

Speaker 1 (24:55):
He'll be joining us. That's coming up as we head
into our number two of the rotting Greg Shaw right
here on Utah. It's Talk Radio one oh five nine. Okay,
an a right, stay with us. Going to the moon again. Yep,

(25:16):
Well we're overdue. Here's what's so fun about this trip.
And I know they're not landing, okay, and everyone wills
to keep nche slingshot arounding it. Yeah, around the moon.

Speaker 2 (25:24):
This is surveying and seeing, doing a little test rung
looking at the whole moon, looking at sizing it up,
going around it, showing that they still have the muscle
memory to do it.

Speaker 1 (25:34):
Uh huh.

Speaker 2 (25:34):
But there are plans to land, and there are plans
to establish a base on the Moon. So we're going
to colonize the Moon. It's going to be the United
States of America Moon. I can be the fifty first
state the Moon.

Speaker 3 (25:47):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (25:47):
I think the Rotten Greg Show should be the first
radio show to broadcast from the Moon.

Speaker 3 (25:51):
I agree.

Speaker 1 (25:52):
We start that effort now.

Speaker 2 (25:54):
I still want to broadcast from mar al Lago. That's
my first goal. Second is from the Moon.

Speaker 1 (25:58):
Okay, wait a minute, marl log over. This is the Moon?
Which one?

Speaker 2 (26:00):
I take the Moon over the Man? But I think
I think it's baby steps. I think we gotta get tomorrow, Loto.

Speaker 1 (26:05):
You know who we need to recognize this, Greg, I
didn't know this, You didn't, but Abby was reporting in
a newscasts those solid rocket boosters that help get that
big old candle into space or made right here in Utah.

Speaker 2 (26:16):
And it's not like we know. I mean, you told
me the story of way back during the tragedy of
this Challenger. Challenger that you know it was Hercules I
think was the main.

Speaker 1 (26:27):
Morton at that time, and it's the name of the
company now.

Speaker 2 (26:32):
So there's some attention in Utah about those rockets and
those O rings back then. Well, it stands the reason
that we would be the Utah would still have space
pun intended of building those rockets. But yeah, there's some
there's some uh Utah grit and uh and and work
involved in what we saw today.

Speaker 1 (26:50):
I hope I get a chance to do this. When
I was working in that Channel two, we covered a
lot of the testing of the solid rocket boosters. This one,
they had them on the ground and they'd fire those
suckers off and we'd be quite away from them and
you could still feel the concussion coming from it, and
you'd feel the heat coming from it. Ride. I'd love
to see a launch with both boosters working together. I bet,

(27:11):
I bet you really well.

Speaker 2 (27:12):
It looked pretty wild there. I mean when we saw
the In fact, the cameras that were watching it kind
of went dark and they had to get them.

Speaker 1 (27:19):
Northrop Grumham Okay, yeah, that's the name of the company back. Yeah,
So kudos to the workers were involved in that. Nice work.
Pride in America, that's for sure, all right, A little
bit of pride coming Utah's way. As a big announcement yesterday,
Greg by the the Trump administration, the Agriculture and Secretary saying, Hey,
guess what new headquarters for the Forest Service right here
in Salt Lake City.

Speaker 2 (27:40):
We're gonna get out of the swamp. Yes, and we're
going to get to the very place that we do
our job, and we we have stewardship over It is
such great news and this is something that we've always
wanted to see and it always made sense that these
big departments, instead of being in Washington, DC, where it
makes no sense, be amongst the very you know, mission

(28:00):
of that department. And so for the Forestry in ninety
percent of us force the US forest to be in
the Western States, it makes all the sense in the
world to have their main department headquarters here in Utah.

Speaker 1 (28:13):
Yeah. Well, it's being described as a very big win
for the state of Utah, and we wanted to bring
on our next guy as the Speaker of the Utah House,
Mike Schulz, and get his reaction to it. Mike, thanks
for joining us tonight. Explain to us first fall in
your opinion, how this is going to benefit the state
of Utah.

Speaker 10 (28:27):
Oh, you know, it's huge to the state of Utah.
Rob and not just the state of Utah, but the
West and in general and the whole for all of
our Forest Service lands all across the country. Most people
don't realize, but ninety percent of our Forest Service land
is in the West. And when you have the Forest

(28:48):
Service headquartered out of Washington, d C. One, you're probably
not getting the best in the brightest honestly running our
Forest Service land, but having the decisions being made in
a timely manner, and it's best for states like Utah.
Having those decisions made inside Washington, DC makes no sense
at all. So getting the headquarters and me just think

(29:09):
how cool that is. Getting the headquarters of the Forest
Service headquartered here in the state of Utah is something
that political leaders and state leaders have only dreamed of
for decades and I've hoped for and worked for and
for it actually happened right now, truly, is something that's
going to be incredible for the state of Utah and
our public lands.

Speaker 2 (29:29):
You know, speaker shout, It's one of the things I
think happens. And this would be more for the communities
that are surrounded by or part of our national forests
or even BLM land. What I think is happening in
our state is that there are decisions made from so
far away, and these sometimes these decisions are just backwards
and the consequences of those decisions are never felt by

(29:49):
the ones that make the decisions. Talk about what will
it be like when we have the headquarters for the
US Forestry here in our state, where their decisions will
be immediately felt, There'll be a better conduit of communication.
And what does a workforce look like after a while
of people that would work there versus those that go
to Washington, d C. To work inside of Washington, d C.

Speaker 10 (30:10):
Yeah, well, you can imagine, you know, you get a
pretty liberal crowd that wants to go to Washington, d C.
And wants to run the Forest Service from Washington, d C.
Having an opportunity to have the headquarters here in a
state like Utah will actually attract a more conservative employee
because then they have the opportunity to live out amongst

(30:33):
what the land that they love and interact with the
communities that are being affected by this and the states
that are being affected by their decisions. And you know,
I'm a firm believer in whether it's running a business
or running state government or any entity for that matter,
boots on the ground seeing what's happening working with the

(30:56):
people and and and seeing the results of the decisions.
You're going to get better outcomes always, every time, you're
going to get better outcomes in and that's why we're
so excited for this.

