The Rod and Greg Show: Congressman Blake Moore on Increasing Electronics Manufacturing in the U.S.

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the show everybody this afternoon. Look, we got
such a power pack show. There's so many good things.
I have great stories to share with you. Democrats are
just trying to figure out what's wrong with their party,
why no one likes him. There's so much fun. We're
going to talk about that here at the beginning of
the show, but later on the program, we're going to
talk about this NPR lawsuit against the Trump administration. Apparently

(00:23):
they're suing because they're getting their funding cut. Then they
think they are entitled to tax payer dollars, and they
are suing because I guess they think they're not subject
to cut budget cuts, so they're outraged. They have a
free I guess a First Amendment right, a free speech,
which includes your tax payer dollars. And we're going to
speak with someone about this and maybe explore that concept
a little deeper. Later on in the program, we're also

(00:45):
going to be speaking about Trump's efforts. He's cutting government,
trying to find the fraud. I think he's found fraud
and abuse and waste. But the question is is he
effectively communicating that and getting the support of the American people,
And if so, great, If not, why not. We're going
to speak with Sabrina Schaeffer with the R Street Institute.

(01:07):
She's going to talk about what they're seeing out there
and what they think is happening in terms of public
support for right sizing the federal government. Later on, Congressman
Blake Moore got a great bill. It's a bipartisan bill.
It is looking at getting us onshore or increasing our
manufacturing of our microchips. The boards that they sit on

(01:29):
actually is a thing. There's a manufacturing of those microchip boards.
As the trend goes, if many things are made out
of China and the rest of the world, and we
as the United States, find ourselves vulnerable to those supply chains.
He's got a bill that would really ignite the manufacturing
it exists already in the United States, even here in Utah,
to ignite that industry, to make sure that that industry

(01:51):
grows and we become more independent. Great bill, and then
we'll ask them about the big beautiful bill. He's in
the House, he's a member of House leadership. He can
give us some insight on how that big beautiful bill's going.
Now that's over at the Senate, the House of Lords.
And then also we're going to talk to Daily Caller
reporter Ireland Owens's We're going to talk with her about
it seems to be a trend. I mean, June's coming up.

(02:13):
I think that's a gay Pride month. And you've seen
a lot of corporations just get, you know, really embraced
the DEI and these and these months and all these
different things. And she's reporting that it looks like corporations
are kind of stepping back from some of those efforts.
And so we're going to talk to her about that
and what she sees happening in corporate America, and then

(02:35):
maybe the culture here in the country in terms of
this DEI issue and if the American people have pretty
much had it or is this just a passing fade.

Speaker 2 (02:43):
And we'll get more of it later.

Speaker 1 (02:45):
We'll find out later in the program, But let me
just tell you. I want to start this show a
couple of ways. One, I saw the movie Mission Impossible.
What's the Final Reckoning? Any Ray, do you know the
name of that? There was Dead Reckoning, which was a
one final reckoning? Was this last one? I'm gonna tell you.
I'm gonna tell you right, I think Tom Cruise is

(03:05):
the last great action movie star hero we're ever gonna see.
I don't think the movie industry's back. I think it's
back for his movie. I think it was back for
The Top Gun two Maverick. I don't see anyone in Hollywood.
I don't see any artists making the kind of films
that he's made. This Mission Impossible series started nineteen ninety six.

(03:26):
We're talking almost thirty years, and the plots generally the same.
The antagonists are generally the same. The protagonists, you know,
Ethan Hunt and his team are generally the same. And
this country has embraced these simple right and wrong, good
versus evil for thirty years. And I don't think Hollywood
even would recognize it if it was sitting next to it. Nowadays,

(03:49):
I look at the films that they try to pass
along to us as entertainment, they just don't compare. I
thought that movie was so good, and I think that
it is last of the Mohicans. I think it's the
last of its kind. I don't know that we'll see
movies epic action adventure like that. I'll tell you this
guy's hanging off of a plane again, and you know
it's him. His face is warbling around. He is just fearless.

(04:12):
He's sixty two years old too, and I would highly
recommend that movie again. You watch Maverick, you come out,
You're a plotting as a movie theater crowd. You come out,
you feel great. You come out of this movie feeling
great too. The audience I was spontaneously cheered after the
movie was over. When's the last time that's happened? Have
been a long long time. I don't remember the last time.

(04:33):
So loved that movie. Loved the storyline, the narrative. You know,
it's the same one that always works. It's common sense,
and I think it has. The reason why it's so
popular is because it's still the common sense I think
everyday Americans love. And it's why Hollywood fails, because they
have so departed from these common sense traits, principles, mores,

(04:57):
you name it. They don't know it. The left doesn't
understand it. That brings me to this. I have an
article here from the New York Times. It's so great,
it's one of my favorite articles I've ever read from
the From the Times, six months later, democrats are still
searching for a path forward. They are looking through what
they what they with the Times describes as the wreckage

(05:21):
of the twenty twenty four election, and they are trying
to figure out how in the world they did as
poorly as they did with particularly the young demographic. They
they they didn't do well with young young men. Really,
they didn't do well with anyone that's young, depending on
without regard to race, color, creed, anyway they are. They

(05:43):
are first, I'm going to tell you what the problem is.
They did a big they so they the Democrats, they
put this big bunch of you know, swanky, rich Democrat
donors go to these really expensive hotels and they're and
their lobbies and they sit and they have these meetings
and these convey places, and they say, how are we
going to get these these young men? How are we

(06:03):
going to get you know, young people that like the
Democrats and Democrat Party. Again, it wouldn't have anything to
do with your policies, wouldn't be anything to do with
the fact you can't define what a woman is or
a man. It wouldn't be the fact that you tried
to shame men as toxic masculinity and you've attacked a
gender now for how long that none of that is it?
What it really is for them is how do we

(06:25):
create a campaign and use words and messages that will
appeal to these you know, these these men. They call
it SAM speaking with American Men, a strategic plan. They've
literally put twenty million dollars into this perspective. They are
going to have a study to study men because they

(06:47):
just don't know what they are. They're going to study
the reading it, study the syntax, syntax, the language and
the content that gains attention and virility in.

Speaker 2 (06:58):
These spaces, and that in spaces being the.

Speaker 1 (07:02):
Online blogs, you know, podcastings like that, not blogs, but podcasts.
It reminds me of this Let me see. It reminds
me of an episode I saw as a kid. Let
me see if I can play it.

Speaker 3 (07:16):
Here man with his ingenuity and machinery continues to stalk
this creature, a creature described by the Indians as a
gentle being wanting to live in peace in his own habitat,
a creature is some scientists believe is a link to
centuries long past.

Speaker 2 (07:38):
The narrator is Leonard Nimoy.

Speaker 1 (07:40):
You remember Spock, the TV show was called in Search
of That episode was about Bigfoot, but you could actually
apply it to the Democrats right now as they sit
in these really expensive hotels planning how they can come
up with some kind of artificial campaign to to allure
men back to their party because they just don't understand
why they've chosen to go elsewhere. It's it's funny to

(08:03):
watch them, of course, in such perfect Democrat ways. You've
got You've got them trying to figure out what a
man is.

Speaker 2 (08:11):
What do you do?

Speaker 1 (08:11):
I know, let's make a committee. Let's go find the
words that can attract them, draw them in. How about this?
Why don't you why don't you just quit offending them,
Why don't you quit attacking men? Why don't you quit
talking that masculinity is toxic. Why don't you quit trying
to tell men they can play girls sports? Why don't
you try to be able to define what a man
is what a woman is without having it to be

(08:33):
having it cause so much consternation, concern, and really, at
the end of the day, like a Supreme Court justice
asked a simple question to define it, you know, Democrat appointment, Uh,
what's a man? She could to find a woman or whatever.
She couldn't do it. She couldn't do it. So they
had a focus group in the New York Times. They
had this, they obtained information about this effort of Sam

(08:57):
and they are trying to sit with these these focus
groups and ask them what is it about a Republican
and a Democrat man. So they had around two hundred
and fifty focus groups of swing voters. So they didn't
want the Republicans, they didn't want to declare democrats. They
went swing voters and they noticed, these Democrat researchers that

(09:18):
a pattern has emerged amongst these swing voters when asked,
what do you think of? What animals do you think
of when you think of Republicans? And I love this?
They learned that Republicans, according to swing voters, are seen
as apex predators like lions and tigers and sharks, beasts

(09:38):
that take what they want and when they want it.
Democrats are typically tagged as tortoises. I kid you not
focus group independent voters tortoises, slugs or sloths, slow plotting, passive. Era,
you're an independent voter, Era says she. That would be

(10:00):
another one, a Democrat. So then they went to this
Democrat guy, and they hope that this Democrat would give
them maybe a better name for a different animal. And
he said a deer. And they said, oh really, and
he said a deer in headlights.

Speaker 2 (10:11):
Literally.

Speaker 1 (10:11):
This is in the New York Times article six months
ago President Trump swamp swept all the battleground states. Democrat
parties sifting through all the wreckage, they they find today
that they sit at the lowest approval rating in the
in polling history. Twenty seven percent in these battleground states

(10:33):
have a positive approval rating for Democrats. That is the
lowest since nineteen ninety. This is after the Dacock, after
George Herbert Walker Bush beat Decaucus. Democrats had come to
depend on young people, black voters, Latinos, every demographic including
gender veered to the right. And there's a lot of

(10:53):
people in the Democrat Party right now, not the ones
you see on TV, but a lot of them saying, look,
we have people that are voting for Democrats or Republicans
and Donald Trump that used to be Republican, used to
be Democrats. And one Democrat congressman who's charged with finding
candidates to run in Congress said he's having a hard time.
He says, because in so many ways, the people that

(11:15):
should be Democrats have been put These people have been
pushed away from our party. We've been saying that on
the show for a long time that the Democrats have
no ability to keep men or really young people because
they have stripped people of their rights, they have demonized
their gender, everything else, and there is no common sense

(11:36):
to be found, all the common threads like in a
Mission Impossible movie that we all love, without regard to
political party or persuasion. Democrats have completely lost They've lost
their moorings. They want no part of it. And I
think if they could have saved a lot of money,
they only need twenty million to find out why no
guy wants to vote for a Democrat or be a Democrat.
They could have asked us on this show. We'd have

(11:56):
told them, you and the listeners could have told him,
and they have saved a lot of money. Anyway, we
have a lot to get over, go to go over.
When we come back. Tom de Lorenzo from the Miss
the Misis Institute, We're going to talk about that NPR
lawsuit that they filed this morning. See what that's all about.
When we come back. You're listening to Talk Radio one
oh five nine canterists Rod Arquette, he's he's he's not here.

(12:19):
He is still enjoying a Memorial Day weekend.

Speaker 4 (12:22):
Boy.

Speaker 1 (12:22):
When I got when the mouse, when he starts playing boy,
you can't get him back. He just he just goes
on a binger. Boy, he's out there. He's just having
so much fun. I hope he's listening because I know
he doesn't feel well and he won't appreciate that description.
But I'm thinking about your rod. Anyway, I'm your host
going solo today on this Tuesday after the Memorial Day holiday,

(12:45):
joining us on our program. Look, NPR is all the rage.
They are suing the Trump administration because they don't like
that they're funding their federal funding is being cut for
NPRB PBS, and so they're going to a court they're
having to judge say hey, you can't do that. They're
saying the first they have a first minute right to
speech with your taxpayer money. And that's uh, that's that's

(13:09):
the way it is. So joining us on the program
is Tom de Lorenzo, president of the Mesus Institute. It's
a it's a think tank. It's that supports liberty and
really more of a kind of a libertarian uh angle
to things. Uh, mister de Lorenzo, thank you for joining
us on the program. Now, look, I thought, you know,

(13:29):
with this NPR lawsuit and they're fighting because they say
their First Amendment right has been violated, I thought that
the free speech was free, not taxpayer funded.

Speaker 5 (13:38):
What say you, sir, Well, that's that's exactly right. I'm
the president of the nonprofit organization, the NISA Institute, an
economic resource organization, and we speak very freely. We criticize
the government all the time on our website and our publications,
and we have never received one penny of government money,
tax payer money. Where did this idea from that you

(14:00):
need to be subsidized by the taxpayers in order to
have a free speech? And you know, they're saying that
it's unconstitutional for President Trump to do this, But what's
unconstitutional is the existence of public radio and public TV
because they're not in the delegated powers of the US
Constitution in Article one, set and eighth. They're just not

(14:23):
in So the existence of these things is just unconstitutional.
But what they are consistent with is the sixth plank
of a Communist Manifesto, which says this specialization of the
means of communication in the hands of the state and
public radio and public TV moves us a great deal

(14:44):
in that direction of the monopolization of communication in the
hands of the state.

Speaker 6 (14:51):
You know.

Speaker 1 (14:52):
And what's puzzling is that you would think, at least
if they thought they were entitled, they thought they were
a non discretionary fund. Apparently you're not allowed to touch
because they're like they think that of themselves, like social
Security or whatever it is, because you're not how dare
you even think of cutting their budget? But you'd think
at least they'd be calling balls and strikes, trying to
play it pretty fair.

Speaker 2 (15:09):
They don't.

Speaker 1 (15:10):
In my opinion, they are firmly left of center. They
discounted and helped censor the Biden Hunter, the Hunter Biden story,
and October of twenty twenty, they've been their their chorus,
their voice has only been left of center, attacking a
good portion of the duly elected members of you know,
of in Washington, but also of the country. Tell me,

(15:32):
how does a broadcast corporation like this, who demands that
the federal government fund them feel that they can be
so left of center at the same time.

Speaker 5 (15:42):
Yeah, well, it's been true since they're a creation in
nineteen sixty seven and the absurd thing about it all is,
you know, it's a different world today, isn't it. In
nineteen sixty seven there were three television stations, but now
there are hundreds, you know, of streaming programs and networks
and everything like that and the Internet, and so there's
certainly from a technological viewpoint, there's no need at all

(16:06):
for them at all. They've always been a government propaganda outfit,
and you know, in defense of everything the government wants
to do. In fact, that's harmful to free speech, you know,
you know, those of us who criticize the government, it's
it's an uneven even you know, ballgame. They're subsidized and

(16:28):
we're not. And in it'sun American, you know. Thomas Jefferson
famously once said that to compel a man to contribute
to a cause for which he disagrees is sinful and tyrannical.
And that's exactly what this is, compelling people taxpayers to
pay for something ideas with which they disagree, and that's

(16:50):
that was a hallmark of turity in Jefferson's opinion, and
I think he was right about that.

Speaker 1 (16:55):
You know, I think this has a relationship to the
book that was just released, original Sin Jake Happer, the
other gentleman that wrote it with him from Axios. They
really explain in this book something that it's just a
clear principle amongst the journalists, and that was if any
reporting of the of President Joe Biden or his administration
would be seen as helping Republicans, but specifically even helping Trump,

(17:18):
they couldn't. They wouldn't report it. They would not they
wouldn't further it. It was it was a politic bureau,
as some have called it. So what's scary is you
have people in government, but then you have reporters, so
called journalists, who have skin in the game. They are
not willing to tell the truth. They are not willing
to expose government lies without regard to political party. Doesn't

(17:42):
that book it's released, they're kind of confessional of how
that worked during the Biden administration. Doesn't that make the
case that NPR and PBS should absolutely stop being funded,
especially with the free market alternatives that you've described.

Speaker 5 (17:56):
Yeah, what they do is so valuable, as they say,
they should have no trouble attracting investors in an audience
to what they do, just like anybody else. Sure, it's
not just a Biden administration, as all administrations since nineteen
sixty seven, all Democrat administrations anyway, that they're basically you know,
I think about twenty or twenty five years ago, all

(18:18):
the big journalism schools announced that what they're going to
start teaching now is what they call advocacy journalism, which
basically meant advocating whatever was the agenda of the Democrat
Party rather than straightforward journalism. And so they've probably announced
that they were going to just abolish journalism as it
used to be known and become advocates basically for the

(18:41):
Washington establishment. And there you go. That's where you have
it today, with the exception, of course, of a lot
of talk radio and Fox News in some podcasts.

Speaker 1 (18:53):
You know, here's my final question. I always believe I'm
a recovering public servant myself. The danger of accepting federal
funds is that you have to play by their rules
and do what they say if you want those funds.
Here you have a president who's looking to cut public
radio public PBS, NPR and being told or at least
judge shopping to try and stop him from being able

(19:15):
to do it, which apparently means he's not able to
make the rules or do what other presidents have done
the past. What is the future of this lawsuit? Where
do you see this going? You have a lot of
institutional memory, a lot of institutional knowledge. Tell me where
this lawsuit goes. Does it go into the round file
and the garbage or does this actually get legs?

Speaker 5 (19:33):
Yeah, well, even the Supreme Court seems more and more
inclined to just defend whatever the Washington establishment wants for
whatever reasons. But what President Trump is doing is what
American presidents used to do in the nineteenth century, when
it was understood that it wasn't just the Supreme Court
that had a say on what's constitutional, that the president

(19:57):
had an equal say, the Congress has a say, and
the people of the States, who are thought to have
an equal stay on constitutional interpretation. Because there's nothing in
the Constitution that creates a monopoly of five government lawyers
of lifetime tenure to tell us what our freedom is
going to be. That's just something you know, power grab
by the court over and over the decades. And so

(20:18):
President Trump is doing what presidents used to do, is saying,
my interpretation of the Constitution is different, and so thank
you for your opinion in PR and I think he's right.

Speaker 1 (20:31):
Thank you, Tom de Lorenzo. He's a president of MESUS Institute.
You can find that on mesas dot org. There's a
lot of good information. He's exactly right. And I'm telling
you I'm this advocacy journalism is here. I don't think
it ever goes back to what it used to be.
And even what it used to be, I was not
all that great fans of Look, we're going too a break.
When we come back, we're going to be speaking with
Sabrina Schaeffer, the vice president of public Affairs from the

(20:54):
r State Our Street Institute, about Trump's reforms and the
messaging around it. Is it working that and more when
we get back from the break on Utah's Talk Radio
one oh five nine Cannorus. Our next guest check out
this headline, Trump's government reform is all muscle, no message.
H Joining us on the show right now is Sabrina Schaeffer.

(21:16):
She's a vice president of public affairs for Our Street Institute.
Talking about this. She wrote, she penned this column and
I want to know more about it. Sabrina, thank you
for joining us. Can you share with our listeners what
you mean when you say that Trump's message might not
be capturing the American people.

Speaker 7 (21:32):
Yeah, of course, we all want to see Washington get
something done, and I think it's frustrating when we see
years go by and more of the same.

Speaker 8 (21:39):
That being said, I think there was.

Speaker 7 (21:41):
A tremendous sort of sense of possibility when Trump came
in the second term that we were really going to
be able to streamline.

Speaker 8 (21:49):
Government and make government.

Speaker 7 (21:51):
More efficient and get government back to what it's supposed.

Speaker 8 (21:55):
To be doing.

Speaker 7 (21:56):
Where I work at our Street, we talk a lot
about limited effective government. But one of the concerns that
I think a lot of us have is that there's
been sort of a slash and burn mentality, and it.

Speaker 8 (22:08):
Feels as though they're little in the way of.

Speaker 7 (22:10):
A policy roadmap. And because there's no roadmap, it seems
there's no message that's really helping hold it all together
and get the public excited about these changes rather than
sort of fearful of them.