Speaker 1 (31:08):
We're speaking with Mike Schulze, Speaker of the Utah on
House Speaker Shoals. Let me ask you this. You mentioned
a moment ago the importance of speedy decisions. Why is
it so important that when it comes to an issue
you can get an answer quickly? Why is that so important?

Speaker 10 (31:22):
Yeah, well, it is because you know, the longer a
problem goes, the harder it is to solve. If you
can get ahead of that problem or solve that problem quickly,
then then then you can have a better outcome. And
you know, droughts happen right right We're in the middle
of the drought right now. And there's also times like

(31:44):
going back to twenty twenty three when we had too
much water and we had erosion and everything happening, and
we needed equipment in there to control some of the
flooding and to have those decisions being made out of Washington, DC.
And same thing with the drought right now is it
just doesn't work for the land, and so what you
want is you want boots on the ground, be able

(32:05):
to drive up the road or whatever it is, you know,
Salt Lake City to the Uennas, which is the largest
area you know, forest land in Utah. But being able
to be in close proximity to see what's happening there
in real time and make decisions based off of real time,
not trying to have those decisions go back and forth

(32:26):
between Washington, d C.

Speaker 3 (32:27):
And Utah.

Speaker 10 (32:28):
It's just as a better way to manage it, you know, Mike,
we're going to get it more conservative. We're going to
get a more conservative management team here in the state
of Utah and helping manage our lands.

Speaker 2 (32:39):
You know, Mike, here's the thing. You're talking common sense,
and there used to be a time, and it wasn't
all that long ago, were common sense solutions. We're not
partisan approaches. They were actually where you see good public
policy overlap and you see a bipartisan effort. I think
people would be surprised how many bills are passed in
a bipartisan fashion in the legislature. Now, my question is

(33:00):
you've just spoken to the common sense of having the
forestry here as a hub and We're ninety percent of
the forest US forest is in the west Western States.
Will this decision, in this move survive past the Trump
presidency in other words, when a Democrat, if a Democrat
gets elected president, that they just haul it all back
to DC or are there some common sense solutions here

(33:21):
that without regard to party, everyone's going to appreciate.

Speaker 10 (33:26):
You know, I think this will stick. Once you move
something like this to another area, or you actually move something,
go through the process to move something, it is not
that easy to move back. And so I'm a firm
believer that I think it will last. I don't think
you'll see this change with administrations. I think that you'll

(33:48):
see this last and as it should. And you know,
you bring up the common sense and it is common sense,
and it used to be you know, years ago that
you know, the Democrats would come along and because they
see that this is common sense, it's just as what
makes it best. But you know, for the Democrats anymore,
it's all about power, and that's all that matters to
them is having the power. They don't care about what's

(34:09):
best for our lands, they don't care what's best for
our forests, they don't care what's best for our country.
All they care is about power, and so you never
know when someone only cares about power, what could happen.
But if I truly think that that this is something
that will stick, because once you get it moved out here,

(34:30):
and you know, kudos to President Trump and Secretary of
Rawlins for doing it early in their their their their term,
because then it will have a chance to be cemented
in and harder and harder to move by by a
future president.

Speaker 1 (34:44):
Mike, thanks for joining us. Speaker of the Utah House,
Mike Schultz here on the Running Greg Show. He sounds
pretty happy, Yeah, pretty happy, true.

Speaker 2 (34:51):
To form with President Trump and I and I experienced
this in President Trump's first term. He does reach out to,
you know, legislative leaders, not just to gover of a
given state. He actually drills down and gets to know
legislative leaders as well as even county commissioners and council
members too of certain states. And Utah were fortunate to
have a great relationship with the White House.

Speaker 1 (35:11):
Yeah, and I want to hear this talk back on this,
because we had a talkback. Coller call in on the
Forest Service coming to Utah made a rather interesting comment, Ahi.

Speaker 13 (35:20):
This is Glenn on American Fork. Just wonder if Mayor
Mendenhall is gonna got a stop to the Forestry Service
coming here because they used too much water.

Speaker 2 (35:33):
That's why I love our listeners. Are listeners smart, so observant?
Is this is this going to be a water problem?

Speaker 1 (35:38):
They're kind of wise guys though too.

Speaker 2 (35:40):
And yeah, that's true.

Speaker 6 (35:42):
I wonder if it's a water issue for the water
issue for the forest Service, this one, she'll make it one.

Speaker 1 (35:47):
If it's not federal move, that's for sure. All right,
this has been such a big day. It started off
this morning, Greg with a hearing before the Supreme Court,
the first ever attended by a sitting President. Donald Trump
was there for the arguments on the part of his team.

Speaker 8 (36:01):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (36:01):
Then we had, you know, we had the launch of
the Artaments two. We're headed back to space tonight. We've
got the President addressing. We've got a deal in the works.
Apparently the House is caved on Department of Homeland Security
funding or it is that. Johnson said, okay, we'll break
it out separately.

Speaker 2 (36:21):
Well, what I need to see you had a leadership, Well,
you had a lot of upset members of Congress. House members.
They came, you know when they when they snuck out
of town on Friday and they they Monday, they come
back and they they're upset about the about what the
Senate did. There is a lot of pejoratives that were

(36:43):
attached to that to that deal that the Democrats that
the Senate bipartisan all of them, I guess, decided to
agree to, which was to not fund ice and Border Patrol.
They were gonna leave it out of the out of
the bill to refund DHS or to fund DHS. So
they were upset. Now they're saying it's Wednesday, so three
days now they're saying, well, you know what, that Senate

(37:05):
deal isn't too bad. I think we're going to go
ahead and sign up for that and we'll just try
to get We're going to get the rest of it
through reconciliation. I want to see chip Roy, Congressman Chip Roy,
agree to that. I want to see some of the
people that rightfully called out how wrong that deal is
and why we shouldn't have done it, and why the
Senate Republicans don't know how to win and they had
no business leaving town and Lindsey Graham going to Disneyland

(37:28):
or Disney World. Where is the change. It's one thing
for the speaker Mike Johnson to say that, Okay, we're
good with this, show me the votes, because I still
think the thing stinks to high heaven.

Speaker 1 (37:41):
And with the votes, with the five votes, that's three.

Speaker 2 (37:45):
Five votes at three am, is somehow supposed to be,
you know, be a filibuster proof. I find the whole
thing to stink to high heaven. And I want to
see the members of Congress who have been as upset
accurately so about what happened, turn around and vote for,
you know, a House agreement that basically gives the Senate
everything that they said they have to come back into town.

(38:06):
They don't have to come back into town to do
something better. They're going to actually stamp, rubber stamp what
the Senate did. I just I need to see it
to believe it.

Speaker 1 (38:14):
Another thing that is being talked a lot about today, Greg,
of course, is birthright citizenship. You know, is American citizenship
being devalued with birthright citizenship? I think we are being
taken advantage of. We have been the one disappointment I
had today during the hearing. I listened to a good
portion of it this morning John Sower, so I'm not

(38:35):
sure his last name did not bring up the issue
of slavery and why the fourteenth Amendment was an acted
to begin with, which is a key part of this.
But you think about this, Greg, America is being taken
advantage of, you know, it is. I mean, as I mentioned,
I think I heard today this figure may not be right,
but there are like five hundred birth tourism centers in China,

(38:57):
and it arranges for Chinese Chinese they're pregnant to come
to the United States and have a child, so in
fact that child can be an American and that leads
to all kinds of other issues as well. The other thing,
there are I think one hundred and thirty three nations
in the world today. We're one of only thirty two
that allow this type of citizenship to take place. All

(39:21):
the other countries around the world, Greg, most of them,
especially those in Europe, have said, Nope, can't do that.
You simply cannot do that. Our citizenship is being stolen
from us as a result of this. And the Supreme
Court apparently you know, you can't read anything into it,
but where it is, they weren't convinced to change it
today and that's sad.

Speaker 2 (39:40):
Yeah, and I you know what I mean, We're just
look at the voting where you have eighty percent or
plus that think that having an ID to vote is
the right way to do it anywhere that's taking a
vote seriously and counting it and wanting not cancel out
people's votes for fake votes. Any of those countries require
ID except I mean, we're we are an outline on
a voter integrity or an outlier on citizenship this way,

(40:04):
and it just it eats us from within. And I
don't know why we can't get this right. And I
don't think that the way birthright citizenship is. And I
know people grapple this and say it's not as easy
as you think. Yes, it is fair enough. I was
a lawmaker. I'm not a lawyer. I didn't practice law.
We made law. But I'm going to just tell you,
when you look at the context by which this whole

(40:25):
fourteenth Amendment occurred, none of that, these these birth and
tourism things were not part of the equation. It's been
it's been a rigged up system. And you used to
have Democrats like Harry Reid Schumer. You can critic Clinton
that would rip what's going on right now?

Speaker 1 (40:40):
Yeah, well, I get your thoughts on this. We've got
a few minutes tonight eight eight eight five seven eight
zero one zero on your cell phone dial pound two
fifty and say hey Rod or leave it some message
on our talk back line. Your thoughts on birthright citizenship?
Is it stealing Americans the opportunity for their own citizenship?
That's coming up on the Rod and Greg Show. A
right welcome back to the show. Just to remind your

(41:01):
live coverage of the President's Addressed to the Nation coming
your way in just about one hour and twenty minutes
from now. You'll hear it live and we'll be there
to walk you through all of this that's coming up
at seven o'clock tonight right now. Number of topics on
the table tonight, including birthright citizenship hearing before the US
Supreme Court by the Trump administration today challenging that what

(41:22):
are your thoughts on all of this? Let's go to
West Valley and talk with Scott today here on the
Rodden Gregg Show. Scott, how are you? Thanks so much
for joining us.

Speaker 8 (41:30):
Doing great, Thanks for taking my call. I listened to
those arguments and it seemed like it was all about
subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If the child of an
illegal illegal admen born in the United States is not
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, then how can we detain

(41:53):
that individual, How can we deport them? How can subject
them to criminal or civil court? If they are not
subject to the jurisdiction of our laws.

Speaker 1 (42:10):
That's a very good point. That's the point people that
think are trying to make, aren't they, Scott.

Speaker 2 (42:14):
Does that mean that the jurisdiction of our laws allow
them or they have not followed the jurisdiction of our
laws and they're outside of those boundaries. So there's not
that there's not benefits that they derive from it.

Speaker 8 (42:27):
I mean, so if you're saying, if you are saying
they're outside the jurisdiction of our laws or the breaking,
then we cannot That's not what it says, subject to
this jurisdiction. If they're not subject to the jurisdiction of
our laws, then we can't do anything to them. Right,

(42:48):
So they're born here and they are subject to the
jurisdiction of our laws, and so they are citizens by
what the constitution says. Now, I don't like that I
don't want children of illegal aliens to become citizens in
the United States. But above what I want is what

(43:10):
the Constitution says, and so we've got to follow the constitution.

Speaker 2 (43:15):
So if let me ask you, because I track what
you're saying, but if it is true that this was
a this this amendment was made specifically to answer the
questions of slaves, children that were born from slavery and
what their status in the United States was. You fast
forward to today and you have these you know, birthing
tourism sites that China has, what you say, werodd five.

Speaker 1 (43:36):
Hundred of them, I've heard.

Speaker 2 (43:38):
Yeah, if you're looking, if you're an originalist and looking
at the Constitution, is that is that the originalist interpretation
that it's anything conceivable from that fourteenth Amendment that was
really looking at what to do with a population that
was in the United States at that time, I mean,
is it is there? That's the part I have a
hard time with is I don't know that the way
it's being interpreted is was ever the way that that

(44:01):
was supposed to be interpreted.