Speaker 1 (22:25):
You know, I'm surprised a little bit because I think
that there's been a a I think Doge and the
Doge effort has brought out almost a overly prescript Not
overly that sounds bad, it's brought a super prescriptive narrative
to this. Over twelve point three million Americans ages one
hundred and twenty and older that still had what the
government considered active Social Security numbers, Treasury Department sending checks

(22:48):
and payments without a simple purchase order number or what
we would consider that if you were in a small
business you would call a PO number, but without knowing
where that money's actually going. I think those stories sound
very specific and relatable to the people, versus if you
look at the and I would argue successful efforts of
the Clinton Gore administration, they had the palettes of regulation
if you remember the reams of paper. I don't remember

(23:11):
the specificity there. I do remember it, I do not
remember it with the efforts of Doge and what Trump's doing,
but I see a very aggressive campaign out there to
undermine his efforts. Is it he's not sharing the information
or that his messengers are being their knees are getting
cut out from under him.

Speaker 8 (23:31):
I think it's maybe a little bit in between. Absolutely,
I should reinforce this idea that I think, the idea
that we.

Speaker 7 (23:40):
Need to write size government and make it more efficient
and make sure that it's doing the jobs that it's supposed.

Speaker 8 (23:46):
To be doing for the American people.

Speaker 9 (23:48):
We are on the same page.

Speaker 7 (23:49):
I think what's concerning is that it seems as though,
and look here, I am in Washington, DC, so I'm
experiencing this maybe differently than some of your listeners because
you know a lot of colleagues that work in these agencies.
But it's a much more sort of arbitrary approach to
eliminating jobs. And it's unfortunate because it seems as though
there have been roadmaps to how best to do this

(24:12):
for years and years and years. Right we have all
sorts of organizations and think tanks and lawmakers who have
been advancing this, and then when it comes to the
actual messaging, it's that there's a sense that you know, yes,
there's waste, broad and abuse, absolutely, but it's sometimes simpler
than that. Right, we have all sorts of programs that
are duplicatus, we don't need. We do have tons of waste,

(24:34):
but people need to understand what that means so that
when they hear that people are losing jobs, they don't
feel like we're doing it in a way that that
isn't compelling. And so it may be that there is
a little bit different perspective here inside the Beltway, which,
of course, you know, I'm aware of that Beltway mentality,
But at the same time, I think it's that we're
close to a lot of these people who are losing.

Speaker 8 (24:57):
Jobs and making sure that we're doing it the right.

Speaker 2 (24:59):
Way, Sabrina.

Speaker 1 (25:00):
During the Clint administration, they offered furloughs for federal workers
that would want to retire early or give them some
incentive to leave if they wanted to. Could you appreciate
that maybe after one term the President Trump served where
he felt maybe undermined even within his own administration or
certainly from maybe government agencies or departments that wanting to
not believe maybe not having the confidence that the people

(25:21):
on the ground on the job that are holdovers from
the Biden administration would be as aggressive in cutting federal government.
Could there be that worry in terms of how you're
trying to right size your federal workforce and keep the
people that would actually want to do what you're doing,
and worry that some people wouldn't want to they'd want
a Trump proof the government. Could that be in the

(25:41):
equation for the president Do you think, Yeah.

Speaker 7 (25:44):
I don't know exactly what's happening.

Speaker 8 (25:46):
Around the table in the White House.

Speaker 7 (25:48):
But you know, I'm sure that there are reasonable political concerns, right,
you know, one administrations.

Speaker 8 (25:53):
In, one is out.

Speaker 7 (25:56):
I think that's all the more reason why that compelling
story is so important. It can't just be with people
who already support you, right, it has to resonate with
with all citizens, all voters. And I think without that
that story, you really sort of risk some of these
what I view as principal policies being misunderstood.

Speaker 1 (26:16):
So and I agree with you essentially, And this is
why I'm excited to have you on the program, because
I do believe that there is an I've never seen
the American people be defensive of a federal government. They
might like their member of Congress, they might like certain things,
but who in the world says no this Federal governments
don't ever change it, don't ever fire anyone, be protective.
I look at Elon Musk, I look at Doje, I

(26:36):
look at some of the commentary and some of the issues,
and I feel it's actually a very transparent administration. What
do you think this administration is missing by way of
its story? I worry that it's not the story it's
this Tesla takedown, it's some of the aggressive offense that
the swamp or the bureaucracy is engaged in, or those
of profit from it that are drowning out. Maybe the

(26:58):
message of how the government needs to s If it's
a message, I guess, Sabrina, what is the message that
President Trump should be refining better?

Speaker 3 (27:08):
Right?

Speaker 7 (27:08):
And I do think that there's you know, we know
that President Trump does a great job at connecting with
voters when he's on the campaign trail.

Speaker 8 (27:15):
There's no doubt that he understands how to connect with voters.

Speaker 7 (27:18):
I would, as someone who is in the public affairs
communications space, I would sound insane if I didn't acknowledge that.
But I think what we see that's missing is sort
of I think a little bit more of that gravitas
with a message now that he's in the White House.
I think I referenced in the article that I recently
did here an interview with Secretary of State Rubio.

Speaker 8 (27:39):
He did an.

Speaker 7 (27:39):
Excellent job explaining not just why they were making cuts,
but how the cuts were going to make the department
more efficient, and how it was going to make sure
that people were on the ground and the places that
they needed to be to have the impact that we
all want them to have. It really did a great
job in sort of demonstrating how some of these intificial

(28:00):
these are slowing down progress, slowing down changes or advances
in human rights missions. And he really made it kind
of cud to life for what can be done to
so that we're actually moving moving the needle.

Speaker 1 (28:14):
I think Secretary has been great. And I don't know
if we even recalling the same moment, but he had
he shared there are three three principles, and he went
through those three and I had that same moment you're
describing where I understood clearly how they how what their
decision tree looks like. A final question, Uh, I would
argue that this Trump, this Trump administration is one of
the most transparent administrations in terms of what their policies are,

(28:37):
what they're what they're looking to do, what their concerns are,
and they're big moves, they're big lifts, tariffs. You know
you've got national security. Do you think that the Trump
administration is as or more transparent than past administrations.

Speaker 7 (28:53):
No, I think you're right. I think there is a
lot of transparency. No administration is perfect, but I do
think there's a lot that they're that.

Speaker 8 (28:59):
They're doing right.

Speaker 7 (29:01):
But I also think, you know, look, I work for
an organization that you know we are. We are sort
of proudly speaks in classically liberal values. We believe deeply
in in free markets, limited effective government. But we also
recognize that we are stronger when we when we when
we engage with people who don't necessarily agree with us,
and when we bring other people to the table to

(29:23):
challenge our ideas. And I think that that's something that
is important for any administration. I think it's challenging right now.
President Trump, you know, did face a tremendous amount of opposition.
But at the same time, I think recognizing that that
everybody doesn't didn't necessarily vote for the president, everybody may

(29:46):
have different perspectives that can be something that will actually
help him achieve these shared goals in the end.

Speaker 1 (29:53):
Well, thank you, Sabrina, Thank you for your column, Thank
you for your insight. We appreciate it. That's Sabrina shcheff Or,
Vice president of Public Affairs R Street Institute, writing a
Trump's for Forum efforts have muscle lack message. We're gonna
talk about that later in this program. Right now, we're
gonna go to a break. We come back, we're to
talk about you're listening to talk radio one oh five

(30:14):
nine canterist. Is it a violation of freedom of speech
in your mind if NPR pbs are cut federally? And
second question I have is relates to our last interview.
Do you think that Trump and his administration do they
have the wrong message or do they have no message
at all when it comes to draining the swamp? I
tend to think that they're putting it out like we've

(30:36):
never seen it before. But a case has been made
that there is either a wrong message or no message
at all when it comes to draining the swamp. I
want to hear from you. Our listener is the smartest
listening audience in all the land. Eight eight eight five
seven zero eight zero one zero eight eight eight five
seven zero eight zero one zero. When we come back
from the break, I want to take your calls, get

(30:58):
your take on those two things. Should we be cut NPR?
Is it a freedom of speech issue at a violation
if you don't?

Speaker 2 (31:04):
And does Trump have the wrong.

Speaker 1 (31:05):
Message or no message at all when it comes to
draining a swamp? Your calls and comments when we come
back after the break. You're listening to Talk radio one
oh five to nine can ers.

Speaker 2 (31:17):
Look.

Speaker 1 (31:17):
Before the break, we had a couple of interviews in
the first hour. One was about this NPR lawsuit that
came out that an MPR is making the argument in
federal court that it is unconstitutional. It is a violation
of the First Amendment, their freedom of speech for the
federal government and for Trump's administration to cut their funding
in any way, that that is infringing on their free speech.

(31:38):
And we had a great discussion about that. We think
free speech is free, not necessarily government paid or sponsored.
So there's that, But what do you say, do you
think it's appropriate that the NPR PBS be cut? That's
a question. Second question. This is the second interview we
did in the four o'clock hour, Sabrina Schaeffer. She's one

(31:59):
of these conservative think tanks inside DC, and she argues
that Trump's cuts are all muscle but no message. Thinks
that he is not really communicating well with the American
people what it is that he is trying to do
and to her and her estimation is not it's not
just a messaging problem. She doesn't know that it's as
well planned as it should be. This is These are

(32:21):
two questions I want to bring to you. Eight eight
eight five seven zero eight zero one zero is the
number to call. I want to know what you think.
Do you agree with these with what's going on with
the MPR lawsuit or what's your take on that? And
then what is your take on Trump's message messaging and
messaging or no messaging about draining the swamp? Is he

(32:41):
communicating enough to the American people. Let's go to the phones.
Let's go to Mike and Sandy. Mike, thank you for holding.
Welcome to the Rodd and Gregg Show.

Speaker 4 (32:51):
I really appreciate it. I think Sabrina is a very
nice person, and I think she articulated her viewpoint very well,
although I think it was very much off base or
should I say, very liberal viewpoint. I think Trump communicates

(33:13):
what he wants to do very clearly. I think the
majority of the American people are behind him one hundred percent,
as I certainly am. And her take is something that
is often and commonly said. When it's the liberals aren't
in power, they always want other people to you know,

(33:34):
you need to listen to another point of view, You
need to sometimes you know, you have a little give
and take. Any Democratic administration, especially the Obama administration, especially
the Biden administration, there was never any given take. And
Trump has done the will of the American people and

(33:57):
is continue to do the will of the American peace.
The only problem I see is that we need to
make sure that a Republican House and Senate act and
follow through with his agenda and his agenda items as
they go forward.