Speaker 8 (44:04):
You know, I hear what you're saying, but you know,
I don't think they wrote the you know, the primary
purpose the fourteenth men, that was to deal with the
slaves in the United States. But I don't think they
wrote it only for that right. They also were looking forward,
and you know, maybe they didn't anticipate everything. But that's

(44:25):
why we've got a constitution that can be amended. Yeah,
and I think that's what needs to be done.

Speaker 1 (44:31):
Yeah, I agree with you, Scott. If we're going to
I think the court is going to rule against the president.
I just you know, from from the questions that were
asked now that good change. And I certainly don't have
an in depth knowledge of how the Supreme Court works here,
but I think it is someday going to take an
Act of Congress, and good luck with that, because Congress
can't even you know, I like to turn on the
light bulb sometimes.

Speaker 2 (44:52):
So yeah, I don't have any faith. Yeah, here do
I either. All right, let's go back to the phones. Greg,
Let's go to Dave in lighton. Dave, thanks for holding.
Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 9 (45:03):
Hey, gentlemen, I just want to say something that's I
need to get this off my chest. When Blake Moore
got elected, I was a delegate and I sent on
the phone and talked to him, gave him an interview.
Everything he said to me was a lie. And I
tried to contact him and he'd never returned my calls.
But I want to bring this up. Blake Moore's got
to go because of the Better Borders Act that's going

(45:25):
to plows burgess owens out. We need to elect Kellyanne Lesenbie.
Kellyanne Lessenby is going to be the one that's challenging
him this year, and we've got to get behind her
and get him out.

Speaker 2 (45:39):
Thank you, Dave, Thank you, Dave.

Speaker 1 (45:40):
You know, here's it's going to be an interesting.

Speaker 2 (45:42):
Rank I talked about we have this is an issue,
and it's Better Boundaries has taken. It was an absolute
scam that it took a red Republican state and it
forged a plus twenty four percent Kamala Harris District and
uh and and from the day, from day one, and
even as Blake Moore was a you know, a member
of that board, he articulated back in twenty eighteen, before
he was a member of Congress or before he elected

(46:04):
that the way that that was written, if it passed,
it gave him a private right of action where they
could then go to the courts if they don't like
what the legislature drew and have a judge decide it
was it was contemplated to do it the way it's
been done before it ever passed. And that is that
was new information to me within the last week or so.
And I think that's a that's a big that's a

(46:25):
that's something that needs to be answered of why in
the world it does.

Speaker 3 (46:29):
Was Okay, it does?

Speaker 1 (46:30):
All right, We've got some callers. We'll get to him.
We need to take a break and we'll continue. It
is the Wingman Wednesday edition other Rot and Gregg Show
right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine. Okay,
and rs, we've talked about birthright citizenship and this phrase
subject to the jurisdiction. Thereof a debate over exactly what
that means. Let's go to Mark in South Jordan and
get his take on this. Mark, how are you welcome

(46:51):
to the Rod and Gregg Show.

Speaker 3 (46:54):
Hi, thank you.

Speaker 11 (46:55):
I've taken a deep dive into this in connection with well,
it doesn't matter for these purposes several years ago, and
there was a statute a couple of years before the
constitutional amendment, and if you look at those two together,

(47:16):
it's clear that what subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant
was that you were only under the jurisdiction of the
United States, because they listed in that prior statute all
the carve outs. And if you were an ambassador to
the United States and you had a kid who was
born here, they weren't a US citizen, and they still

(47:37):
aren't to this day.

Speaker 3 (47:39):
And if you have.

Speaker 11 (47:41):
Anybody who comes legally and then has a child that
they were part of a foreign nation and subject to
a foreign jurisdiction, then they weren't wholly subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, and they had allegiance to
the other country as well. And I think the people

(48:02):
who enacted this constitutional amendment would just be horrified if
they thought it somehow meant that people could sneak across
the border and have a child and it was automatically
a citizen.

Speaker 10 (48:18):
I just don't believe it.

Speaker 1 (48:19):
Yeah, neither do I Mark. I look at it and say,
you know, somebody, I think it was Klay Travis who
said earlier today, Okay, you go to China, you have
a child in China. Is that child now Chinese?

Speaker 8 (48:32):
No?

Speaker 1 (48:32):
No, no, only in the United States.

Speaker 2 (48:35):
And I think it and I both callers had different
takes on that, and I know that's probably why this
is a difficult issue, But I'm going to tell you
that I just if I do. I think if you're
an originalist, if you look at the Constitution, the context
in which it was drafted, even the amendments that have come,
if you don't take the context of what and why,
then I think you it isn't a living In other words,

(48:55):
it's not a living, breathing document that changes with the
times as far as I'm concerned, and I do not
think that the times that we live in today are
remotely close to why what they were trying to deal
with at the time that that amendment passed. And I
think it would be the right thing to do to
clarify that much.

Speaker 1 (49:11):
Yeah, I would agree with you, Greg, But well, I
have to wait and see. We won't get a ruling
from the Supreme Court at least until the end of June.
This is a very important issue for the president. That's
why he showed up during the hearing before the Supreme
Court today, first time a sitting president has ever done that.
But that shows I think people why it's so important
to him speaking to the president. He'll be talking to
us one hour from now, and you'll hear it live

(49:33):
right here on Talk Radio one All five nine, Canterrest
News with Abby's coming Down's been a busy day. We
had the President at the Supreme Court today birthright citizenship.
We had the artements taking off, as Abby just reported,
we're on our way back back to the Moon. And
then we've got the President, as I mentioned, speaking to
the nation about an hour from now. It's going to
be interesting to hear what he has to say tonight.

Speaker 2 (49:55):
Yeah, we're going to bring that in lives as he's
ready to addressed the nation, and yeah, we'll be we'll
be here covering it to make sure, you know, we
can unpack it if we want. And I think this
is going to be about not only is it going
to be about Iran and how that's that's playing out
and where he thinks that's going. But I think he
throws a shot at NATO's Oh I think he does.

(50:15):
I mean he's about done with NATO and what they
haven't done. There's the word alliance, okay, is supposed to
you know, mean something different than what we're we're realizing
in real time.

Speaker 1 (50:26):
Yeah, I would agree with you. As a matter of fact,
he alluded to that, and last night on the Sean
Hannity Show, Secretary's There Marco Rubio basically talked about NATO
and said, Hmmm, we like a two way street right now.
That's not the case.

Speaker 4 (50:39):
If now we have reached a point where the NATO
alliance means that we can't use those bases, that in fact,
that we can no longer use those bases to defend
America's interests.

Speaker 5 (50:49):
The NATO is a one way street.

Speaker 4 (50:50):
The NATO is simply about us having troops in Europe
to defend Europe.

Speaker 5 (50:55):
But when we need their help, not their help.

Speaker 4 (50:57):
We're not asking him to conduct air strikes. When we
need them to allow us to use their military bases,
their answer is no.

Speaker 5 (51:03):
Then why are we in NATO? You have to ask
that question.

Speaker 4 (51:06):
Why do we have billions and billions of dollars, hundreds
of billions of dollars over the years, trillions of dollars,
and all these American forces stationed in the region. If
we can only use it, we can in our time
of need. We're not going to be allowed to use
those bases.

Speaker 1 (51:20):
At Marco Rubio on The Sean Hennedy Show last night. Greg,
I wonder how many Americans over the years have just asked,
why are we spending so much time defending Europe when
they really can't even try and defend themselves. It's a
frustration for the American beaole.

Speaker 2 (51:34):
I'll tell you what, I think this has been a
great test because I didn't know they were so hostile
towards US. I didn't know that missiles they could reach them.
They don't care about. I didn't know that everything that
they get by way of supplied, the supply chain of
that straight, they don't care about in making it safe.
They have no interest in these things. This is all
news to me. And to say that that for those countries,

(51:54):
to say that that's an American problem of which they
can't use their bases, which they would hope we'd use
the bases to protect them, we can't do it for
these reasons. And I think that they benefit the most
from a decapitated, hostile cleric radical Islamic regime in Iran.
They benefit more. They are closer to them than we are,
and yet they are an impediment to us well getting

(52:17):
this done.

Speaker 1 (52:18):
Well, think about the number of American bases that are
in Europe right now as part of NATO. All right,
the amount of money that is spent to maintain those bases,
you don't think that fuels the economy. And then you
have the Prime Minister of Britain coming out today saying
this is not our war really, so they shut off
the straits of horror moves, the strait of horror moves.
You don't get fertilizer, you don't get fuel. Maybe it

(52:40):
is your war. Maybe he needs to rethink that a
little bit.

Speaker 9 (52:43):
Yeah, I just this.

Speaker 2 (52:46):
I think that this has proven some things or shown
revealed some things that I don't know that we quite
understood that they were this unwilling to actually have an
alliance with the United States. And if that is the case,
given that we've been carrying all the weight, I think
there's I think there's a reaction coming on.

Speaker 1 (53:02):
Our newsmaker line right now is Fred Flits. He is
the vice chair at the Center for American Security at
the America First Policy Institute. Fred, thanks for joining us.
Let's talk about Europe. You're right that they now know
that Donald Trump was right when it comes to Iran
and missiles. What about everything going on with Europe and
what's going on. What's your take on this, Fred, Well,

(53:22):
it's a pleasure to be here.

Speaker 3 (53:24):
The President has justifiably frustrated that the US has done
all the heavy lifting with the Israelis to deal with
the global threat from Iran, and all that Europe can
do is complain and say we should have gone to
the UN. They're not going to help. We know their
military capabilities are limited, but it sure would be helpful
and get more legitimacy to the operation if they helped us,

(53:48):
especially since they get most of their oil from the
Strain of Harmonies. It's distressing because this is an alliance
and we're supposed to stand up for each other.

Speaker 2 (53:58):
So I I'm shocked. I thought that Secretary of State
Rubio put it best. It's I thought that we were allies.
That means it's a two way street, not just that
we will protect you or your interests. But you point
out something that should should end all debate. That is
the attempted missile attack on Diego Garcia, that island of
missiles that go four thousand kilometers, when just in late February,

(54:21):
Iran was saying that they didn't have missiles they could
span any further than two thousand kilometers. When that gulp
happened in the UK and in our European allies, when
they saw that they had those long range missiles, why
don't we have them at hello? Why aren't they themselves
more motivated than even we are to actually win in
Iran and get control of that the Gulf of Hormuz.

Speaker 3 (54:45):
It's and you know, it's even worse than that. Iran
had pledged repeatedly they did not have missiles over two
thousand kilometers in range, so then they fired two missiles.
It's something four thousand kilometers away. And we know that
Iran also has a space launch program that just about
all experts believe is actually a plan to develop ICBMs,

(55:06):
and those missiles have a range of at least six
thousand kilometers, which means they can easily hit London. So
I think the Europeans were shocked at that Iran was
basically building a missile program to attack Europe and they
don't have missile defenses. I think they're getting a little
more serious and helping us, but they have a long
way to go.

Speaker 1 (55:24):
Their reluctance to get involved in this fred is could
it be an indication that their military capability in Europe
maybe not up to snuff or as modern as they
should be. Any thoughts on that.

Speaker 3 (55:37):
I think that's something to do with it. But I
think we have these liberal globalists who simply don't want
to do anything that's not blessed by the UN. We
also have a lot of nations that have large Muslim constituencies,
and they're very worried about how these various constituencies, how
these voters would deal with their nations getting involved in

(55:57):
a ward in the Middle East. I think that's a
real problem for Jeremy France in the UK.

Speaker 2 (56:02):
So then what I mean, that's the two words I
like to ask when people you know bring up these Okay,
they're worried about their population, how much migration they've allowed.
That seems to tie their hands politically. Then what what
do they think is the reasonable way forward? Given the
status that Iran has in terms of its missile capabilities,
its nuclear capabilities, its sponsorship of terrorism, what would they

(56:24):
want to see done?