Speaker 2 (34:15):
Bravo, Mike. I couldn't agree more. Thank you for your call.

Speaker 1 (34:18):
I I I agree that the that that it's he
he look Tulsey Gabbard was a Democrat, not planning on
voting for him. You have Rfk junior Democrat, uh was
going to run in that race, that is on his administration,
two members of his administration. There are Democrats. You have
a lot of people.

Speaker 2 (34:36):
Even even Elon.

Speaker 1 (34:38):
Musk was was not considered a Republican or self identify
as a Republican. But Democrats have truly pushed them away.
So I agree with you. I think that it's that
he's actually done it better than others have. And you're
right about the democrats there. I never hear the media
or anybody cry that there's not enough Republicans in the
room once they're in charge.

Speaker 9 (34:59):
Good comment, exactly.

Speaker 1 (35:01):
All right, let's go now to Let's go to Ron
and thank you. Let's go to uh Ron. Do I
have run on the phone.

Speaker 2 (35:18):
See hello, you're there, Rod?

Speaker 9 (35:25):
Ron?

Speaker 2 (35:25):
Are you there?

Speaker 6 (35:27):
I am here.

Speaker 1 (35:27):
I hear you now, sir, Thank you, Thank you for
being patient with me. Look, I got this NaSTA like
board here, Rod usually in front of it. I got it,
but I'm handled it. I'm okay, Ron, Thank you for
holding What do you what do you think about Trump's message?
Is it working? And do you hear it? Is it
not non existent? What do you think?

Speaker 9 (35:46):
Well?

Speaker 6 (35:46):
I hear it because I do not listen to the
mainstream media. I do not read the legacy reports. I
already know that they will be distorted. I go elsewhere
for the truth, and that is you, my friend.

Speaker 1 (36:01):
Oh, thank you, thank you well, thank you Ron, thank
you for your call. And I will tell you this.
I believe he has put out the most clear, clear
as a bell message we've ever heard. It is more
intuitive in terms of one hundred twelve point three million
Americans that are supposedly one hundred and twenty years of age,
and older that have active Social Security card and Social

(36:22):
Security numbers that's finally been finally been taken care of.
There are so many things that I think are relatable
to the American people that are specific that I've not
heard of before. In terms of the re really the fraud,
I think there's so much fraud, these NGOs that are
getting money, this shadow government funded by federal dollars, these NGOs.
It's sickening, and I think we know about that today

(36:44):
like we've never understood before. And I think that is
the work of this current administration. Let's go to but
I want to continue to talk to you. You are
the smartest listening audience and all the land. Let's go
now to Debbie in Salt Lake City. Debbie, thank you
for holding. Welcome to the Rodd and Greg Show.

Speaker 10 (37:01):
Hi.

Speaker 11 (37:02):
I think Trump is doing great, and I don't agree
with the government subsidizing things like NPR and that. But
I'm very upset with what's going on in Congress and
how they threw out the no taxes on Social Security.

(37:23):
I've been always been a Trump supporter, and I got
my heart swored because nobody knows how hard it is
to do that when you're over seventy six and your
husband's seventy eight and losing his memory.

Speaker 2 (37:35):
Well, you know, and yeah, Debbie, I agree with you.

Speaker 10 (37:38):
You know, that is just hard.

Speaker 11 (37:40):
And if they even went to seventy and made it,
it's just so hard.

Speaker 9 (37:44):
You know.

Speaker 11 (37:46):
I was so upset when I found out they threw
that out.

Speaker 1 (37:48):
Well, let me tell you, thank you for calling, But
let me just tell you this, they didn't throw it
out entirely. I understand that seventy five thousand per person
or one hundred and fifty thousand of household income would
not be taxed. They wouldn't tax Social Security. So I
don't know that it's one hundred percent out, but that's
the House version. We'll have to see what the Senate
does with this bill. I don't think it goes unscathed whatever.

(38:10):
I know it's tough to get a majority when you
only have three or four members in the Republican side,
and that vote was hard to get, so the Senate,
you know, there's not a lot of wiggle room there.
But right now, I think it's one hundred and fifty
thousand of combined household income that would not have their
Social Security taxed. But the Senate has some more to do.
What I'm hoping the Senate does is that they leave
that in place. Leave all the tax cuts. Actually it's

(38:33):
just the tax rate the same. There's no tax cuts.
Well there's taxes on tips and things. But make sure
we don't see our taxes raised as the big of
what we have to avoid that get that thing through.
But add some of the things that center Ron Thompson
from Wisconsin's talking Ron Johnson's talking about from Wisconsin. There
is a lot more out there that can be cut
that DOGE is identified, and I'd love to see that

(38:54):
happen in the Senate bill as they're working on it.
And I know it's a tough deal, but I look,
if I'm Elon Musk, I look at what I've I've
put into pulling back the curtain showing the fraud, showing
how much money is being sent to these NGOs, what
those NGOs are doing with that money. It's all social engineering,

(39:15):
left of center, anti American efforts.

Speaker 2 (39:19):
It's it's it's.

Speaker 1 (39:20):
Transporting these illegal aliens that came across the border into
the interior of our country because they well knew that.
Obama's greatest success President Obama's greatest success in removals and
deportations were those that were close to the border that
they could immediately deport them. The further interior into the country,
the harder it was to do. So what did divideen

(39:40):
administration do with these NGOs? And with all of their money.
They're billions and billions of dollars. They took airplanes eight
they sent them everywhere, and that is one of the
one of the hang ups. And I don't think that
as aggressive as the Trump administration's being right now, I
don't think they're ever going to get even close to
the number of people that were allowed to come into

(40:00):
this country illegally to be deported. I don't think they'll
be removed. And even if you went with just the
scariest criminals alone, you see what's happening. You got this clown,
this congressman from Maryland down there in Al Salvados, Al Salvador, saying, Hey,
this is my constitu what I'm trying to see. No,
he's not actually he's not even in the country. He's
not in the country legally, he's not a resident of

(40:21):
your congressional district. Legally, he's in the country of origin
and Democrats are so wrong headed. He's down there talking
about that guy instead of representing the people he actually represents. Anyway,
I think if I'm Elon Musk, I don't you have
to ask yourself why you went through such brain damage?
Dane Bremage, If you're not going to see Congress act

(40:42):
on what you've shown them and revealed needs to be done, Okay,
when we come back, I'd love to hear from more
of you, your comments observations. Does Trump have a message
to drain the swamp at all? Is it a good message?
Do you hear it? And what about NPR and PBS?
Should they be cut? Is it a violation of your
of the free speech to cut them at all? That's

(41:02):
what they're saying. Your comments? Eight eight eight five seven
zero eight zero one zero is the number to call
when we come back after break, we'll go back to you.
The listeners you're listening to talk radio one oh five
nine Canteris, have no fear. I'm in front of the
NASA like board here handling everything, wanting to hear from you,
our listeners, the smartest listening audience and all the land.

(41:26):
The number to call eight eight eight five seven zero
eight zero one zero two interviews we had that. I'm
just curious about your take one NPR's interview. You know,
do you remember when Romney brought up that brought this
up when he was running in twenty twelve against Barack Obama,
and he said, you know, I don't know that we
really need public television anymore. We've got so many choices.

(41:47):
There's so many different varieties of shows, kids shows, you know, documentaries,
history channel, you name it. I think it's outlived its purpose.
And all of a sudden, they had, you know, big
bird upset and they had these these me is coming
out that Sesame Street was mad at Romney for suggesting
such a thing. Well, you know, that's you know, thirteen

(42:07):
years ago. Are we at a place now where we
can actually have a serious conversation about the appropriateness of
government funded TV and radio? And now we've learned that
NPR has never had any desire to be down the
middle of the road, be fair and objective. They've been
left of center defiantly. And now they say it's their
constitutional right to be government government funded and to exist.

(42:30):
That's freedom of speech in their world. And I don't know,
I find it to be a I think they make
the case why we shouldn't be funding them just by
the existence of this lawsuit. I think the lawsuit alone
tells us why good tax payer money shouldn't be thrown
at this any longer. I think it's a waste. But
the second question is we had an interview with Sabrina Schaeffer.

(42:53):
She is, and she admitted this in the interview, that
she works in Washington, d C. So she knows the
people that are getting cut or furloughed in the federal wlace.
She thinks it's a ready fire aim process. She doesn't
think there's any method to it. I don't see it
that way, I think, and I think some of our
colors have mentioned that that they do understand how the

(43:14):
president is approaching this. I asked her if she thought
that in his first term, when he saw himself being
undermined or the things he wanted to do, it was
much harder to do. There was a swamp that didn't
want to go away, and he was getting fighting a
multi front war. I think he's looking at that process
a lot differently now. I think he's put such a
strong cabinet together. I think his departments are looking to

(43:36):
fulfill his promises he made on the campaign trail of
the American people, and the left hates it. And even
those people that would fancy themselves conservative or libertarian think tanks,
they're not invited to the party. They're part of the swamp.
They're not part of his big plan, and I think
they're offended by it. There's been kind of a cottage
industry of all sorts in there. And I love what

(43:57):
one of our listeners had said is that you never
hear when the Democrats are in power. Boy, we need
more Republicans. Boy, there should be a lot more. You know,
Obamacare passed without one single Republican vote in the House
or Senate, not one. And I have never heard. All
I've ever heard about Obamacare socialized medicine is that it's
his landmark legislation. It was historic in nature. There wasn't

(44:21):
a single Republican in Congress, a single Republican in the
Senate that voted voted for that bill. And some of
the horse trading that had to go just to get
the Democrats to vote in unison to help that thing pass.
Remember the I think who was the mary Landerers?

Speaker 6 (44:40):
She was?