Speaker 3 (56:26):
I think they're simply clueless, and most of them were
still sticking to this fraudulent nuclear deal that the Barack
Obama administration negotiated twenty fifteen that Ron was cheating on
and clearly was not stopping them from developing nuclear weapons.
But when you say then what the what is? There
has to be political change in Europe, and I think
there is increasing rejection of these liberal elitists who are

(56:49):
driving European economies and security and culture into the ground.
We're seeing a big gains being made in France. I
think there'll be big gains in Germany and also in
the UK and upcoming elections. The people of these countries
they see this out of control mass migration, they see
the surge in crime, and how they're basically losing their societies.

(57:11):
I don't think that people are going to stand for
it for long.

Speaker 1 (57:14):
Well, I wonder because I've heard people here in the
US Fred say basically they feel Europe is gone anymore.
We can't depend on them, Like you said, they've been
taken over by very liberal, progressive groups. We can't depend
on them anymore. Ken we do you think at this point?

Speaker 3 (57:31):
I think that we still have a strong relationship and alliance,
and I think it's been weakened. There's been ups and
downs in this alliance over time. I mean, right now
we may be at a low point because they're not
helping with an operation that they really should be helping with.
They know that Iran is a state sponsor or terror.

(57:52):
We now know that Iran built thousands of missiles and
prepositioned them to attack every nation in the Middle East.
Just about This is not a peaceful of the nation.
This is a nation that was a serious threat to
global security. You should have been all in on this,
and I think they're going to have to answer for
a long time US officials why they weren't.

Speaker 2 (58:11):
So does NATO stay around given what's happening now? Is
it now just antiquated and proving that this was a
one way street, never intended to be a true alliance.
What happens with NATO?

Speaker 3 (58:21):
From this experience, it's been a good alliance. It has
stood with us many times in the past. It stood
with us in Afghanistan, It stood with us after nine
to eleven. You know, there's good times at bad times
and relationship with tree nations. I think we still need it.
I think we can fix it, and I don't think
we should allow these recent events to destroy a very

(58:44):
successful defensive alliance. And I think we still need.

Speaker 1 (58:47):
Fred Flaik joining us. Fred, of course, is with the
American First Policy Institute talking about Europe, the US, and NATO.
More coming up here on the Rod and Greg Show
and Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine k n
R s Air. I'm gonna get more haters. What's that sticks? Yeah,
close to journey in my opinion.

Speaker 2 (59:08):
Oh, come on, are you kidding?

Speaker 1 (59:09):
You don't like a big sticks man man?

Speaker 2 (59:13):
Don't say that. In Pittsburgh Renegade really favorite Renegade. That's
our fight, that's our that's our battle. Anthem didn't know
it fourth quarter. You've been to a lot of events
in your life. Is that fair to say, being a
politician the way you were for years being the Speaker
of the House, and to go right, I've been to
a few of them.

Speaker 1 (59:29):
Have you ever been to a funeral for a flag?

Speaker 3 (59:31):
Not once?

Speaker 2 (59:33):
I answer that quickly, accurately. Not why I had not
been to a you know, funeral service for a flag?

Speaker 1 (59:39):
Well, that apparently is what happened yesterday in Boise. Now,
my wife and I when we were first married, we
lived in Boise. Boise was a great town back in
the late seventies. I mean, we really enjoyed. Boise still
have some friends up there as a matter of fact,
But apparently Boise officials yesterday removed a gay pride flag
from the front of city Hall, and they did so

(01:00:00):
minutes after the governor there, Brad Little, signed into law
a bill that bans the city's workaround to continue flying
the flag. If they continue doing it, they would be
fined two thousand dollars a day. Yeah, so they kind
of sent a message.

Speaker 2 (01:00:15):
Now, we passed a lot like that in Utah.

Speaker 1 (01:00:17):
Yes, we did. Now they I want to let you
hear this is the ceremony in which the mayor of
Boys Too, who I believe is gay, talking to the
small crowd that was gathered as they had a funeral
for a flag and everybody for meeting here. I didn't
plan on making a remark beforehand.

Speaker 5 (01:00:36):
The symbol of who we are, and.

Speaker 3 (01:00:41):
It's not political, it's not religious, it's not ideological.

Speaker 11 (01:00:47):
This is a flag that says clearly that we are.

Speaker 1 (01:00:51):
A city that's safe and welcoming for everyone.

Speaker 9 (01:00:54):
And the steps that were taken to.

Speaker 5 (01:00:57):
Seek to raise who we are who you are, to minimize.

Speaker 1 (01:01:02):
The values of the city cannot and will not change
who we are. Well, that's what they did yesterday up
in Boise, over over over the gay pride flag.

Speaker 2 (01:01:27):
Yeah, you know again, it will never be the case
that the gay pride flag is a message of acceptance. Generally,
it is a message and there is a message to
a specific population of people to the exclusion of all
else and everyone else. Yes, you have you have picked
a group of population of which you want to recognize,

(01:01:49):
and even if that's the group you want to signal
that you want to be inclusive in the absence of
any other flag, in the absence of any other expression,
you are saying if you're not, if you don't identify
with that flag, then you're really not on that level
of our inclusion. That that that flag does not is
not inclusive to the general population. There is a flag

(01:02:09):
that is yeah, yeah, the American flag. It's the American flag.
That's Old Glory. Old Glory actually includes every single one
of us on the in this country, every citizen, every American.
You're you know, we're Land of the Free, Home of
the Brave, and that includes all of us Americans. But
when that flag is flown, you are not being inclusive.
You're it's the opposite of yeah, it really is.

Speaker 1 (01:02:32):
You say you're flying it to be recognized, you're flying
it to divide. That's absolute division. Yeah, it is.

Speaker 8 (01:02:38):
It is.

Speaker 1 (01:02:39):
By the way, remember the uh uh Daniel Die He
was a NASCAR driver who was kicked out of NASCAR
apparently for using a gay voice. Remember this story to
mock another indie driver.

Speaker 2 (01:02:50):
I don't remember.

Speaker 1 (01:02:52):
Remember, Well, he was kicked out. He was mocking another
driver using a gay voice. Would apparently you can't use anymore.
But he's been rein stated he has a problem now
Now no team wants to pick him up.