Speaker 1 (44:40):
I can't remember name. She was a centator from Louisiana.
They gave her that it was like the Louisiana purchase,
gave her run around money of one hundreds of millions.
They gave another senator money in Nebraska, a Democrat, to
get his vote. Just a lot of I mean, just
a lot of arm twisting, none of this kumbay As
stuff that Republicans are always lectured and finger wag into doing.

(45:02):
With the irony of all that being that you have
more Democrats probably or just i'd argue, just common sense
people now they're part of his cabinet and administration than
you've ever seen in a past Republican administration and certainly
not in any Democrat administration, examples being Rfk Junior, Tulsea Gabbard.

(45:22):
You have, you have voices out there like an Elon
Musk and a Joe Rogan who were never Republicans. Still
probably Joe Rogan would probably still tell you he's not
a Republican. But while the New York Times is reporting
that the Democrats are sitting in the swanky hotels trying
to figure out how to get middle class and working
class men to identify as Republicans or Democrats, the truth

(45:45):
of the matter is they don't. They're they're the elitists.
They're the ones that chased them away. They chased that.
They've been a party of subtraction for a long long time,
and the only way they would ever win I think
any see, any electoral success is to completely either lie
about what they believe or retreat from what they've been
pushing for how long DEI open borders, no public safety,

(46:09):
your law enforcements, your enemy, not the not the predators
and the criminals around you, endless wars that that they
just want to start. I mean anyway, I just think
they have. They have canceled culture, you name it. They
have pushed every reasonable person, every reasonable minded person away.
In this I'm looking at this New York Times article

(46:30):
and one of the uh, one of the parts that
I highlighted was that it says in the article that
the the stark reality is that the downward trend for
Democrats stretches back further than a single election. Republicans have
been gaining ground in voter registration for years. This is
the part working class voters of every race have have
been steadily drifting toward the GOP, and Democrats are increasingly

(46:53):
perceived as the party of college educated elites, the defenders
of a political and economic system that most Americans feel
is failing them. Is that how you feel? It sounds
very familiar to me. I absolutely think that there isn't
a some you know, some little think tank or some
kind of trick in wordsmithing that's going to get people

(47:14):
to come back to them. They have to actually not
be the party of the elitists, not the party of
social engineers. Okay, we need your comments and calls when
we come back from the break. Eight eight eight five
seven zero eight zero one zero is a number to call.
Come back, we'll hear from you. Talk more about this
and whatever other topic you'd like. Here on Utah's Talk
Radio one oh five nine Cannrais, We've been discussing a

(47:37):
lot today. We've been talking about Trump. We've been talking
about his messaging, what he's doing. I got to tell you, folks,
some good things happening while we're I'm shure. I just
seeing consumer confidence. I mean, I love when CNBC has
to admit this because you can just see the pain
in their eyes. Consumer confidence rose twelve point three points
higher than economists expected. Of course, anything good that Trump

(47:59):
does comes with the next the words higher than the
economists expected. Economists never expect anything that Trump's doing to
ever be successful. But consumer confidence is at an all
time high highest it's been since February. And that's in
a time where everyone said all the tariffs and what
he's doing and how he's negotiating is causing too much
turmoil and everything's going to go bad. Just the opposite

(48:20):
is happening. But I want to hear from you the
listeners we've had. You know, we had a discussion in
the four o'clock hour that one of our guests said
that Trump's message either has no message or his message
is all wrong about how he's going to cut government
and does and so he doesn't. He needs to communicate
with the people better, was the gist of the interview.

(48:40):
I want to go to you and see what you
have to say. Eight eight eight five seven zero eight
zero one zero is the number to call if you
have a comment, observation to make Does Trump have a message,
and how he's trying to drain the swamp? Does he
have a message, and is his message effective. Let's go
to the phones, and let's go to Craig and Would Hills. Craig,

(49:00):
thank you for holding. What do you think? What do
you think about Trump and his messaging? Does he have
a message? Are people listening?

Speaker 5 (49:09):
I think he gave the message and now he's getting
to work. Well, let him.

Speaker 2 (49:15):
Work, Let the man cook. You know what, Craig, I agree.

Speaker 3 (49:19):
You know.

Speaker 1 (49:19):
I was reading an article and they it's it's actually
in a report where you're right. I think that people
feel good about this president. I think his message, whether
the media or the inside the swamp people want to
acknowledge it or not, is being noted or being seen.
It's the first time in Rasmus in the polling group's
FIT twenty nine year history of asking the question right track,

(49:42):
wrong track, they've hit FIT fifty percent for the first time,
I think in twenty nine years. So people do see
that he's on the right track. The article says what
you just said. I want to share it with you
and our listeners. It says that that they see a
man in charge working hard to make America great again.
That gives voters confidence in the future, especially when they're

(50:03):
already when they see when they already see the results
in trade deals and lower energy prices. I think that's
what you're saying, Craig, and I agree, and others other
observers agree as well. So let's go back to the phones.
I'd love to hear from his Brad, who's from Pleasant View. Brad,
thank you for calling the Rod and Gregg show. What

(50:24):
do you think?

Speaker 10 (50:25):
I appreciate you, tak I appreciate you taking my call.
I you know, one of the things that really the
only comment I have I remember doing this with when
Sarah Palin she got, you know, run through the Ring
Arnest and if you would have read her book Going Rogue,
take her name off it and just put the accomplishments
of what she did, anybody would be amazed at her

(50:47):
doing the right thing.

Speaker 6 (50:48):
And I think if we did the same.

Speaker 10 (50:49):
Thing and just listed out what this president has done
in the first one hundred plus days, I don't care
if you're liberal, conservative, independent, This man is kicking butt
and he's not the demon that he was meant out
to be. I wish they would list all the stuff
and go back and go, hey, you said that this

(51:11):
was going to happen.

Speaker 9 (51:12):
It didn't.

Speaker 10 (51:12):
You said this was going to happen, it didn't. And
look what he's done. He has done amazing.

Speaker 1 (51:18):
Let me ask you, Brad, do you think that this
newest book that came out to this original sin by
Jake Tapper and Axios journalist Alex Thompson, do you think
do you think that that confessional where they're saying nothing
that Biden was doing, were they willing to report in
a negative way because they didn't want to help Trump?
Do you think that that is going to bolster people's
confidence in Trump, knowing that the media themselves are confessing

(51:40):
that they don't have any ability to report accurately what
he's doing for fear that it makes him more popular.

Speaker 10 (51:48):
You know, I think the ones that you know, if
you're an independent thinker, regardless of what your political persuasion is,
but if you're really willing to look at truth that
most people will see through that there may be a
fringe amount of people that will look at Jake's book
and go Yeah, for the most part, you were paid

(52:10):
to report the pure news, not be a political pundit
for one party or another, So you're trying to cover
you know, a cya.

Speaker 1 (52:20):
Yeah, I agree, Brad, Thank you for your call. I
agree with you. I think I think people I think
it just again confirms what they act like. It's news
to them. But I think they're just pretty embarrassed over
what they've been caught doing. And I think they are
trying to cover their their rear ends and make money
doing it too. By the way, if they can, if

(52:40):
they can get a lot of sales on that book, boy,
they get rewarded for writing it, which is an irony,
isn't it, you know, folks? So I want to keep
talking about this. This rasmusen pole really kind of counters
this narrative that Trump's losing the messaging war. Rasmussen, for
the first time in twenty nine years, is showing a
right track at fifty percent. I think this thing was

(53:02):
at like thirty seven percent under Biden. It's only been
growing in terms of consumer confidence. And now the poll
that shows Americans feeling that America is on the right track,
that's hitting an all time high. And that doesn't happen
by accident. So we'll talk about that more when we
come back after the break. You're listening to Talk Radio
one oh five nine. Okayn't arrests. You can't run with

(53:24):
the with the bulls like me. He can't convalescing. E ray,
it's a word. It's actually a word. He's convalescing, that's true.
So he can't run with the bulls like I do.
He's he can't keep the pace up. He had to
take some extra days off. It's okay, we give him
some slack, you know, get a little long in the tooth,
don't you think anyway, We're coming to the end of

(53:47):
this this this hour. Some things I wanted to talk about. Look,
I think there's been some startling revelations in this book
Original Sin. I hate to promote it. I don't want
Tapper and this. Thompson got to make money on this
book by being a bunch of you know, Lackey's propagandists.
But man, are they ever busting their own side. They're
really exposing them all. Politic bureau I don't even know

(54:08):
if I'm saying it right, but the politi burea is
a term that I've read and I'm well aware of
in the Soviet Union, Communist China. This is a small
group of party people and party with it with power,
the power to decide everything, decide your foreign policy, your defense,
your social you know, your domestic policies. It's all done

(54:28):
in this ultra powerful, small room and small group of people.
They actually had a politici bureau in the Biden White House.

Speaker 2 (54:37):
They called him that. It was a few people.

Speaker 1 (54:40):
They kept the president away from his cabinet secretary so
they wouldn't see how compromised he was.

Speaker 2 (54:45):
Mentally.

Speaker 1 (54:47):
They made all the decisions. None of them had any
expertise necessarily in any of the areas. They were making
very big decisions, impactful decisions, negative with negative consequences on
the country. And then you find out that you Biden
and Hunter Biden were hand in glove part of that
little politibureau as well. When asked about this, here's a

(55:08):
little segon. Here's a little piece from one of the
Sunday morning programs where they're interviewing Alex Thompson about, uh,
the I think this is Shannon Bream talking about what
they were willing to do to stay in power and
even by by hiding Biden's problems in his mental deterioration.

(55:33):
Here's here's here's.

Speaker 12 (55:34):
A clip you quote a long time Biden aid basically
admitting he shouldn't be running again. They said to you
on page eighty five, he just had to win. And
then he could disappear for four years. He'd only have
to show proof of life every once in a while.
His aides could pick up the slack who would have
been running the White House in a second bind.

Speaker 13 (55:52):
Tern Well, this person went on to say that when
you're voting for a president, you're voting for the aids
around him. But these aids were not even Senate confirmed
aid These are a White House age. These were unelected people.
And one of the things that really I think comes
out and are reporting here is that if you believe,
and I think a lot of these people do sincerely
believe that Donald Trump was and is an essential threat

(56:12):
to democracy, you can nationalize anything, including sometimes doing undemocratic things,
which I think is what this person is talking about.