Speaker 2 (01:03:06):
Well, maybe he's not good at driving. Maybe it's not
the Maybe it's not the voice, maybe not, maybe not
his impersonations. It's that he's not, you know, a fast driver.

Speaker 1 (01:03:15):
Maybe not all right, big ruling from the Supreme Court
yesterday on conversion therapy. We'll talk about that coming up
next right here on the Wingman Wednesday edition of The
Rotten Gregg Show in Utah's Talk Radio one oh five
nine k n R S and Greg Joe. We've had
a lot to talk covering to talk about. I love
that bumper music. What a fool believes That's basically everything
that we've been talking about. These democrats doing to this country,

(01:03:39):
All of us could be summed up in a Doobie
Brothers Michael McDonald's song, what a fool Believes? Ye, yeah,
and they do believe in some foolish things.

Speaker 2 (01:03:49):
So what's your prediction on this this speech tonight? You
think it's gonna be an epic one? Do you think
this is going to be? I find sometimes when we
talk about the Iran War, I remember this rate of
her moves was open. We we wiped out the navy.
We we went and took out the minds that they
were doing and were it was all fine, and then
it wasn't. There's just been some shifting. I think that's,

(01:04:10):
you know, Trump keeping everybody on their toes. He doesn't
want to give away strategy. I get all that. What's tonight?

Speaker 3 (01:04:16):
What is this?

Speaker 2 (01:04:16):
Is this another?

Speaker 1 (01:04:18):
He said earlier today he's going to tell the world
how good he is.

Speaker 3 (01:04:22):
Saw that.

Speaker 2 (01:04:24):
He's very impressed of jd. Vance has lost some weight,
apparently looks quite svelt. He needed to tell everybody that
he thought he's I think the specimen he is.

Speaker 1 (01:04:35):
First of all, what the US military has done in
a very short period of time, it's absolutely amazing and
I think I hope he honors the men and women
in our service academies, we're in our services to to
really honor what they've done, this unprecedented what they've been
able to do. I think he I hope he gets
an indication as to how much longer he thinks this

(01:04:55):
is going to take. And to be honest, I think
he's going to take a few minutes to rip on NATO.
He is so disgusted with NATO. The American people, I
think Greg for a long long time have been disgusted
with NATO. He is finally expressing it from a leadership position,
and I think he'll take an opportunity to say that tonight.
What else, I'm not sure.

Speaker 2 (01:05:12):
Yeah, And I think that the NATO issue is one
where we're learning things that we suspected this about them,
but this is you know, this is this is where
you know, when they were giving more money to Russia
because they needed the fuel than they were giving Ukraine
to fight Russia. Yeah, you know, that's when you knew
there was something off over there. But now it's been confirmed.
They could care absolutely care less about this country or

(01:05:34):
really their own safety.

Speaker 1 (01:05:35):
They could care less about Ukraine I think.

Speaker 2 (01:05:37):
At this Yeah, they're just they're in it for themselves
and it's not an alliance.

Speaker 3 (01:05:40):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:05:40):
Well, as we mentioned, big hearing before the Supreme Court
this morning on birthright citizenship. Yesterday, a major ruling coming
down from the nation's highest court as the Supremes ruled
against Colorado's ban on conversion therapy. Now we have such
a ban here in the state of Utah. What this
is going to mean, we do not know yet. But
joining us on our newsmaker line to talk more about

(01:06:02):
the ruling yesterday is Albert Eisenberg. He's an advisor at
the American Unity Fund. Albert, thank you very much for
joining us tonight. Let's talk about the ruling from the
Supreme Court yesterday. How significant of a ruling is this
in your opinion, Albert.

Speaker 10 (01:06:15):
Quite significant.

Speaker 14 (01:06:16):
So just for context, you know, there's a lot going
on in the news in general and certainly right now,
but the Supreme Court heard this case later last year,
Chiles v. Salazar, which had a mandate that Colorado and
about twenty other Blue states like it, have a mandate
that you cannot offer talk therapy to you know, LGBT,

(01:06:40):
you know, gain transgender or gender questioning patients and youth,
and they were preventing a care provider in the case
from exercising what the Supreme Court ultimately held was her
First Amendment rights to have the talk therapy that she
was trained to do. And my organization, American Unity Fund,

(01:07:01):
joined and filed in a meekus brief. So we're quite
happy with the eight to one result, with the Supreme
Court striking down this Colorado law yesterday arguing specifically that
for gender questioning youth, we should not be medically or
surgically transitioning providing sex changes basically to youth under eighteen
year old. So we were quite happy about that, and

(01:07:21):
we're going to feel a lot more litigation after the
Scotis decision.

Speaker 2 (01:07:26):
So I have a question. Years ago, I'm a recovering
public servant. I was in the legislature when the conversion
therapy debate centered around Christian organizations that were helping youth
who were who said that they had same sex attraction
and trying to counsel them to heterosexual relationships and not
same sex attraction. And there was some I don't know

(01:07:49):
what was involved in that, but as a lawmaker way
back when I was convinced that there might be some
processes there that might have been dangered the kid. The
whole world has changed since then. What would a bill
like that or a law that Utah had in terms
of conversion therapy and the crass way to say it
was pray the gay away, but it was really trying

(01:08:10):
to counsel kids away from same sex attraction. Is that
included in terms of freedom of speech that those types
of therapies can continue now go forward, not just the
telling someone who's a boy that you actually might in
fact be a boy. I mean that's where I think
that the focus was on. But how broad is this decision?

Speaker 1 (01:08:32):
Right?

Speaker 3 (01:08:32):
So to your question, it's broad.