Speaker 1 (56:21):
So to say democracy, you have to do undemocratic things.
And they said this with a straight face. They said
this purposefully, and we felt it. I mean, this is
these are things that we knew where it was going on.
We spoke about this on the show. We would say,
who is It is very dangerous when the people making
decisions that will have consequences, maybe even generationally, especially these

(56:43):
wars and engagement where I mean, you see Trump is
just right in this talking with Zelensky and Ukraine, talking
to Putin, he is going to figure out on his own.
He's taking no one's word for it, certainly not the
state departments on what the status of things are. And
you're hearing some comments from the President today really being
harsh on Putin and his conduct right now. These are

(57:05):
things that President Trump was going to attempt to negotiate
in good faith, learn from those negotiations, and make decisions
because of how he has engaged. That exercise never happened
in the Biden administration, by their own confession in this book,
the decision to arm Ukraine, the decision not to speak
with any of the players, Putin or Zelenski, that was

(57:27):
all made by this very small group. It was a
group of political seasoned, political veterans and his family members,
and they were dubbed inside the White House as the
politic Bureau. And these people they would hire their relatives
to work for them so that they could His scheduler
was one of the guys, his daughter, so that the
scheduler could keep things on the down low. It's pretty

(57:48):
frightening when you see some of the details of how
that administration conducted itself. Especially contrasted with the way that
President Trump is executing this second second term of his
I think it's day and night different and for the better.
When we come back, folks, we're going to talk to
Congressman Blake Moore. He's up to his ears in the
big beautiful bill, but he's also got a bill of

(58:09):
his own.

Speaker 2 (58:10):
It's this.

Speaker 1 (58:11):
It's a bill that has to do with bringing more manufacturing,
more production, especially in this tech space on the computer
chip boards. How can we make sure these things are
being made in the United States where we're not so
dependent on China other countries. We got a supply chain
problem in this country on all fronts, and this is
just one of them. But Congressman Blake Moore is working

(58:33):
on a bipartisan bill to address to address at least
a part of this issue. And I think you're going
to want to hear about it. It's it's it's it's
a good bill. It looks like it's going to be
a good but it might have some legs too because
it's bipartisan, which we can always use on some issues.
I think it has a national security aspect to it
as well, so jobs national security, supply chain's got it all.

(58:56):
You'll find out about that when we come back after
the break. You're listening to Talk Radio one oh five
nine Danners joining us on the program today and now
is Congressman Blake Moore. And Congressman Blake Moore. He's got
a bill. It's called the Protecting It's a bipartisan bill.

(59:18):
He and a Democrat colleague have sponsored this bill. It's
called the Protecting Circuit Boards and Substrate Act. Now that
isn't as cool of a name as a big, beautiful bill,
but I think this bill could be beautiful. Congressman, welcome
to the Rodd and Greg Show. Tell us about this bill.
Tell our listeners about this bill. This beautiful bill.

Speaker 9 (59:38):
Much more boring title, but nonetheless very very important and
just broadly, the big picture for this bill is the
US used to produce upwards to thirty percent of the
world's printed circuit boards. Printed circuit boards, you know, like
the chip industry, are ubiquitous in actually all types of technology,

(01:00:02):
particularly defense related UH aspects of of the of the economy.
There we've seeded that too. Now we're only creating about
four percent. And so what this bill does is creates
a positive tax incentive to purchase US made printed circuit boards,

(01:00:26):
and in doing so, we want to sort of seize
that ability to to to re shore that type of
manufacturing because we've seated this this this pretty much too
largely to China and other Asian nations, some allies, some
more hostile, and we need to be doing that as

(01:00:46):
far as the benefit of our own supply chain and
national security purposes. And so this is a this is
a this is kind of a way you can do
it in a positive way to incentivize purchasing of US
US made printed circuit boards.

Speaker 2 (01:00:59):
Love the bill.

Speaker 1 (01:01:00):
I love what you're saying because it seems to be
a trend China ninety six percent of extracted processed rare minerals.
We've seated that space. Our pharmaceutical space seems like we've
seated that offshore as well. Not feeling very independent as
a nation at the moment, this bill looks like it's
trying to get recapture that. Specifically in this critical area
of our microchips and these boards. We have to have

(01:01:22):
more of these. What's the kind of runway necessary? Because
sometimes when the President talks about onshoing these things, they say, well,
you just don't get it overnight. What kind of runway
will it take for industry companies to really embrace if
your A bill were to pass and you could see
this tax credit to incentivize buying American made circuit boards
like this, what kind of time does it take to

(01:01:43):
get something like this going.

Speaker 9 (01:01:45):
The benefits of this is this doesn't aren't necessarily require
brand new construction. As we reshure, there are already several
really good trended circuit board manufacturing opportunities here that are
up and running and are fully functional. One of them,
and the reason I was close to this originally was
because one of them is in my district, in the
first district up in Logan, so there already is. It

(01:02:06):
would be more of an expansion effort and increased output
as opposed to having to, like, you know, build an
entire new facility. That may take place, but there's already
enough right now that are supporting the defense industry and
competing on a global scale at stage, because there's such
a high demand, you know, it's almost like anything we

(01:02:26):
can produce in this world is going to be purchased.
We just want to take that four percent and grow
it back to closer to what it was, and you
can do that because things are already established here. You
don't have to create a bunch of new construction.

Speaker 1 (01:02:39):
I love the fact that A we have existing industry
here and B it's in Utah, it's in our own state,
which is just it is great. You got bipartisan support
for this. I think you need it, especially when you
get to the Senate you need sixty votes. Tell me
about your your Democrat co sponsor. What's your prospects as
you navigate this bill through the Congress and kind of
a divided well it's always divided, but it's it's a

(01:03:00):
touch and ghost thing. But you're it's a pie barbisan bill.
How does this bill look? What's its prospects look like?

Speaker 14 (01:03:06):
Prospects are you know, you're always you're you're already always
against the ropes on anything you do legislatively in Congress, right,
But RAJ Christian Morphy is a great guy.

Speaker 6 (01:03:18):
Uh.

Speaker 9 (01:03:19):
He gets he's actually one of like the leads on
the China Task Force or the China Subcommittee or the
sort of the Select Committee. So he's a guy that
gets a big picture on this strong on national security
type of thing. And he was willing to jump right on.
And I've got a relationship with him because I've traveled
overseas with him a couple of times to some of
our allies in Europe. Uh, and so he gets the big, big,

(01:03:40):
big picture.

Speaker 10 (01:03:43):
You know what.

Speaker 9 (01:03:44):
We just got done with this, as you mentioned, the
big beautiful bill that's going to pass, right, we got
it through the House, we got to get through the Senate,
and then eventually like this is too important not to pass.
Sometimes attaching things on the bills like that are good,
but we're trying. It's still maintained, you know, it's independence,
works through works through the defense, world defense aspects of things.

(01:04:08):
Is still very much doable because it is does still
have the good strong bipartisan support, and so we have
we have hope. Now it's been in the play for
a couple of years, we've introduced it. Now I think
we're in the strongest position, but it's still going to
be an up to battle, as is everything.

Speaker 1 (01:04:21):
Well, I think your timing is right. I think we're
more sensitive to the role that China's played in our
supply chain, or the or the exposure we have to
our dependence on China and other countries, and so I
think that it's on its front of mine for Americans
right now, So I do I think it's I'm excited
about this bill when I read about it. Let's go
back to the big beautiful bill you just mentioned it.

(01:04:42):
By the way. You know, I know you've got a
lot of grief about fall asleep, but you your hours
are crazy. Like you ever heard of nine to five
Monday through Friday. You guys recess for two weeks, then
they make your work all night long. I don't know
how you're supposed to stay awake. Who's who's making a
schedule over there?

Speaker 9 (01:04:56):
It was tough. But the reason we did the schedule
is because.

Speaker 6 (01:05:00):
If we were to.

Speaker 9 (01:05:01):
Recess at say ten o'clock at night and then start
back again in the morning, that gives Democrat staff all
night long to to write a whole bunch of new
amendments and again these amendments. And that's the same way
with us when we are in the minority, Republicans, we
throw as many amendments as possible to delay tactics or
messaging opportunities anyway, So the Democrats, we knew they were

(01:05:22):
going to do that, and we just sort of powered through.
So you couldn't refresh all those new amendments. Interesting, but yeah, ultimately,
I think people saw when it was four am and
we had been going for like several straight hours, they
were they actually got the joke too, and they saw
me laughing after, so.

Speaker 2 (01:05:37):
I thought, you can laugh at yourself.

Speaker 9 (01:05:39):
You laugh for yourself. You should be okay.

Speaker 1 (01:05:41):
You handled it, You handled it well. I thought it was.
I thought it was a very good moment. And at
first I thought you just had it like a rough night,
like you thought you were still in college. But no,
it turned out you'd been there all night long, and
so I it was.

Speaker 2 (01:05:51):
It was.

Speaker 1 (01:05:52):
It was interesting, but that's interesting perspective you shared. Final
question for me, you were in house leadership. You've been
working on You've been working with the Senate on this
this bill. I know there are senators out there, and
I don't know if this is what your touch points are,
but there are some senators like Ron Johnson from Wisconsin
that wanted to see more aggressive cuts from the what
a doge is identified as waste or fraud? Tell me

(01:06:14):
how are the if there are negotiations going on with
the Senate, or if there's work that you're doing on
the bill, What are its prospects and what's happening with that?

Speaker 2 (01:06:22):
Give us an update.

Speaker 9 (01:06:24):
Absolutely, look for the House of Representatives, the Republican Conference.
We are a narrow majority, right, we have like three
or four seats at any given time for us to
come together. We have found a perfect sweet spot. It
was able to make significant cuts, more than there ever
has been in a bill like this before. Significant cuts.