Speaker 14 (01:08:34):
And the original therapist who brought the suit forward was
coaching same sex attracted day and lesbian patients, you know,
and trying to quote unquote remedy that that's not the
position of my organization. I mean, the Blue States have
gone so far that if a fourteen year old with
social issues, maybe with autism, with a history of trauma,

(01:08:56):
comes in and it's a biological female and says, you know,
I have generous I think I'm a boy. The only
thing that was legally allowed in Colorado is to say, okay,
we are going to transition you. So that is how
far a lot of these states have gone. And it's
you know, so to your original question, it is a
broad First Amendment ruling that therapists and practitioners and patients

(01:09:18):
can seek that type of therapy, whether it's about a
sexual orientation or gender identity. But specifically, what is relevant
today and pertinent and I think most important is this
idea of transitioning, you know, gender transitions, which is quite
separate from sexual identity.

Speaker 1 (01:09:34):
Albert, this is the latest I think, isn't it in
a string of rulings in which the Court has sided
with conservative Christians their freedom of speech or religion or
limited protection for gags, bisexual and transgender people. I mean,
the trend appears to be at this point where the
Supreme gord is goinging cases like this.

Speaker 3 (01:09:52):
Would you agree, certainly?

Speaker 14 (01:09:54):
So the really significant it's an eight to one ruling.
So to Obama point justices that you guys and your
listeners are familiar with, which is justice, Lady Kagan Antonia said,
Sotomayor joined the conservative and moderate majority that's saying that
this is a freedom of speech issue that and you know,
certainly important seeing this ideological shift on the liberal side

(01:10:17):
of the court. So that's, you know, when we're looking
at the politics of it, which you know, we want
our courts to be non political, but we know that
there's politics involved. Seeing the left splitting on this issue
of gender transitioning children is important and something that we
need to be aware of.

Speaker 2 (01:10:35):
So it begs the question, on an eight to one
majority decision, what is the story with Justice Kintanji Brown Jackson?

Speaker 10 (01:10:41):
Is she?

Speaker 2 (01:10:42):
Like, who's taking her seriously?

Speaker 3 (01:10:44):
Is she?

Speaker 2 (01:10:45):
I mean, what what are we supposed to do with her?
In terms of her comments? I don't even think that
the I think justice is broadly the eight are scoffing
at some of the rationale. She's trying to push forward.
What what what is her story? And where what's her
place in that Supreme Court going forward?

Speaker 14 (01:11:04):
Yeah, there's interesting. The real court watchers, like the lawyers
that are in your listenership and your network will know
what I mean when I say Kagan called out Toatanji
Jackson actually in her written separate comments, So there was
some sort of public split. I think that they're all
pissed off at her, And this is why you know,

(01:11:24):
theater kids need to grow up into adult life. We
should have just put them on the Supreme Court. I
would say it's a cautionary tale.

Speaker 1 (01:11:31):
Where do we go, Albert? I love that, Where do
we go from here? What happens now? Albert.

Speaker 14 (01:11:37):
So now there's going to be a lot of litigation
in the you know, a dozen plus other blue states
that bar care providers from exercising care and exercising their
First Amendment right. So there's going to be a lot
more legal cases brought against these states, and then the
states are going to have to pay out which Colorado.
You know, you're saying that the Supreme Court has sided

(01:11:57):
with conservative Christians. It's always Colorado somehow. So they're gonna
be you know, paying out of their tax payer money
to remedy some of this stuff and going back to
the drawing board. So there's gonna be more litigation, and
then there's gonna be more movement.

Speaker 11 (01:12:09):
We have.

Speaker 14 (01:12:10):
President Trump has signed a number of executive orders on
the youth gender transition. American Unity Fund, which is my organization,
is pushing to make sure that states and at the
federal level, we pass that into law because it's really
you know, the next Democrat president.

Speaker 3 (01:12:26):
Could just rip those all up.

Speaker 1 (01:12:29):
Allen Eisenberg or Albert Eisenberg talking about the ruling yesterday
from the Circuit Art, we do have a band here
in Utah.

Speaker 3 (01:12:36):
Do we not get back?

Speaker 2 (01:12:37):
We do? And it was it was done with this idea,
and I mentioned it in my question to our guests
that that conversion therapy was you you have same sex attraction,
and through therapy you can be rid of a same
sex attraction and be have a attraction to the opposite sex.
And you know, we had a lot of people say

(01:12:58):
that this isn't something you choose, as is something you
can you can through therapy change. But then you fast
forward to today where they're saying, no, no gender is fluid.
I mean there is no there is no same sex
or opposite sex attraction because there's no sex. And now
you're you've got this crazy world where you as a
counselor you can't even say you are the sex that

(01:13:19):
your chromosomes so you are. You can't even say that.
Or in Colorado they tried to make that illegal.

Speaker 1 (01:13:24):
Now you can, thanks to the Supreme Court, you can
say that.

Speaker 2 (01:13:27):
We can start, we can start getting counseling period for
whatever it is that there are counselors that think they
can help people and young people navigate. And look, I've
always believed that let young people be young, let kids
be kids. When you become adult, there's different, different time
and different season in life, you're self determining. But man,
we got to leave these kids alone and let them
actually seek the help or receive the help they need.

Speaker 1 (01:13:49):
I think that's starting to happen.

Speaker 3 (01:13:50):
I do.

Speaker 1 (01:13:51):
I think you know, you're it's funny that Europe has
led the way on this.

Speaker 2 (01:13:55):
Isn't that something?

Speaker 1 (01:13:56):
And it is something? You know they're leading the way
on the same way. Let's step back and re examine
this and think about this. The problem in the United States,
it's all about money and these therapists, these doctors who
are willing to make these sex change operations. Just look
at the dollars, and they're making a lot of money.

Speaker 3 (01:14:15):
From what I.

Speaker 2 (01:14:15):
Understand, there's a lot there's a season where there was
a lot of this that happened. I think there's going
to be a growing number of that we're young and
older now that regret their lives were permanently altered and
they were surgically altered and there's going to be a
big blowback coming.

Speaker 1 (01:14:28):
There will be all right more coming up. Final segment
of the Rod and Greg Show before we head to
the White House for the President's Addressed to the Nation.
Still to come for you on Utah's Talk Radio one
oh five to nine knrs. Just cleared

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: Birthright Citizenship; Forest Service Moves to SLC; Trump Correct on Iran

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