(01:06:46):
We have made this a deficit neutral bill. Don't listen
to anybody out there that's saying this is a three
trillion dollar ad to the deficit. It's simply not true.
This is a deficit neutral bill. I wish we were
cutting the deficit with a bill like this. There's there's
more of that happening than you assume. But with this bill,
we made sure it was deficit neutral. And as this

(01:07:06):
goes to the Senate, some senators are going to want
to cut more. Some are saying we've cut too much.
They're going to have the same things that we came through.
They're going to come to that realization that we've got
to get a sweet spot. We have to be willing
to support and move this forward. Greg. This is the
kind of moment where you need a stand up double
instead of a grand slam on some of these aspects,
and a stand up double moves us forward. It's a

(01:07:28):
significant win. And we have the biggest tax increase in
American history looming at the end of this year. And
if we don't get this bill done with significant spending cuts,
even through medicaid, that's just tough politically, but we're doing
it in a smart way. If we don't do this now,
we will have a significant tax increase next year, not

(01:07:49):
just on companies, but on families in particular, and low
income and middle income families. And we can't let that happen.
And so we've got to get this strong bill done.
They'll always be quibbling, Hey, it's not enough, it's too much,
yadayad YadA. But we've got to find that sweet spot.
The Senate, I think can find that sweet spot. Get
it back over to us, and let's wrap this up.

Speaker 1 (01:08:09):
Thank you, Blake Moore, Congress and Blake Moore. Interesting discussion.
Interesting that that all miter was really to keep more
amendments from just polluting the bill and just delaying it.
I didn't I had not heard that before, so I
thought that was good perspective. I love more manufacturing. I
love more dependent independence for the United States and even

(01:08:29):
for particularly for Utah in terms of the tech space, microchips,
its boards. I think that has to happen and then
some on all fronts. So glad to see that that
has some bipartis and support. I'll be tracking that bill
hoping to see it it be successful. So it sounds
like Blake Congress and Blake Moore is after some good
things and we'll keep watching and hopefully that we'll see it. So, folks,

(01:08:52):
when we come back, I want to talk about I
want to talk about the French president McCrone. He was
getting off the plane this weekend and I think he
had a little bit of a disagreement with the wife
and she slapped him right in a face. I want
to talk about that when we come back after the break.
I think there's a pattern there.

Speaker 2 (01:09:12):
I do.

Speaker 1 (01:09:13):
I think there's something going on with that. I want
to talk about. I want to explore it more. We're
going to unpack that when we come back. So hang
on through the break. You're listening to talk Radio one
oh five nine Cannorus. I have been watching this and
I've so the French president Macron he's flying somewhere and
they're opening the door. He's going to come out. The
press is waiting for him, and and you know, the

(01:09:37):
door opens, and I don't think that the president and
his wife are aware that the door is open, and
that there's the cameras are watching inside the interior of
the plane that he's about to step out on. And
as I've watched this a zillion times in slow mo
and everything else, as those doors open, you can see
him his head, you can see just him alone macron,

(01:09:58):
and he's looking to his is right, which is towards
his wife. And you see this hand and you and
with a red and it has it's a red sleeve.
Just go, just palm the middle of his face and
push him backwards, and he pushes his head and as
she pushes it, his head gets turned towards the door,

(01:10:20):
and to his horror, he realizes, oh, this door is open.
She takes she just flat palms him in the face.
Head turns and he is is his head's being shoved
to the way of the door. He looks at the
door and there is everybody looking at him. And so
he goes from this understandably frustrated look after just getting slapped,

(01:10:43):
actually pushed in the face to he just puts the
perma smile on and he waves. He gives like a
quick little wave and then uh, he starts to proceed,
and you can see that all the people, all the
people around the airplane, they're just awkward. Is this one
woman who helped open the door, and she's like, oh,
amply if I just saw it, and she's kind of
like not making an eye contact. She feels totally awkward.

(01:11:05):
So he knows that he might have been seen. So
he's given a smile and he's trying to make up
for it. He reaches for his wife's hand to kind
of probably to kind of, you know, make up for
the fact he just got publicly smacked, and she just
doesn't even get near him. She keeps her hand away.
He has to walk down those stairs with her, but
she's not shape. She's not going to hold his hand

(01:11:29):
at all. I don't think at this point she's aware
at all that everybody has seen it and it has
gone viral. I mean it is people have made funny
memes of it. It's in slow motion, it shows his reaction.
It's just there's no end. People on X are just hilarious.
I mean, you're just there is just so much that
how I feel today. And it shows up with a

(01:11:50):
fate with the hand plant and his face, you know,
and it's in freeze frame. Anyway, I was looking at that,
and I was thinking, hmm, here you have a president
and you got this angry woman wife. Okay, And I
remember Cocker Carlson once said that the Republican Democrat Party
is a party of angry women and weak men. And

(01:12:12):
he wasn't talking about this moment. This is this is
that he would have had to see in the future
to predict this moment. He was talking about the Elizabeth
Warrens and the you know, and all the all the
angry women, the Nancy Pelosis, and then all the weak
men who are having trouble, you know, saying that boys
shouldn't play girls' sports, and in their party they can't,
they can't man up. And now they've got to have

(01:12:34):
a twenty million dollar study to see if they can
get men back in the Democrat Party because weak men
is just not really a tract. It's not what we
look for in our public policy or public servants or
anything like that. Who else do we know who was
president and might have had a overly aggressive wife.

Speaker 2 (01:12:51):
I'll tell you who. I who I just.

Speaker 1 (01:12:53):
Realized could be in this little club with President mccrone's wife.
How about Jill Biden, Doctor Jill Biden. She seems to
be running the show. This is this book that came
out of ibet keep mentioning. Seems that she had a
lot to say, had a lot to do. She would
yell at the staff if if they let him talk
for too long, because the longer he spoke, the more

(01:13:13):
you knew he wasn't though nobody was home. She was
part of that politibureau, the little, small, tiny group that
kept away the cabinet secretaries and the staff from seeing
what he was really like. She was part of that
group that made the decisions. You see her in the
scenes where they're walking on the beach whatever, or coming

(01:13:34):
off of marine one, the helicopter. She just trudges her
own way. She lets him just kind of flop around
and walk aimlessly, and she just walks her own way.
I think she and mccrone's wife have a lot in common.
I think there's a trend there. They might want to
start a support McCrone Biden. They might want to start
a support group. I don't know how many weak men
are in the Democrat Party and how many are married

(01:13:56):
to angry women, but I'll bet you I'm just guessing
a pretty big group. I think it could be a
significant support group, because it seems to be why the
Democrats have to spend twenty million dollars and sit in
some Shishi luxury hotel talking about these everyday working class
men in America who don't want anything to do with

(01:14:17):
their party. They don't even know what their own problem is.
And maybe part of it is these these angry women
that are telling them what to do all the time.
That's why they don't know. I anyway, that's just a theory.
It's a theory of mine. I saw this, I saw
this replay. I started thinking about doctor Jill Biden. I thought,
I think this is very similar. The only thing is

(01:14:38):
we just didn't see the Air Force one door open
early enough to see the old smack in the head
to wake them up.

Speaker 2 (01:14:43):
That's my theory. That's what I'm going with.

Speaker 1 (01:14:46):
Okay, folks, when we come back, we're going to speak
with Ireland Owen. She is a reporter with the Daily Caller.
She's going to talk about the corporate retreat from the pride,
the DEI support that the corporate virtue signalers have been
doing for for so long, it looks like there might
be a little bit of a recoil going on. We're
going to explore that that issue when we come back

(01:15:07):
after the break and find out what that's all about.
After so again, hang on, we'll talk to Ireland Owens
when we come back. You're listening to Talk Radio one
oh five nine can Ars. We have as our guest
on the program, Ireland Owens. She's a reporter with a
daily caller. She has a great column titled and this

(01:15:27):
is the headline, Corporate America retreats from gay Pride events
across US amid Trump, DEI crackdown. Ireland, welcome to the program.
What's happening with Trump, this Trump administration and what's happening
with these corporations right now?

Speaker 2 (01:15:43):
In real time?

Speaker 15 (01:15:44):
You know, there's been a growing number of reports the
past couple months that a variety of different US businesses
and corporations have sort of either been backpedaling from their
DI efforts or eliminating, you know, a whole de offices,
whole DI programs, I think that it does reflect just

(01:16:06):
a broader shift away from DEI in corporate America. I
think that the Trump administration has obviously been kind of
cracking down on different DI programs across the federal government
and also the private sectors. So it would appear to
be at least in part or response to the Trump
administration kind of saying that they think it's time for

(01:16:30):
DEI policies to be replaced.

Speaker 1 (01:16:34):
So I've always wondered if they were really into it
to begin with, really, or if it was just one
of these virtue signaling boxes that they were checking, and
if you saw the tide turn, they would retreat very
quickly because they weren't. Their heart wasn't into it. Others
worry that they are into it and that they're just
hiding the same I think devisive DEI agenda just calling
it by a different name. What's your take on that.

Speaker 15 (01:16:55):
There have been some reports that certain companies are rebranding
their DEI efforts instead of fully abandoning them. But I
know that something I touched on in my article is
that you know, there are all these different gay pride
events and gay pride festivals scheduled to happen this year,

(01:17:18):
and we're seeing a number of reports showing that a
lot of them are a lot but organizers are scrambling
for funds, and it just seems like a lot of
corporate sponsors are sort of backpedaling or fully backing out
of supporting these events. So it definitely seems to be
a broad shift.

Speaker 1 (01:17:37):
So there's two things that I've noticed with when we
saw the new administration, the by administration come in and
they were embracing and actually pushing as hard as they
could this DEI agenda. It seemed like the gay Pride
month and efforts and corporate sponsorships were getting a lot
more aggressive and more public and actually some things you

(01:17:57):
just wouldn't want kids to see on television. But the
other one is involved children. It involves swimsuits for boys
that think they're girls. And it really you saw this.
You saw consumers at least on the retail level, just
offended by just the messages and the way they were promoting.

Speaker 2 (01:18:14):
Uh DEI.

Speaker 1 (01:18:16):
Do you think that that those types of things, we've
jumped the shark, We've gone too far. America is recoiling
as Americans from those efforts, or do you think this
is minimally stagnant, and we're going to see it come
back and come back with a you know, with a
vengeance when we don't have a president Trump.

Speaker 15 (01:18:32):
It's kind of difficult to speculate. I know that I have,
you know, seen some reporting, some articles highlighting how over
the past couple of years, obviously a lot of consumers
have pushed back at certain companies who have been championing
these LGBT two or other DEI policies, or like certain
stores who sell Pride the merchandise for Pride Months, stuff

(01:18:56):
like that. I think that there we have seen some
pushback the past couple of years from consumers. Obviously, some
consumers are in favor of it, but I think that
it kind of does make you wonder, like, are a
lot of these companies for of backpedaling on supporting these
types of efforts because of not only the Trump Administration's
efforts to crack down on DEI, but also you know,

(01:19:19):
what are their customers saying?

Speaker 6 (01:19:22):
Like?

Speaker 15 (01:19:22):
What are consumers saying? Like are they pushing back against
the DEI movement?

Speaker 6 (01:19:27):
You call it?

Speaker 1 (01:19:28):
I know your reporter, and I know you're not your
opinion is just you're you're a thought leader. So you've
done this great column and I am looking for your
opinion on this, but there is a saying go woke,
go broke. You've seen it in the movies where instead
of movies that people all came around and loved, there
was a lot it felt to a lot of moviegoers
being lectured to or being propagandized or something like that.

(01:19:52):
We see it in the retail space when you see
these DEI efforts that are going on. Do you think
that it's just do you think that it's commercially success
to continue to find the differences in a nation of immigrants,
whether it be your race, color, creed, sexual preference, you
name it. Or do you think that the commercial success
really lies in Americans being Americans and just being seen

(01:20:14):
as one. Do you think that there's a if it
doesn't make money, doesn't make sense, where would corporate America
see the greatest upside in terms of whatever they're doing
and engaging with the public.

Speaker 15 (01:20:25):
You know, we've done some coverage as a caller and
for this article that we're discussing today, one of the
people I interview had mentioned to me that he felt
strongly like a lot of American consumers just want companies
to be neutral, like, no matter their political stance. It's
a lot of Americans, I think, feel like, you know,
these companies shouldn't be pushing certain initiatives, like they should

(01:20:48):
just have more than a neutral stance. So, yeah, I
think it's definitely been interesting to see the way Corporate
America seems to be slowly back pedling on all of
these finishes that, like you mentioned, they've championed under the
previous administration. It does seem like a lot of Americans
sort of want companies to be more neutral on this.

Speaker 1 (01:21:11):
Yeah, and I tend to think that's the case. I
can't think of a company that's embraced EI that's seen
wild commercial success.

Speaker 2 (01:21:19):
But here's my worry right now.

Speaker 1 (01:21:21):
You mentioned your article Attorney General Pambondi, she's spearheading the
effort to overturn the Biden ra Dei programs at the
Department of Justice. Is this something that can be longstanding
what the Trump administration is engaged in now or are
we just going to see a pendulum depending on who's
takes you know, who wins the White House, what administration's
in charge, or do you think that the people will

(01:21:43):
and even on the Democrat presidential candidate maybe be compelling
in terms of whoever that is, maybe not repeat what
President Biden's done and go the same direction as President
Trump on this.

Speaker 15 (01:21:55):
I mean, I do feel like obviously depending on who's
in power, parties in power, you know, in the federal government,
especially like there's going to be different executive orders, like
how we've seen Biden champion a lot of the DII
programs and did executive orders on day one to sort
of invent DEI into the federal government, which the Trump

(01:22:16):
administration has been reversing a lot of those policies. So
I think the pendulum could swing again for sure, in
my opinion, depending on who's in power the next presidential administration.
But I do feel like it's definitely interesting to see
this trend of businesses specifically, it seems like the past

(01:22:38):
year plus the sort of either referred to more neutral
stances or you know, they're shifting away from the type
of DII and LGBTQW efforts that they were promoting under Biden.

Speaker 1 (01:22:53):
Thank you, Ireland Owens, you're a reporter with Daily Callers.
Thank you for your column, Thanks for your work, Thanks
for your comments. A very interesting issue. I think. I
think I'm hoping and expecting America to have learned a
lesson from this insanity and that we are a country
of common sense and hardworking people, and that we're going
to reject this going forward. That's my take, That's what

(01:23:13):
I hope. Look, when we come back, I've got we
got a final segment, but I want to talk about
Scott Pelly from sixty minutes. When we come back after
the break, I want to play for you a little
bit of his commencement speech at Wake Forest to the
graduates there at that university. You know him's Bruce Springsteen,
you know, being overseas. I don't know which is worse,
but we're going to go into that when we get
back after the break. You'll want to hang on. You're

(01:23:35):
listening to Talk Radio one oh five nine Canteress. There's
been a lot of turmoil over there at CBS. You've
had people quitting the news, the person that was head
of the news, and then you've had some I don't know,
You've just had a lot of complaining going on. Scott
Pelly gets on and he wants to complain that the
guy had to resign because he doesn't like that CBS
is looking to settle with President Trump over some of

(01:23:57):
the Trump's lawsuits. In terms of how they've been treating him,
it's just been a lot of drama, a lot a
lot of drama. Well, it's one thing to decide as
a consumer of information whether you want to watch sixty
minutes or not. It's a whole nother thing. I believe
to go to a commencement address. I've been to one
for my daughter when she graduated. I'll probably be the

(01:24:19):
one for junior for my son next year at Utah State.
So as you have parents that are in attendance these
commencement addresses, you have the students that are in attendance,
and then you get Scott Pelly as your commitment, the
person that's going to address these kids, get them, give
them that springboard for the rest of their lives. And
this is what you hear.

Speaker 16 (01:24:40):
But in this moment, this moment, this morning, our sacred
rule of law is under attack. Journalism is under attack,
universities are under attack, freedom of speech is under attack,

(01:25:00):
and insidious fear.

Speaker 2 (01:25:05):
Is reaching.

Speaker 16 (01:25:07):
Through our schools, our businesses, our homes, and into our
private thoughts.

Speaker 9 (01:25:17):
The fear to speak in America.

Speaker 16 (01:25:24):
Power can rewrite history with grotesque, false narratives. They can
make criminals heroes and heroes criminals. Power can change the
definition of the words we use to describe reality. Diversity

(01:25:49):
is now described as illegal, Equity is to be shunned.
Inclusion is a dirty word. This is an old playbook,
my friends. There's nothing new in this.

Speaker 1 (01:26:08):
This melodramatic, unhinged pretend journalist just just absolutely confused every
graduate in attendance, every parent who paid for their kids
to or participate in their kids graduating from that Wake
Forest University up until he got to DEI, which he

(01:26:28):
just says the words of diversity, equity, inclusion, Like, how
could anyone be opposed to those very words, Scott Pelly,
We all know what those words mean.

Speaker 15 (01:26:37):
Now.

Speaker 1 (01:26:38):
They don't mean anything good. They only mean exclusion, division.
That the opposite of what those words are supposed to mean.
And he knows that as well. Everything that he described
in that speech is what the Trump the Biden administration
did to us. They had a ministry of truth, they
had censorship when they had control of social media, they

(01:27:00):
did lie to us about everything, including and most recently,
the complete cover up that President Biden was not in
control at all, that he had a small knit politibureau group.
It's the very thing that Scott Pelly's talking about, but
it was happening on his watch, of which he had
not one thing to say then or now. He wants

(01:27:22):
to condemn this president honestly in contrast to what we've
just lived through and what we're learning in real time
with this, you know, with Jake Tapper and this Alec
Thompson completely outing these journalists and the Biden administration for
their cover up this Scott Pelly, he is and I'm
looking at a ex post from Piers Morgan and he

(01:27:44):
says this. You know that Pelly's going to get a
big backslap from his from his liberal friends. But this
confirms to the much of the United States that Scott
Pelly's part of a media that has a chronics is
in a state of Trump derangement syndrome. He asks, also,

(01:28:06):
where is where is this Scott Pelly when it comes
to Biden's cognitive disintegration and mass cover up of this disintegration.

Speaker 2 (01:28:15):
What's worse is it Bruce.

Speaker 1 (01:28:16):
Springsteen being in England being overseas ripping on this president,
calling him every terrible description and every name and pejorative
under the sun.

Speaker 2 (01:28:25):
Is that worse?

Speaker 1 (01:28:26):
Or is Scott Pelly's insane rant to these graduates and
describing this draconian United States that doesn't doesn't exist. First,
right track for America, first time it's it been fifty
percent in twenty nine years. Consumer confidence up twelve points
more than they expected it to be up. It's up

(01:28:48):
as high as it's been since February. Right now over
Memorial Day weekend with low gas prices and over the
Momorral Day weekend. I'm telling you, folks, this media doesn't
know how to how to just anchor themselves and get right.
They don't know how to square up and get right.
They are so far left, they are so anti Republican.
And make no mistake, when this administration is done, when

(01:29:11):
the Trump administration is done, this rhetoric doesn't end. This
rhetoric will then be attached to the next Republican who
runs for president, who hopefully is president. And all while
this is going on and they're attacking, they as a
party are looking saying, how come men don't want to
be a part of our party? How come immigrants and
people at Hispanic voters and black voters.

Speaker 2 (01:29:32):
They're all retreating.

Speaker 1 (01:29:33):
Well we know why, and we'll keep talking about it
here on the Rod and Greg Show until we see
each other again tomorrow. Here, get back together, keep your
hands up, your eyes forward, chin down, answer the bell.

Speaker 2 (01:29:44):
See you tomorrow at four

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

True Crime Tonight

Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Rod and Greg Show: Congressman Blake Moore on Increasing Electronics Manufacturing in the U.S.

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;}True Crime Tonight

Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes