The Rod and Greg Show: Congressman Kennedy on SCOTUS Gender Affirming Care Ruling

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Because we got a lot to talk about here on
the show. We were going to be talking. We had
a great I saw a post from an ex post
from a Congressman, Mike Kennedy, former colleague of mine in
the House. He was a state senator, now serves in Congress.
He is my member of Congress. He represents my district.
I saw a great post from him about heralding the

(00:22):
Supreme Court decision about the affirming the Tennessee law that
they could ban a gender transition surgeries and treatment to minors,
and it reminded me. And he mentioned in his post
that he had passed this bill in the Utah State
Legislature in twenty twenty three, and it brought me back
to the kind of criticism he received back then and

(00:43):
how he was a radical and he was a bully
and he was attacking poor innocent children, and he's a
physician and he's an incredibly thoughtful public servant. And I
loved his post, And so I wanted to come on
the show today maybe talk about the Scotis decision, but
also what he went through back just twenty twenty three
and what the world looks like in twenty five. So
I hope you listen to it. That that's this hour

(01:05):
we're going to be talking to him. We're gonna be
also I'm going to dive into here right now and
maybe later in the show, but I hope I can
get it all out in this one segment. An amazing
admission by Chuck Todd.

Speaker 2 (01:19):
He's not now.

Speaker 1 (01:20):
I don't even think he means to be complimentary when
he says this, but he lays out his belief about
the weight and significance of this Trump presidency, the first
term and this second term. And he does it in
a way that he's right and in terms of its
uh its uniqueness, it's historic nature, and and I want

(01:42):
to get into that because he really he may He
draws some conclusions that to me is the regime media
pulling up or holding up a white flag and saying,
you know what, we did everything we could. We tried
every angle we could to minimize and demean and to
stop this Donald Trump, and we can't and we can't,
and we have lost.

Speaker 2 (02:02):
He has won.

Speaker 1 (02:03):
And I want to contrast that to a president you
might not think of when you think about what Chuck
Todd says about President Trump.

Speaker 2 (02:11):
And I want to compare that.

Speaker 1 (02:13):
I might just also in the program, we're going to
also speak here later in the program about an interesting concept.
We've got Ryan McCowan that's going to be on the show.
They've done a fascinating study on Republican red states who
the people that they elect might not be as conservative
as the electorate that they represent. Sound familiar. We're going

(02:36):
to get into the data on that. That's going to
be a very good discussion. We're also going to talk
about Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett from Court Watchers,
from the Federalist Sean Fleetwood's going to join us a
call umn about Amy Coney Barrett's What's what's going to
be her role in this Supreme Court? Is she the
originalist that we that clerked for for Scalia back in

(03:00):
or was antonin Scalia? Or is she more of a moderate?
What is she and what she going to be? We're
gonna get into that as well. But let me just
play this clip for you right now of Chuck Todd.
It's he is talking about President Trump and what he
believes is President's Trump, Trump's kind of place in history.

Speaker 3 (03:20):
But what's followed the staying power of Trump? The man
the movement and now the comeback. It's not an accident.
Looks like we're in the middle of a realignment. We're
not talking about a blip. We're talking about a decade,
which means we're probably going to be talking about a generation.
You might say he'll just be a chapter in the
history books, but I'd argue he'll be a long chapter.
He's already going to be a longer chapter than Grover Cleveland,

(03:42):
the last guy to serve non consecutive terms as president.
He'll be longer than most modern presidents because Trump didn't
change his party. He changed the job. He changed the expectations,
and he's changed the culture. And that's probably the biggest
impact he's made. Donald Trump's impact on American politics and
society is unlike anything I've seen in my lifetime. It's

(04:05):
greater than Obama, something I would not have conceded three
years ago.

Speaker 1 (04:10):
And he's right greater than Obama. I mean, that was
supposed to be the big you know, change and a lot,
and he did make no mistake. He took eight years
changing the culture and this country in ways that I
would argue were not positive. Donald Trump might be born
from in terms of his candidacy from the decisions that
or the time that Barack Obama served as our president.

(04:32):
But one of the things, one thing is absolutely true.
No president modern president has ever been through as much opposition,
has never been through so many attacks from within his
own party, within his own administration, with the regime media,
with the Democrats, the two assassination attempts on this president.
And you've got to ask yourself. I mean, he is

(04:53):
going strong. He's announcing today peace agreements in the Congo
that have been and I think it's Liberia. But he's
just that he highlighted today the peace between Pakistan and India,
which was getting pretty scary. And I lose track of
all these things that are going on around the world
because we're so we're so our tensions being grabbed by

(05:15):
Iran in Israel. He is doing he is making progress
on so many different fronts our border. Uh, you said,
it just goes on. We don't have anything really to
compare it to. And what I would I would proffer
for your consideration is that we did have a president
and he was not he was not able to serve
two terms. But I think he kind of was an

(05:38):
outsider and he decided to take on the presidency in
a way that was not the Washington establishment. And I'm
talking about John F.

Speaker 2 (05:47):
Kennedy. Now you might think John F.

Speaker 1 (05:49):
Kennedy, Please it's a Kennedy, don't But I want you
to stop and think for a second when John F.

Speaker 2 (05:54):
Kennedy.

Speaker 1 (05:55):
First off, this guy was a patriot. He served in
the in the Navy during World War Two. He forged
his health records because he wasn't healthy enough to serve,
but he wanted to serve. His father, Joseph Kennedy, was
the ambassador in England in the UK. He was a
he was an appeaser. He didn't want to have any
war against Germany and Hitler. But jfk was his own guy,

(06:19):
and he absolutely he knew he saw the rise of
the of the not Germany during the summer that he
was in school and over in Europe and he was
traveling Europe, and he wanted to get into that fight.
And he got in that fight. And he was even
his PT one oh nine ship vessel that he was
the captain of, was destroyed by a Japanese destroyer, cut

(06:40):
in half. He saved his men. They were stuck on
an island point is this, He'd been through a lot.
He was a young representative, a young senator and ran
for president and he broke all the rules the way
he did it. He wanted a campaign in primaries. He
went out there. He was running against LBJ who was
the President of the Senate, and back then the conventions
they kind of ruled the game. But he went out

(07:03):
to West Virginia and met with coal miners. He went
out and met with the people. He had a relationship
with the people. And how often he wanted to interact
with people in respective states in their elections. Does that
sound like a President Trump who loves to get with
the people and have these rallies. When he was elected,
he didn't take a cabinet of who you know the

(07:24):
Washington insiders wanted him to bring. He brought a Robert
McNamara to be his Secretary of Defense. And this was
a guy who he was an executive at Ford Voter Company,
but he was an incredibly talented and effective person. The
secretary of State. The left wanted him to pick one
of their party insiders. He picked someone from the outside,

(07:45):
Dean Rusk. He pricked his brother Rfk to be his
Attorney General, who actually became really his confidant through the
whole thing. For Secretary of Treasury, he went to the
Eisenhower campaign, picked a solid conservative Republican to be Secretary
of the Treasury. It's probably why he cut capital gains
tax during his time. And then he took the Eisenhower model,

(08:08):
which had been very military like, where there was this big,
giant decision tree, and he said, look, I wanted to
be like a wheel. I want to be in the hub,
and I want all the spokes and all the secretaries.
I want all those decisions to come to me. And
I'm interested enough, engaged enough, and ready to make the
quick decisions that are necessary. I'm going to do this.
Does that sound like a President Trump in terms of
wanting to be the tip of the spear or be

(08:30):
it the hub of a wheel of a lot of
decisions that have to come his way. He was changing
JFK was really changing things. He didn't want to do
the nuclear deterrence that Eisenhower had been doing. They were
worried about war with the USSR. He wanted to do
what he called a flexible response, and that was he
was going to go into these issues one by one,

(08:52):
used conventional arms for limited goals, but to win, to
stave off the aggression of the Soviet Union and not
enter into a nuclear war. And he also he started
the Special Forces Unit. All of that is to say this,
at the same time he was saying, I'm not going
to get into this big nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union.

(09:13):
He was building his nuclear arsenal more so than had
been built before, so that they would have a superiority
of firepower. But he was looking at the smaller wins
and trying to negotiate and and not lead with war
from from from the get go. These are traits that
I recognize in President Trump's peace through strength and his America. First,

(09:35):
I believe that President Trump, much like JFK. He knows
you have to be the strongest and toughest military might
on planet Earth. But he is not going to get
into every single war. He is going to try and
find ways to find peace. But if you push him,
and make no mistake, if war is what is required,
he is putting himself and putting America in a place

(09:56):
where they would not only be able to engage in war,
but win. And I think those are traits and characteristics
that you see in historic presidencies, and I would argue
that those are ones that JFK if had had he
not been assassinated, would have you have saw more of
that type of leadership from him.

Speaker 2 (10:17):
And he's not.

Speaker 1 (10:18):
You know, the Democrat probably wouldn't even recognize JFK today
the man that he was. Okay, we're gonna go a break.
When we come back, we're going to talk with congress
and Mike Kennedy. You're listening to Utah's talk radio one
oh five nine can Ras Road. Will be back next week.
If he's not sick, we'll see. Joining us on the
show is my favorite friend, my former colleague in the

(10:38):
state House, and he was the state Senator. He slummed
it with the Senate, State Senate for a while, and
now he is my congressman here in the state of Utah. Congressman,
Mike Kennedy, Congressman, thank you for joining us on the show. Look,
I saw your post last night on X. You ran
a bill in twenty twenty three here in Utah regarding
gender affirming care and really preventing youth from getting being

(11:01):
victimized by this banning this kind of care here in
the state of Utah. You were criticized for it. You
noted that the Supreme Court is upheld the Tennessee's law
on this same issue. What's your impression. Share with us
your impression of the Supreme Court decision and maybe what
you went through and how you feel today after the
Supreme Court's affirmed that the bill you ran and the

(11:22):
bill that Tennessee ran are in fact constitutional.

Speaker 4 (11:25):
Greg, thanks for having me on. It's always good to
be with you and your listeners. The point of the
matter is that the Supreme Court affirms the common sense
approach that Utah took in twenty twenty three. In fact,
we passed our law before Tennessee passed their law, and
I specifically as a doctor and as an attorney, designed
what was SB sixteen and twenty twenty three to make
it less likely to be litigated in the court system.

(11:49):
And I'm proud of the fact that to this day
it hasn't been litigated yet, and the Tennessee law was litigated.
And now the Supreme Court, of course affirms that states
do have a right to protect our children, and we
do need to stand up for our children. And I've
got a lot to say about how we passed SB sixteen,
and also the nature of the science behind the transgender

(12:10):
minor movement. But I'll tell you, Greg, there's a lot
of common sense and what the Supreme Court has done
because these complicated decisions need to be in the hands
of the state, not in the hands of in this case,
the arbitrary nature of what the medical community might do sometimes.
So I'm proud of the bill that we passed. I
think it was a great step for us, and the

(12:33):
Supreme courts affirmed that in a common sense fashion.

Speaker 1 (12:36):
So you bring up a good point. So our bill
was passed before Tennessee's. You worked hard to prevent litigation.
But so my question is the Supreme Court ruling for
Tennessee does it touch on Utah's bill or does our
bill in a legal way not even isn't related to
the Tennessee bill, given that that one went to court
and Utah's didn't.

Speaker 4 (12:57):
We did surgeries and then we did the moratorium on
puberty blockers cross sex hormones, and the moratorium allowed the
kids that were currently in care to continue in care.
And that's been criticized by some on our side of things,
on the conservative side, the reality is is if a
kid has if a natal male or a person that's

(13:19):
born male has a puberty blocker and now they're making
no testosterone, and they've gone from levels of five or
six hundred on testosterone down to ten or fifteen, and
then immediately we withdraw care because of the nature of
this law and when it came into effect, and now
that person's testosterone values go from ten to fifteen all
the way up to five or six hundred. Again, we

(13:41):
all know that testosterone and the way young men can
act is they can be sometimes pretty pretty uncontrollable. And
I was very concerned about interrupting right in the middle
of these genetic hormonal treatments the nature of the treatment,
so we kind of away from that. That's a difference

(14:02):
between us and the Tennessee law. But the intention was
not to have any of these kids harm themselves in
some fashion when their testosterone values shot up again. So
and I think we've done a good job with that.
We protected these children that were trying to enter into
this market. But it's the Tennessee law is a little
different than ours. But in both cases, the Supreme Court

(14:22):
affirmed what we've done and it protects our children going forward.

Speaker 1 (14:26):
We're speaking with a Congressman Mike Kennedy and about a
bill heat passed as a state senator SB sixteen back
in twenty twenty three that would ban the transgender transition
therapy or I would call it castration of children, irreversible,
permanent harm to vulnerable children. Let me just ask you
this in a more broadway. I'm so glad you've been

(14:48):
a lawmaker. You've got all that muscle memory of you
know how to make laws. In twenty twenty three, I
remember you were being characterized as radical, you were controversial.
This was what you were doing was picking and b kid,
you were bullying kids. And here we fast forward to
twenty twenty five and you're seeing common sense rain, You're
seeing a presidential you see President Trump coming in. You're

(15:10):
seeing things shift and an important I think as significant ways.
Maybe talk to our listeners more philosophically, is courage contagious?
Because we know fear is, we know the left loves
to do it. Tom, talk to me about when you
are being attacked and you're being told that you're the
one that's controversial, tell us explain to our listeners can
courage and pushing back? Can you find that in Congress.

(15:32):
Can you find some contagious courage out there in that
branch of government?

Speaker 4 (15:38):
Absolutely we can. And at the time I was accused,
and we were accused those of us that are working
on this, and Representative Hall was a key part of this,
and many other legislators, we're accused of killing these kids.
In fact, I had colleagues, a senatorial colleague, who was
accusing me of dunking on these kids, and that we
were trying to harm these kids. And I'll tell you, Greg,
that was the last thing we intended to do. We

(15:58):
were doing the right thing for these children that they
I mean goodness, say, Greg, you and I both know
they can't buy alcohol. They can't even get tattoos without
printal permission and without turning eighteen years old, and in
case the twenty one years old cigarettes. We ban all
sorts of things from children, and this bill actually protects
those children after age eighteen. You want to do these

(16:19):
kind of things, okay, I mean, you're an adult. You
can make these decisions. But we're going to hold actually
the medical providers accountable. And as to courage being contagious,
I had death threat after death threat. I've still got
a recording of a death threat left on my phone.
My house was vandalized, but myself, Representative Hall, and many
of us as legislators, we took the hard votes. The

(16:41):
governor signed this as well. This was a collaborative effort
because we knew even though we were accused of trying
to hurt children, we knew that it was just the
opposite that we're trying to help these children. And I
believe now two years later, we can look back and
say that was the right thing to do, that many
children have been helped. We're seeing the transgender clinics closed down.

(17:02):
We're seeing England has been shutting down their clinics as well,
and they've been well ahead of us in this, and
so not just in our country but also throughout the world.
People are starting to scratcher heads, like why were we
doing this stuff? And sadly, Greg, there are children that
stepped into this and the sisters, these people that get
into it and then later on they want to get

(17:22):
out of it. They got permanent change to their bodies,
sometimes body parts that have been immutably altered. Sometimes other
things that have happened to them that are never going
to be different, like voices changing and hair growth. That's different.
But the reality is we made the right decision at
the time, and yeah we're accused of hurting people, but
it was just the opposite return help.

Speaker 1 (17:43):
So you've lived this. I just want to ask, do
you feel that there is a cultural change? Am I
overplaying it? Do you sense a change maybe in the
sentiment of our country as you see the Supreme Court
ruling come out, given what you live through and what's
being seen as common sense today, or is America seeing
a cultural change right now?

Speaker 4 (18:01):
I do see that, although there's always the new, shiny
something in the future, so there are going to be
things that are coming. And part of my saying is
is ten and fifteen years ago, did you and I
ever think we'd have these kind of debates in the
halls of the state or the federal legislature. And my
question there is ten or fifteen years from now, what
on earth are we going to be discussing when people

(18:23):
want to do other things. So I'll just say, yeah,
there's a change, but there's always going to be something
new in the future, and we as legislators need to stand.

Speaker 2 (18:32):
Up for our children.

Speaker 4 (18:34):
Our children and some families they want to pick steps
in certain directions and we need to say no, you
need to wait if you're going to do those things.
And more important to me, Greg is the professionals, the
professionals that were facilitating these children stepping in this there
and often in the case of the cast review in England,
that they were that system. There was encouraging children. Once

(18:56):
you started on the system, they would encourage you to
continue down the press. It's affirming all the way, without
any question, that everything should be done, including the surgeries.
And they're children that are harmed. As a result of that,
they actually get older and they wish they'd never started
that process. So we're holding the medical professionals responsible. One
thing about our bill is medical malpractice. You can file

(19:17):
a malpractice claim. Usually it's a three year malpractice from
the injury forward three years, but in this case, up
until these people turn twenty five years old. In the
state of Utah, you can still file a lawsuit against
a practitioner and that actually makes the practitioners think twice.
That means they're going to look more carefully at these people.
So I think there are a bunch of good policies

(19:38):
that we stood for in this And yeah, courage is
contagious and I can see it moving us forward in
many other ways to protect our children, which is the
future of our state and our country.

Speaker 1 (19:48):
Keep up the good work, Congressman. I appreciate all the
work you're doing, all you've done, and all you're going
to do. Congress and Mike Kennedy joining us out here
on the program. We're going to go to a break.
When we come back, we're going to talk to some
breaking news about Gamboa, the guy that they charged with
homicide at the No King's rally last weekend.

Speaker 2 (20:05):
We'll get into that when we come back.

Speaker 1 (20:07):
You're listening to Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine
Canteras so breaking news. While we went on the show,
I just got to saw this come through the line online.
Here is that the Arturo Gamboa, the gentleman that was
charged with murder at the at the No King's rally,

(20:29):
whether he okay so is he charged or not? It
says the man arrested in facing possible murder charges connected
to the deadly shooting of an innocent bystander during the
protest march, was released from jail today. The reason this
is happening is that this upon reviewing the preliminary evidence,
the state determined that they would not would be unable

(20:52):
to make an informed decision as to whether the charges
against mister Gamboa will be filed or declined before his
scheduled release of June twenty third. So there's some conditions
to his to his release. He's got to stay with
his dad, he's got to give up his passport, things
like that. But it is not clear whether they are

(21:12):
going to charge him with murder or not, or that
they're going to pursue those charges. I think that was
the charge originally. But anyway, sim Gil the County Attorney's
asked for a three day extension and we'll see what happens.
You know, we spoke with Clark Oposon, who's the president
of the Utah Sporting Shooting Sports Council. They and he

(21:34):
has a show here, a gun show on Saturdays. There
was just a lot of ambiguity, not sure you know what.
There's just there's laws the back the frame, how you
can defend yourself, how you can if someone looks like
they're going to shoot people, you can you can act
in self defense in those occasions, and so there wasn't

(21:55):
a lot understood but what we've seen since then is
we've seen video where there is no version where he
when this mister Gambo is shot, that he was pointing
a gun at anyone. Now, he does have an AR fifteen,
which you can argue is can be very threatening.

Speaker 2 (22:10):
He is walking.

Speaker 1 (22:12):
I think he's I don't think he starts running till
after he gets shot. But he's walking with the gun out.
It's not his backpack. It's out. It's pointed towards the ground,
but it's not pointed at anyone. And you can see
the guy in the fluoresc invest draw his firearm and shoot,
and when he shoots, you hear the shot. And then
that's where it's understood or believed that that's where he
was hit in his stomach and began to run. In

(22:33):
his gun as he's running, rises up as he begins
to sprint. I don't know what that means, but I
do know this, The No King's Rally has cut off
the fifty five zero five zero one organization whatever that is,
that was the sponsor and organizer of their No Kings rally.

(22:54):
They have severed all ties with that organization as of yesterday.
So the No King Rally I think they think there's
some liability costs floating out there somewhere, and they don't
necessarily want to be a part of it. So we'll
keep you posted about what goes on there and how
that plays out. I find it hilarious that the state Democrats,

(23:17):
state House Democrats, were condemning the violence and condemning somehow
Republicans for except, you know, supporting our Second Amendment rights
to have a gun. And it's all wrapped around a
leftist rally where a gun was used, two guns. Was
London had a gun and he's a leftist and I
or fifteen and the other shot him. He's a leftist

(23:39):
and he's at the rally, and somehow you can't find
a Republican anywhere in that crowd. There's no Republican involved,
but somehow it's all the Republican's fault.

Speaker 2 (23:47):
So I don't think they're very good at this.

Speaker 1 (23:49):
I really don't think the Democrat state House Democrats are
very good at this protest and putting out statements of condemnation.
I don't think they Maybe they didn't see the who
was involved in all this.

Speaker 2 (24:01):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (24:02):
It's confusing to me. Okay, folks, we're going to come back.
We're going to talk a little bit more. I've got
I mentioned this about President Trump at the beginning of
the show and how unique he is and how Chuck
Todd admits puts up the white flag and says, this
guy is different than all others. Here's going to be
a He has really changed things in a way that
even more than more so than even Barack Obama did
in his two terms. That's quite an admission from him.

(24:25):
I think it's, like I said, it's a white flag,
but there's some just I think the President went to
some great lengths today to show about some of the
progress they're making on the side of peace between nations
and so that we're not just all focused on what's
happening in real time with Iran and Israel, which is
still ongoing and he's not shying away from it, but
there are there is some good news in this world,

(24:45):
and we're going to share that with you, as the
President has shared it with America today when we come
back after the break. You're listening to Talk Radio one
oh five nine Ka'an Arrests. We opened the show talking
about the extraordinary uh time that we're living in right now,
and the effectiveness of a President Trump and what he's doing,
and how the Democrats without a national leader, without a

(25:06):
real leader, and without a real direction taking on issues
that are twenty percent where America is the American people
by twenty percent, thirty percent, maybe at the most forty
percent are supporting, but most are are going with the
common sense a President Trump and the Republicans at you know,
sixty seventy eighty percent. We do live in extraordinary times.

(25:30):
The peace that is being pursued by this administration is
not getting enough attention, certainly from the regime media, but
Pakistan's pretty appreciative. Pakistan and Iran and India, if you remember,
they started getting a little hostile. They started hurling some
missiles at each other. They both have they're nuclear they
both have nuclear weapons. When Pakistan and India get salty

(25:54):
and things get violent, the world is in big trouble
because they are both they have a lot of military capability.

Speaker 2 (26:03):
This just in.

Speaker 1 (26:04):
Pakistan has officially nominated President Trump for a Nobel Peace
Prize after he helped negotiate and mediate a peace deal between
Pakistan and India. After Pakistan will leave it admit that
almost a war had almost broken out.

Speaker 2 (26:20):
So they have.

Speaker 1 (26:21):
Pakistan has a submitted President Trump's name for a Nobel
Peace Prize, but I think Trump called. He's like, they
never give it, they only give it to liberals. I
give it to me, And I think he's right. But
that's okay. He's doing the Abraham Accords, which are historic,
which I dare someone to find me any peace deal

(26:41):
middle East peace deal between Israel and Arab states as
substantive and as important as the Abraham Accords that stuck
and it was successful when these Abraham Accords aren't in
this term. These are the ones that he This is
the agreement he put together in twenty seventeen and has
Arab nations that have signed on, and then went to
the Middle East to get more Arab nations to sign on.

(27:02):
And I think you will. I think you'll see more
and more coming together on the Abraham Accords. But then
also before I came on the show, I saw that
he was announcing that he and Secretary of State Marco
Rubio will be hosting the Democrat Republic of Congo and
the Republic of Rwanda to the White House to sign
peace agreements documents of peace between these two countries. The

(27:26):
war between the Republic of Congo and the Republic of Rwanda,
it's been going on for a long long time, incredibly bloody,
violent war. I think it is a great day for
and the President notes this for Africa as a continent,
to see the Republic of Congo and the Republic of
Rwanda find peace. And they are going to be signing

(27:47):
those documents on Monday into White House in Washington, which
again doesn't happen by itself. That's not an autopilot, folks.
That's because we have leadership in the White House right now.
He noted in the Trump the truth of truth what
do you call his the social media platform, truth mobile

(28:08):
or truth online, whatever it is, that his post is
that he's noting that, but he's also pointing out that
that they have also been finding peace between Serbia and Kosovo.
They've been keeping the peace between Egypt and Ethiopia. These
are again and he's trying to He is trying his
level best to work something out between Russia and Ukraine.

(28:32):
Zelenski doesn't make that easier in my mind, in terms
of he just put out a statement today saying we
need as a country forty billion a year if we're
going to be able to do what we need to
do forty a billion, forty billion.

Speaker 2 (28:42):
I don't care.

Speaker 1 (28:42):
America, you pay for it, you know, Europe, you work
it out, maybe you pitch into but whatever it is,
we need forty billion a year to keep going. He's
the only world leader that I hear that just keeps
laying out all these conditions of what he needs to
keep going. And then you got I'm hearing people like
Mike Pompeo and Lindsey Graham out there just getting them up,

(29:03):
getting them all excited. And none of that's a's well
with me. Okay, when we come back, we're gonna go
to our phones eight eight eight five seven zero eight
zero one zero. I want to hear what's on your mind.
As the smartest listening audience in all the land. We'll
be right back. You're listening to Talk Radio one oh
five nine kayn rs. A couple of topics for deliberation,

(29:23):
for your consideration, folks. First President Trump, his place in history,
the work he's doing in his first term, what he
is doing now again, I played a clip from Chuck
Todd where he said, you know, he will be remembered
more so than even President Obama for the change, the
role of the presidency, the culture, all that he has done.

(29:46):
It is the most impactful president in modern times. And
that's I think is a big red is a big
white flag he's waving around. And I'm sure if you
ask Chuck Todd, none of those changes he's describing are
ones he likes at all. But he's least admitting it
and again giving up and realizing that he's on the
wrong side of history. So what do you think about

(30:07):
President Trump? I know we're only five months in. We're
all very impatient. We want to see everything finished fast.
But I think his progress has been faster than most.
But where do you place him in terms of history
and with presidents? We know a lot's been said about him.
I don't think there's a sentence or a criticism left
on earth that hasn't already been leveled against this man.

(30:27):
But I still think he's continuing and seeing success in
real time. We went over some of those peace in
the world different the Congo and Rwanda in Africa, and
they're going to come to the White House on Monday
and sign an agreement. Pakistan and India. You've got conflicts
in real time happening between Iran and Israel, and that's
very sensitive and he has a major role, a leadership

(30:49):
role and all that. What do you think about his
role there? Another one we talked about the gamboa. He's
been released from jail. There's a lot of murky there.
If you want to talk about that issue. I love
to hear your take if you have one. Here's when
we haven't discussed. But the one that I have a
strong take on, and I apparently am on the wrong
side of x and on social media on this, but

(31:12):
as a having a recovering public servant and lawmaker, I
am tracking what Senator Lee is doing on this lands
issue very closely and I support it wholeheartedly, and I'm
going to try to describe it or frame it for
you as best I can, and then I want to
hear from you if this is an area issue you'd
like to talk about. Eight eight eight five seven zero
eight zero one zero. Utah is a unique state. Okay, Well, first,

(31:36):
let me just read. Let me see what I've got here.
He has tried very hard to overcome some of the
things about the bill, of the criticisms about his bill.
If you don't know in the language and the big
beautiful bill. He is looking to take about one point
five percent of the federally owned land in the United States,
which if you looked at a map and I showed

(31:57):
you a map, it is mostly found in the Western
States the United States, Utah being the second highest federally
owned land in a state. Sixty five percent of our
state is federally owned in controlled land. Nevada is at
eighty percent of federally federally in controlled land. Federally owned
in controlled land, Alaska's up there, and you'll just see

(32:21):
if you just look, you'll see Arizona that you'll see
that the Western States are where the federal government owns
and controls the land. And that what that means is
that your counties, your cities, your counties, your state, they
don't have any jurisdiction on there. They can't put water
across that that area, they can't put a road across there,
or railroads, they can't. You can get land use permits

(32:42):
from the BLM, but depending on the politics of the
administration at the time, that can change. We have ranchers
and rural Utah that have had land use permits for
generations that President Biden tried to end and put conservation
as a land use and let people buy that land
away from these multi generational ranchers and farmers here. But

(33:05):
here's what this bill would do. It would allow for
the sale of federally owned land. But the bill exempts
and would not allow for sale all parks, monuments, wilderness areas.
They would be exempt from there they have to be
adjacent to already private property. And the point that I

(33:25):
guess I want to make of why I think this
is critical is if I if you saw the map
of Utah, Okay, and you saw that sixty five percent
of this state is federally owned land. The number sounds great,
it sounds like a lot, but it doesn't really tell.
If you're part of the seventy five percent of Utah's
total population that lives in just four counties of the

(33:47):
twenty nine counties in Utah, that's the Wattetch Front, Utah County,
Salt Lake County, Davis County, and Weaver County, you might
not feel the oppression of the Bureau of Land Management
and the federal government because, frankly, in the counties that
we all live in, and this is logical, right, we
don't have as much federally owned land. So when you

(34:07):
look at Salt Lake County, only twelve percent of all
of the county is federally owned land, and that's the
Wasatch Range, and that's in the mountains. It's not an
area where you would live anyway. If you look at
Utah County, Utah County is nineteen almost nineteen and a
half percent. Again a lot of the Wasatch Range and

(34:28):
the mountains, but mostly the Utah County. You're going to
see a lot of private property. You go to Davis County,
Davis County has only eight percent of the land that
is federally owned, and mostly that's along the Great Salt Lake,
so you're not feeling the BLM there. You go to
Weber and we Were County it's ten percent, and that's

(34:51):
again the northern Wassatch Range. Now let's get out of
let's get out of the Wastatch Front, where again seventy
five percent of the population lives. And let's talk about
where the federal government. The counties feel the heat and
the decisions of Washington d C. Every single day. Let's
go to Kane County. Eighty four percent of that county

(35:12):
is BLM Land or Zion's National Park or Staircase Escalante
National Monument. You go to Pyute County, a little small
county there, it's sixty eight sixty nine percent of that
county is owned by the federal government. San Juan County
is eighty seven point six percent. What does that mean.
That's by the way, that's BLM Land, that's Bearziers Canyon lands.

Speaker 2 (35:36):
What does that mean?

Speaker 1 (35:37):
What that means is, as I've explained, is that you
can't take water lines across, you can't take you can't
get corridor for electrical grids and what. And then take
take a more populated county that since southern Utaila. Take
Washington County, which is Saint George. Seventy eight and a
half percent of that county's land mass is federally owned

(35:57):
and controlled land. Think about how crowded Washington County in
Saint George is right now, and how the density and
the population is growing. If you saw the map of Utah.
The reason we feel this crush of higher cost of living,
lower quality of life, congestion, failure, and transportation is because

(36:18):
in these small areas that are actually private property in
the state of Utah. So when Utah was the territory
and it became a state. It's like the federal government
hedge of their bet of the thirty five percent of
actual private property that or non state owned lands. Some
of that is actually a State of Utah land, so
it's even less private property than what's not federally owned.

(36:39):
Of course, that land's going to develop and it's going
to start to get crowded because it's all we have.

Speaker 2 (36:44):
Now.

Speaker 1 (36:44):
You go east of the Mississippi, they don't have any
of this trouble. You go to Pennsylvania where I grew up,
I can drive from Pittsburgh, I can drive two and
a half hours north to Erie, Pennsylvania, and I will
never drive through or past federally owned land. And it
doesn't mean that if the federal government doesn't own it,
you're going to just pave it and develop it all.
But if you have a state, because it's it's open land,

(37:07):
and you have farming communities and rural communities, but if
all you have is a small percentage of your state
that you can actually build and live on as a community,
it's just going to get more and more crowded.

Speaker 2 (37:20):
Don't we feel this? Don't we feel it.

Speaker 1 (37:22):
What I would argue is in the adjacent areas where
there's private property for the purposes of roads and water,
infrastructure utilities, so that or even the housing. And I'm
not talking welfare housing. I'm talking housing that supply and demand.
If there's no supply of how of housing or of land,
the prices go up. Where there's a higher supply of land,

(37:43):
the prices will come down. Wouldn't you like it for
your kids to not have to move away from Utah
because they can't afford this quality of the cost of living,
The quality of life is going down and they'd have
to move because they can't afford to live here. Wouldn't
it be better if they could live maybe an hour
or two away and a rural can community where there
is housing available where they can be able to live.

(38:06):
We are penned in as a state, and what Senator
Lee's trying to do is trying to open up that
open this up. Nineteen ninety eight, Nevada did this just
for themselves, not for any other state. They said, look,
we're passing along Congress that allows for Nevada to be
able to buy Bureau of Land Management land that's adjacent
to already private property for roads for development. That has

(38:30):
worked well for Clark County, that has worked well for Henderson,
that has worked well for an area called Summerland, which
is a suburb, a master planned suburb, which has I
think at least five thousand acres three or five thousand
acres of that used to be BLM land. That they
have been able to do that since nineteen ninety eight
and be able to grow their state as they've been
and because they they're penned in what in the world,

(38:53):
why wouldn't we want this If we don't want to
see adjacent to private property land. And I'm not talking
where you're hunt. I'm not talking national parks, I'm not
talking the recreational areas. I'm talking places where we can
see our population grow because we are growing, and we're
growing internally. We have the seventh highest fertility rate, so
we're not the highest growing state. But if we're going

(39:15):
to if we're going to grow, and we are, it's
going to be hard to say. We hate the congestion failure,
we hate the lower quality of life and the higher
cost of living, but we don't want any of the
other any of the other counties outside of the Wassatch
Front to be able to grow. They have to be
able to grow. They are young people can't even stay

(39:37):
where they grew up because there's no opportunity, there's no jobs.
There's no way for those communities to grow and see
industry arrive. How do we keep our community? We've checked
the box on growth, i'd say in the Watch Front.
How do we let the rest of the state grow.
I'm going to argue with Senator Lee that you have
got to see the federal government not control most of
this state and let those counties be able to grow

(39:59):
and grow responsibly. We have a state management plan the
state of Utah. Does you have to do it responsibly,
but it can be done, and I think it's I
think a lot of the criticism that he's receiving for
this bill is unfair. I know there's a lot of
suspicion out there, and I know you've got to be
very prescriptive about how that land's used. But we can't
throw the baby out with the bathwater. We got to
get this right. So that's my take. I took the

(40:20):
whole segment to say it, but I want to hear
from you eight eight eight five seven zero eight zero
one zero. That's the number to call to share your
take on this portion of the big beautiful bill that
Mike Lee is proposing, and that is the ability for
the federally owned land to become private so that we
can see the development of the rest of the state

(40:41):
and not just WA's that's Trump your calls eighty eight
five seven zero eight zero one zero. When we come
back after the break. You're listening to Utah's Talk Radio
one O five nine Cannis. There's a lot of I
understand why the enviros hate it. I understand why the
left hates this because they want all the land and
they get it, and we're there atm every time a
Democrat president leaves off off as they encumber more and
more of our land and restrict its access and use,

(41:04):
I get it why the Democrats don't like it. It's
our conservative friends where I'm where I'm surprised, or this
is where I care that we understand each other. So
I'd like to go to the phones and let's talk
to Ken, who's called in. Ken, Thank you for holding.
Welcome to the Ron and Greg Show. Are you there, Ken?

Speaker 5 (41:26):
Hello? Are you there?

Speaker 2 (41:27):
Yes?

Speaker 5 (41:28):
Yes, Hey, this is Can up here, man away, Hi, Sye.
I was just calling. I just little concerned about this land,
what they're trying to put up yourself. Won't this create
more shortage of water in Utah because you're going to
get more places to build if they did sell it
off and we're already short on water, and if they
sell it off, does that just make it so the
rich people can buy the land and then close it

(41:48):
so we can't later have maybe go on that federal
land or whatever it is, and whether ATV or something
like that, what does it do there?

Speaker 2 (41:56):
So it's a good question, ken, I mostly but can
quiet well.

Speaker 1 (42:02):
I was going to say that that the growth is
coming and the people that need need housing is upon us,
and we're going to use the finite area of Utah
that is private property now and it's just going to
get higher and higher density or you're going to have
to find other ways to use it. Well, we have
to be careful, is what you said. I'm not interested
in rich people just getting more land for ranches and

(42:22):
closing it off to the public. There needs to be
a There needs to be and I think in the
language that Centrallly has there's a careful consideration of that.
But when we talk about even our relationship as a
state with water, we are going we are growing and
we are going to need that water and our conservation
of water is going to happen. The scary part about

(42:42):
the federal land is that when we talk about access
to this land, it's it's like Biden, who can come
in and restrict even greater access to this land. Talk
to the people in San Juan County who who already
was federal land, and then Obama makes it a national monument.
Trump comes and pairs it back so that the people
have better access to that land, and then Biden rolls

(43:02):
in and makes it bigger than what Obama even did.
And when I say he restricts the land, it's it's
people that grew up in those communities that were able
to be on that land that can no longer touch
the land the way it used to be. Because when
you're making decisions in Washington, d c. About federal land,
they don't care about us. And so that's the access
issue that I'm talking about that I think that I

(43:24):
you know, I think that's a bigger risk than the
access that you're talking about. If you were to have
those the land adjacent to private property become private property
and create more opportunities for housing, hopefully not so expensive
that it's along the Wahsatche Front and costs as much
as it does.

Speaker 2 (43:39):
Does that make any sense?

Speaker 5 (43:42):
Well, it kind of does, like I said. Just like
I said, my business concern is if they if we
do sell it off, though the bad being is, does
have become more private that the citizen can't get into
it at all. For federal land, we can still get
into it. And that's what I'm really concerned about. I mean,
like I said again about the water, we have the
water to support more growth.

Speaker 2 (44:02):
Do we even have that water right Ken? Thank you
for your call.

Speaker 1 (44:05):
I think that it's I don't think if if that
land's available or not, that informs the growth. I think
the growth is coming on whatever we have by way
of a footprint. I hate the fact that the state
of Utah wants to get become housing z ares and
want to give people down payments. I'd much rather have
the role of government be the roads, the utilities and
let those communities grow naturally and have access to those areas.

(44:27):
My feeling on a lot of this, I've talked to
county commissioners rural county commissioners. Is some of that land
that they would use. It would be for the for
actual roads, not for the homes, which could give and
should give more access to areas that were harder to reach.
If you're able to use roads a Northern Corridor and
Washington County other areas, there should be better access if

(44:48):
you're able to acquire some of that land to put
roads in places where, yes, you'll have development, but you'll
also have those roads that should access more more land.

Speaker 2 (44:56):
Let's go to yes. Should we go to a break
you ray or to a caller? What do I got? Okay?

Speaker 1 (45:04):
Oh, I think I did something here. Okay, John from Midville,
thank you for holding. Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 6 (45:12):
Citizen Hughes, you're the man, Hey yambo getting out of jail.
I think that's a wonderful thing. The real question I
have is that that rally, the No Kings rally, had
plenty of Salt Lake State Police probably County sheriff, patrolling it,
keeping everyone safe. Why on earth haven't the shooters been

(45:32):
charged with something. If it had been a cop who
shot the innocent bystander, Bill would have charged them with
first degree murder. By now and then let the truth
come out in trial. We don't even know their names yet.
That the dead, the stepdad who shot his steps on.

Speaker 7 (45:52):
Unfortunately this week he was.

Speaker 6 (45:54):
Charged with manslaughter and if you believe the family, it
was a complete accident, but the charges came in immediately.
So I just think it's really interesting, liberal on liberal crime.
I guess it's not a crime in Utah.

Speaker 1 (46:08):
What a John, Thank you for your call. What an
absolutely is a great observation, great take. Yeah, first off,
you're exactly right, John. The Salt Lake City Police and
those jurisdictions that were working and helping to keep the
peace were completely unaware that these peacekeepers that were there
were on the ground with the instructions they were given.

(46:31):
In the instructions that included if you see something escalate,
you may not want to inform law enforcement because that
may escalate it even more. The Salt Lake City Police's
statement says they were unaware of any of these peacekeepers
on the ground, They were not coordinating with them because
they didn't know they existed, and that their presence at
the rally was not in any of the permits, any

(46:52):
of the organizational meetings or paperwork that was filed for
this and so, and if it had been a member
of law enforcement it accidentally shot someone bet your life,
they would be charged with first degree murder right now,
and it would be a completely different narrative amongst the
leftists in the regime media. So I appreciate the take.

(47:12):
It is one hundred percent true. Okay, when we come back,
I want to come back to your calls. It's open line,
it's a Friday. I want to hear from you a
lot to discuss here on the Rod and Greg Show.
You're listening to Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine canters.
I really do think that listening to Chuck Todd talk
about the historic nature of the Trump presidency and really
bigger than he says, Barack Obama's time as president, I

(47:35):
think is a white flag. And I think he's right,
Maybe for reasons he doesn't like to admit, but he's
absolutely right. We're talking about Arturo Gamba being released. We
had a great observation made about if a member of
a member of law enforcement had shot someone an innocent bystander,
what would be the narrative going on right now? Very
different than what we're hearing leftist on leftist crime seems

(47:55):
to have a different feel to it, doesn't it. And
then finally we're talking about the land issue that Mike
Lee has put language in the Big Beautiful Bill that
would allow for acquiring federally owned land for purposes of
developed roads, right of way, infrastructure, but also the development
so we can afford you have neighborhoods and growth that's

(48:18):
already growing, but places where we could grow. I'm looking
for your comments and about any of these items. Let's
go to Taylor, who's been patiently waiting in Mapleton. Taylor,
Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 8 (48:31):
Hey, Greg, thanks for taking my call. I just wanted
to touch on something that I haven't heard anyone really
make a point on, but I think Senator Lead might
actually be taking preemptive action against radical green policy. If
you recall last year, the state of Utah, with Marlow
Oaks and about twenty four other ags across the US

(48:51):
fought back against what's called natural asset companies, where the
federal government is trying to by twenty thirty have thirty
percent of federal lands within their control, and they would
then put those into conservation easements, which then basically blocked
any productive usage of the land, so you wouldn't be
able to do kimber mine natural gas, and they would

(49:14):
basically sell those out to the highest bidder in a
massive land grab. And so I just wonder if from
Senator Lee's point of view, he hasn't said that. I
heard this about on Glen Beeck's program several months ago
talking about this, But I wonder if this is some
preemptive action on Senator Lee's part to protect against down
the road, the you know, Green New Deal fanatics that

(49:38):
are trying to take our land, and he's just trying
to give this back to the local governments.

Speaker 1 (49:42):
Taylor, you have connected the dots, my friend, And actually
I had not thought about that, but you're exactly right.
So Biden saw he signed an executive order and at
the beginning of his presidency, and it was specifically what
you just said, Taylor. It was this thirty by thirty
thirty and and what it is is that for ver
is of climate change and everything else, they want thirty

(50:02):
percent of the land. This is a global initiative, by
the way, to be untouched, to be unused. And we're
talking who are the enemies? It's you and me it's
also ranchers and farmers and people that are that use
the land recreationally. I know for fact that the federal
government's looking at things like this because in rural counties
like Caine County, their commissioners have told me that those

(50:24):
multi generational land use permits on federal land for ranchers,
ranchers that have been on that land for generations and
their families have they are going to put conservation as
a land use. And I permitted an application ahead and
higher than the ranchers land use permits, and so the

(50:45):
conservation would be basically to just take everything out and
not let anyone touch any of it. And so yeah,
there is a real and Centerally has always been opposed
and has really pushed back on this thirty percent by
thirty thirty, and certainly the language in his bill is
contradicts Biden's executive order and the goal to try and

(51:06):
encumber by federal control at least thirty percent of the
land by thirty thirty. That's why I know the leftists
hate his language. That's why I know that the liberals
hate and the environmentals hate it. What is disorienting is
our conservative friends who see this now I would take
a guy like this, Matt Walsh guy, I think his
name's Matt Walsh's. You know, he's on YouTube channel, he's everywhere.

(51:29):
He really doesn't like Senator Lee's bill, and he doesn't
like the idea of the land being made public, and
he's worried about Blackrock and CCP, and I share those
where I don't want any of that to happen, and
I don't want to make sure it doesn't. But I
want to know if Matt Walsh lives in a state
where most of the state is federally controlled, if he
lives in a county where eighty percent of that that's

(51:50):
county's land is controlled by the federal government and not
the people of the county, the community in that count
inside that county. I think a lot of people when
they talk about this issue, are not living under the
duress and the control of the federal government, which a
lot of us here in Utah don't because our counties
along the Wasatch Front are not so by majority strong

(52:11):
majority federal land, and we don't feel those consequences the
same the people that feel it live in rural Utah,
and there's just not many of them to really get
the word out as much, but it still has a
detrimental impact. E Ray, do I need to go to
a break right now? Okay, I got to go to
a break, but I see that the phones we have
some people waiting. Let's say, if you can wait, hold
over the break, I'd love to hear from you. In

(52:32):
the next segment. You're listening to Utah's Talk Radio one
oh five nine canters or the top of the hour.
Let's go to Jim in Salt Lake City. Jim, thank
you for holding. Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 9 (52:43):
Yeah, thanks for taking my call. I believe that about
one percent of Texas is controlled by the federal government.
One third of Utah is controlled by the federal government.
And everybody squeals who does live in Utah that if
we take away any federal government land, everybody's gonna go

(53:07):
crazy because of all their green pap I mean, it's
all a bunch of croc And you can always you
can always go and look at at money and who
gets it and who doesn't get it. There there is
just so much corruption, even even in Utah and all

(53:29):
over this country, of money being given out because of
some certain thing. And that's why people want Utah to
remain one third federalized.

Speaker 10 (53:41):
And I mean, it's just it's it's sixty it's two thirds,
it's two thirds of the state and two it's two thirds.

Speaker 1 (53:51):
And if you get in the Wahsatch Front, it's not
that much. If you know, if and it's what it
whatever it is, it's usually either Great Salt Lake or
it's the it's the it's the East Bend. When you
get outside the four counties out of our twenty nine,
the percentage of that land goes to sixty five percent,
it goes to eighty percent, ninety percent, Washington County, Saint
George's seventy eight percent federally controlled land.

Speaker 2 (54:14):
It's how are they supposed to grow?

Speaker 9 (54:15):
You're exactly right, right, Well, why in the world are
people against it? Dan us being able to have part
of our land because our schools would get a lot
more money, because people would have to pay property tax
on that. And it's just it's because they don't live here.
It just makes me sick.

Speaker 2 (54:36):
Jim, thank you for the call.

Speaker 1 (54:37):
And I will tell you this, if we along the
Wasat Front were seventy five percent, we're in an urban state.
Does anyone realize that that we by definition, are an
urban state Utah because so much of our population is
centered around its capital city and around the major metropolitan area.
It's to considered an urban state because we don't have
population that lives amongst or spread acros US twenty nine counties.

(55:01):
If we are tired of the cost of living soaring
because of supply and demand of limited land costing more
and more, If we think our quality life is deteriorating
as traffic, congestion and everything else makes it harder and
hard to live here and our kids might not be
able to afford to live here, then we have to
see the rest of our counties grow and grow responsibly.
I don't want China own it. I want I don't

(55:24):
want black Rock to own it. But we got to
have roads, we got to have water, we got to
have industry. We got to have those communities be able
to grow. And that's what the land being available would
allow for that to do. We got more coming. When
we come back from the break, We're going to talk
to Ryan about Ryan mcgoverned about legislatures and now are
they conservative?

Speaker 2 (55:42):
On Talk Radio one to five nine can in terrest Ryan.

Speaker 1 (55:44):
McGowan again chief executive officer of the Institute for Legislative Analysis. Boy,
does he have an analysis for US topic lawmakers less
conservative than voters? Boy, does he have an analysis for
US topic lawmakers less conservative than voters? Ryan, Welcome to
the program. Look, the study shows that voters may be
more conservative. I think I'm watching this in real time,

(56:06):
maybe in my own state. What does all the analysis say?

Speaker 11 (56:10):
So, the Institute for Legislative Analysis, we've been around for
three years and this is kind of our bread and butter.
We do extensive legislative research at the federal and state level.
And this is actually our third iteration of our federal
scorecard ratings of Congress. We did something a little bit
different this year because, like you just said, we felt

(56:31):
the same way. I mean, it's one thing to have
a score from one hundred to zero, and that tells
you how far in the spectrum they are from a
limited government perspective. That's how we do our grading. Who's
most in line with the constitution, lower scope of government,
Who's the more on the progressive side, you know, bigger government,
more control. So that's the baseline. The one thing that

(56:54):
we keep hearing going around is, you know, the rhino term,
this person's a rhino. Usually it's targeted at Republicans in
blue states, but that's not necessarily the case when you
actually overlap the data with election data. In this instance,
we used to Cook TVI election data, which grades these

(57:14):
districts on their Republican or Democrat leaning. So for the House,
they do R plus twenty five or more DE plus
twenty five and anything in between. So our analysts took
that information, and when we didn't have cook data, we
used a margin of victory score set based on the

(57:35):
last election. So our analysts took the margin of victory
from the last presidential election and we developed our own
baseline to determine what a district estimate would be in
terms of their conservativeness and where these lawmakers should align
on the scale. But the shocking thing that we see
in our data is that in a lot of red states,
deep red states, the lawmakers vote a lot less conservatively

(57:59):
than what they're district constituency constituencies feel based on the
metrics that Cook PBI provides. So let's say you're in
an R plus twenty five district. According to our projections,
you should be at least a ninety five percent or
above in terms of your voting record in Congress, voting
with the limited government conservative constitutional position. Sure, and the

(58:22):
reality is a lot of Republicans are just falling short,
particularly in deep red states.

Speaker 2 (58:28):
So let me run the list through.

Speaker 1 (58:29):
And I think some of our listeners would have thought
Utah would be on this list, but it's not on
the list of the notable states red states that you've
You've listed South Dakota or Arkansas, Mississippi, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Louisiana,
North Dakota, Nebraska, Alabama, Kentucky, and oh Idaho. It's a
long list. What's the court Do you see a correlation
between those states or why those representatives in Congress are

(58:52):
not vote their votes are not as reflective of the
of the conservative nature of their constituents.

Speaker 11 (58:59):
I think there are few things. I mean, these are
deeper at states. I think number one and while we
got into this work at ISLA, there really isn't enough
transparency out there in terms of how our lawmakers are voting.
You know, we all live busy lives. We can't waste time.
We have busy schedules just coming through legislative journals to

(59:20):
figure out what these bills mean and how our lawmakers
are voting. We just kind of have to take their
word for it when they're on the campaign trail, and
a lot of times we believe them. And if we're
a Republican, you know, usually you go to the polls
and you vote for the Republican and you do as
much as you can in terms of research. A lot
of times you just don't have the data available to
make a really informed decision. The other piece of this is,

(59:43):
I think once they're in so there's that piece lack
of transparency, the voters don't have all the information they
need to make the most informed decision. And then once
they're in office in DC, it's called the swamp for
a reason, you know, and I think it just has
a tendency and we've tracked this over the years where
the longer these lawmakers stay in DC, the less and

(01:00:05):
less conservative they become in terms of their voting. And
that could be due to multiple things. But I think
another important factor here is, you know, Virginia, for example,
they're having their primary election right now. I think they
had record low turnout for the Republican primary in Virginia,
and that's another big issue. I think a lot of
people they focus on the general and then they all complain,

(01:00:31):
or not all, but a lot of people complain, Oh,
I don't like this candidate. You know, he's not as
Republican or conservative as I want.

Speaker 12 (01:00:37):
Them to be.

Speaker 11 (01:00:38):
Yet they don't take the time to go to the
primary election and make their voice heard. Do either kick
them out vote someone into they think more aligns with
their values. And it's a lot easier to get re
elected as an incumbent because you've had time in d C,
you've made the relationships, you're able to fundraise more. You know,

(01:00:59):
the the groups of the GOP and the Democrat Party
if they all get behind because they think it's easier
to re elect an incumbent, and it's a numbers game,
so they just want the Republican to win no matter what.
So it really comes down to having the information and
the voters going out there and either getting out these
individuals that they feel like in deep red states that

(01:01:22):
they're not voting as conservatively as they should be and
we could do better. It's ultimately on us as voters
to go out there in primary these individuals and get
somebody else in that they think we'll do a better job.

Speaker 1 (01:01:34):
So Ryan, let me float a theory past you. I
just want to see if this might be part of
the issue in party politics, and we're talking about who
would earn because I think once you get the if
you're in a heavily Republican district and you're the Republican,
no one's I don't think anyone's going to vote for
the Democrat because you're not conservative enough. So I think
that getting that nomination is the big deal in party politics.

(01:01:55):
You have like a three ring circus. You've got your
grassroots in one ring, You've got donors in an ring,
and then you have the elected officials from your party
that would be the third. Could it be the case
that Republicans in Congress are gravitating to their donors, who, sadly,
I think are involved who look at Congress maybe more
for crony capitalism and legislation that may benefit them more

(01:02:18):
so than less government in their way. Could the donor
class be influencing the votes of these members of Congress
and that makes it easier for them to be successful
in a primary.

Speaker 11 (01:02:30):
Look, I think that's that's definitely possible. Yeah, Obviously, once
you're in office, you know there are a lot of
donors that give you a lot of money to your campaign,
and you know they expect something in return. It shouldn't
be that way, but that's kind of the reality we
live in. I think one of the cool things we're doing.
You brought up Idaho earlier too. We do this at

(01:02:51):
the state level as well, and we had a really
good use case example of getting involved in the primary.
So Idaho folks and Idaho reached out to us and
they said, we have the same problem. We are a
deep red state. We have Democrats running as Republicans because
they know they're never getting get elected as a Democrat,
so they get in the office and then they end

(01:03:12):
up scoring, you know, on our scale like forty to
thirty percent, which means they're more in line with the
Democrat position than the Republican position, and they're like, no
one knows about it. That's the biggest problem. So we
developed a GOP Platinum scorecard in Idaho and we based
it off of the GOP platform. In Idaho. They had
their own GOP party platform that was at the state level.

(01:03:37):
So we took the articles of that platform, took our research,
found the bills that fit with the articles of their
platform and basically did the same thing like we did
on the federal level in Idaho, but based on their
own GOP party platform. And from there it was really
cool how it took place because the GOP chapters in
Idaho took it as their own. Now, this wasn't sponsored

(01:03:58):
by the GOP and Idaho, there was no relationship from
that perspective. It was just us doing our work on
the scorecard using the GOP party platform in Idaho to
evaluate these lawmakers. And then they had clear evidence to
show these Republicans are not voting with the Republican position
and we need to go out and primary them. And

(01:04:19):
Idaho actually primaried I think ten or eleven fake Republicans
that have been in office for quite some time. And
when we spoke to them last month, they said, this
past session, you know, there's still a lot of work
to do. We see this in a lot of red states.
But they said, you know, they got more conservative legislation
passed this year than they have in a very very
long time. So it works. It once you mobilize the voters,

(01:04:43):
you get them this information, this trusted information, and you
let them make the ultimate decision whether it aligns with
them or not, but let them make the decision. Our
job is to provide them with the data so they
can go out there and have more information and when
they vote.

Speaker 2 (01:05:01):
I love it.

Speaker 1 (01:05:01):
You know, my theory is raised the misery. And next
if you put transparency out there and you make it
difficult for these candidates that want me, even if they're
currently serving, if they win, I bet you they vote
a lot more conservative next time around. If they lose,
you've you've put a more conservative person in place.

Speaker 2 (01:05:16):
Ryan.

Speaker 1 (01:05:17):
Thank you for the work you're doing. I think you're
spot on. I think you found the secret sauce here.

Speaker 5 (01:05:22):
Well, we're going to keep doing it.

Speaker 11 (01:05:23):
We're going to a lot more states and we'll keep
doing this work at the federal level. And please have
your listeners go to limitedgalve dot org, check it out,
share it with your friends, you know, spread this information
around so everyone has it available.

Speaker 1 (01:05:35):
Thank you, Ryan, Ryan McGowan again, Chief executive Officer of
the Institute for Legislative Analysis. I got to tell you,
I think there's a lot of truth there, a lot
of truth bombs, good analysis.

Speaker 2 (01:05:45):
There, a lot of good work too.

Speaker 1 (01:05:46):
I'm glad that they're getting involved in states and bringing
more information to bear for voters. OK, folks, when we
come back, We've got more here on the Rodd and
Greg Show on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine
can arrests our next guest, a great one. John Fleewood,
staff writer for The Federalist. Looking at Supreme Court Justice
Amy Coney Barrett. I've got a lot of opinions here,
so I'm excited to talk to Sean about this. Sean,

(01:06:07):
welcome to the program. What is the state of this
Supreme Court? And where do you see Amy Coney Barrett's
role in this court now, which she's voted in the past,
or how she's ruled in the past and in going forward.

Speaker 12 (01:06:18):
Yeah, so I think it's still up in the air.
I think when we're talking about Amy Tony Barrett in
the kind of expectations, it's important to kind of contrast,
you know, what those expectations were when she was appointed, right,
so contrast her with another Trump appointee like Brett Kavanaugh.
When Kavanaugh was appointed to the Supreme Court, I don't
think a lot of conservatives thought that he was going

(01:06:39):
to be this rock solid originalist, right, that he was
going to be like a Thomas Alito or Scalia type justice. Yes,
he would be better than Kennedy, his predecessor, but you know,
he wouldn't be that rock solid originalist that we truly needed.
With Amy Cony Barrett, the expectations were much different. They
were much higher. She is someone who previously clerked for
antonin Scalia. She had previously described her jurisprudence as the

(01:07:02):
same as his, and so I think a lot of
people were kind of expecting and hoping that when she
got on the court she would be this, you know,
staunch originalist and form this originalist block with Thomas Alito
and on his good days, Neil Gorsic. But what we've
kind of seen from her thus far is kind of,
as you noted, just kind of been like a wild card,
kind of a mixed bag. Yes, she's been instrumental and

(01:07:24):
important cases like overturning Roe v. Wade, overturning Chevron deference,
but some of the cases kind of in between that
you know, have people kind of scratching their heads. And
the New York Times put out this analysis that purports
to show that, you know, her share of majority conservative
opinions has decreased since the twenty twenty one twenty two
term all her share of majority liberal opinions have increased

(01:07:47):
over that same timeframe, and so I think it's kind
of right now determining what kind of justice she's going
to be. She certainly certainly has shown that she is
capable of being a staunch originalist and imply originalist doctrine
in cases. But I think it's consistency in that application
that we kind of have to keep our eyes on.

Speaker 1 (01:08:08):
So so, Sean, I felt like during the Trump Trump's
first administration that the vetting of judges Supreme Court justices
seemed to be such a high quality, and when you
saw the resumes, you had this some of the expectations
you described or are those that I shared? What did
we miss and who missed it? I mean, what did
we miss about Amy Coney Barrett where she is not

(01:08:28):
the originalist, maybe that we thought clerked for antonin Scalia.

Speaker 12 (01:08:33):
It's a great question, and I think, you know, as
a conservative movement, are still trying to figure that out.
But I think she when you compare her to some
of the other justices, kind of has a different track record.
She spent the bulk of her legal career as a
law professor, you know, and she was on the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals for I think two maybe three

(01:08:54):
or so years before she was tapped to be on
the Supreme Court. So in that kind of context and
comparing her to other, you know, judges on the Court,
like a Neil Gorst who was on the Tenth Circuit
for many years, she doesn't have that long of a
track record in terms of being a judge. But yeah,
I think with her, in kind of analyzing her, my

(01:09:15):
personal assessment is that she seems to be kind of
pacing herself. And again this isn't with any inside knowledge
or anything, you know. In other words, that she doesn't
seem super eager to take up a lot of cases
that address major legal or constitutional issues, and she doesn't
seem to be super eager to do that so early
in her career. She is the youngest justice on the

(01:09:36):
Supreme Court, and so she is a long career ahead
of her. And so when it comes to these kind
of applications that are brought before Scotus involving major constitutional issues.
Within the past couple of weeks, we've had one with
the First Amendment to Second Amendment cases that the Court rejected,
and she did not agree to take up those cases.
You know, those are the types of things that I

(01:09:57):
think are drawing a lot of frustrations from concer servative. So,
you know, as far as what needs to change within
you know, looking at people's jurisprudence, I think it's very difficult.
Difficult because the High Court is so different from even
an appellate court. The spotlight of the nation is on you.
It's a whole different ballgame, have much more higher issues
at play. You know, you're the Supreme Court, You're the

(01:10:19):
final say on these issues. So I think there are
a lot of different pressures that come with being a
Supreme Court justice than maybe you know that come with
being a law professor or a lower court judge.

Speaker 1 (01:10:29):
Okay, so this isn't illegally, this isn't a question that
will require you to be a legal scholar. This is
your hunch, this is your this is gonna be your
Did you happen to see Justice Barrett look at President
Trump during his State of the Union address when he
entered Congress and we're shaking. He was shaking the hands
of the justices. She shot him a look that I

(01:10:50):
watched and I thought she looks like she genuinely doesn't
like him. I mean, she smiled when he was looking
at her, then when he looked away, her face went
to a grimsy looked back She's she turned the smile
back on again. Do you suspect any animus, there any
any issues that would that she would have to consider
that has to do with Trump himself, where his administration

(01:11:11):
is there is there maybe a thumb on the scale
about him with her?

Speaker 2 (01:11:16):
Do you think? I?

Speaker 12 (01:11:18):
You know, I try not to read too much into
those things. You know, I wouldn't say I would probably
generally say no. I think if you talk about it
justice like John Roberts, it's a different situations, a different anthems. Yes,
but Amy Tony Barrett, you know, I don't think so.
I think again, she doesn't seem super eager to take
up a lot of these big issues so soon. But

(01:11:41):
it does kind of seem that her and Kavanaugh and
Roberts have kind of formed this moderate swing coalition on
the court where you get these bigger issues where you
never really know where they're going to come down, Right,
Like if it was a case involving the Obama administration
or the Biden administration, it was something that they did.
You never really have to guess a lot of you know,

(01:12:03):
where the Democrat appointees they're going to come down on
those issues. But for some reason with the Republican appointees,
you know, outside of Justices like Alito and Thomas, you
really do have to wonder. But yeah, I don't necessarily
think that there's any personal animates that Justice Barrett has
towards the president. Again, that's just my assessment of it.
But you know, that's all what I think so far.

Speaker 1 (01:12:24):
Sean Fleewood, staff writer from The Federalist Again, I'm going
to go as I said, I'm going to go with
that she's pacing herself.

Speaker 2 (01:12:30):
I like that angle. I'm going to go with that.

Speaker 1 (01:12:33):
List of folks, We'll be back and go to Abbey
for news, and when we come back, it's Listen Back
Friday here on the Rod and Greg Shaw on utah's
Talk Radio one oh five nine. Okay, anterests part of
our Listen Back Friday. We wanted to go back and
revisit our interview with Charles Lipson, author contributor from the Spectator,
Professor emeritus of International politics from the University of Chicago.

(01:12:53):
Democrats on the wrong side of issues eighty twenty issues Again,
We've been talking about this all week. I think it's
work revisiting Charles Libson. Why is it that the left
keeps doubling down, tripling down on these issues that are
just so unpopular.

Speaker 13 (01:13:08):
It seems to me that both parties have a lot
of control is given over to the activists within the parties.
That's especially true in the party out of power if
it doesn't have a leader, because who is leading the party?

(01:13:29):
Who's leading the Democrats right now? You can't Often it
would be the recently the president who was just in office,
but Biden can't do that for all the obvious reasons.
And so you see a deep split in the party
between the kind of far left and the sort of
center left wings of the party. And so part of

(01:13:56):
it is that issues like support opposing any deportation of
violent criminals and not letting ice go into jail's in
sanctuary cities to deport people who've raped children, and all
the rest seems like it's a position that the progressives

(01:14:22):
have gotten themselves into. Why anybody would call that substantive
position progressive is beyond me. But once they've gotten into
once they've taken that position, Trump very adroitly takes a
very hard stance against them. And once he does that,

(01:14:44):
I say, it's like a Chinese finger puzzle. Once, once
he's gotten them to stick their finger in the progressives,
which they've done willingly, he puts his finger in on
the opposite side and jerks it closed, and now they're trapped.
That's how I see it.

Speaker 1 (01:15:02):
This is such a great analogy, and it is so
true because you also point out that that logical issue,
what you don't want criminals that came in illegally to
be deported and they say no, well, then he pulls.
But then those same people seem to also be against
Israel and for the Hama, the terrorists, or they might
be for boys playing girls' sports, it seems like. And

(01:15:24):
then what it seems like that that that Chinese finger
trapper to whatever it is, if they're putting multiple fingers
in it and he's and President Trump is just pulling
it from the other side and taking those issues where
they can't agree with Trump.

Speaker 2 (01:15:38):
Is that right?

Speaker 13 (01:15:39):
I think that's right. I think it's also a feature
of American politics that all the issues you say cut
exactly the same way that is, the same twenty percent
are on the same side of each issue. So if
you told me, I couldn't say for sure. But if

(01:16:00):
you told me you were really strongly against the deportation
of violent illegal criminals, you didn't want ice to come
into the jail, you wanted to abolishize and so forth,
I could probably predict your position on transgender transgenders in

(01:16:21):
women's sports. Even though the two issues are completely unrelated,
they've become part of this ethos of the far left.
It's a losing position in the general election, but it
may be it seems to be a very hard position
for Democrats to oppose, fearing that they will lose in

(01:16:43):
the primaries. Look at how few have said that it's
a good idea for Israel to prevent Iran from having
a nuclear weapon. I mean, even the most sort of
that would have just been unbelieve evable that Democrats wouldn't
have spoken out in favor of Israel some twenty or

(01:17:04):
thirty years ago, But now it's just been silence.

Speaker 1 (01:17:09):
You know, you bring up the center left Democrats, those
that don't actually subscribe to this twenty percent position, but
you point out that they can't they're lent, they're trapped.
They can't speak against their own party. I've actually seen
some do it, and boy do they ever get attacked
by the apparatus, the Democrat apparatus. They get just attacked mercilessly.
Why can center left Democrats, whether candidates or elected officials,

(01:17:34):
why can't they speak to common sense right now?

Speaker 13 (01:17:38):
I think some in purple states. Can you see that,
especially with people like at least Slotkin in Michigan, for example,
I think there is some movement like that, But I
am struck in the same way you are. There's actually
some debate within the Republican Party. As you know, there's

(01:18:01):
a strong isolationist wing that's very different from the kind
of they take Trump's America First policies to an extreme.
They don't want any foreign involvement. They were especially strong
on that with regard to Ukraine, and I can understand that.

(01:18:22):
But with regard to Israel, it's not just that Iran
is a malevolent regime. If they get a nuclear weapon,
what do you think the Saudis are going to do?
What do you think the UAE is going to do?
What do you think Turkey is going to do? You're
going to have a very unstable region filled with nuclear weapons.

(01:18:45):
So I think now the latest news is that the
Iranians want to negotiate. Well, they're a fighter who's been
knocked down and the count is going seven eight, and
they're saying to the referee, g to negotiate.

Speaker 5 (01:19:03):
But I think.

Speaker 13 (01:19:06):
Trump really should tell them, a, you're not really negotiating.
Here's the deal. Either you accept the demolition of your
entire nuclear program. You have to give up your long range,
your long and medium range ballistic missiles because we see

(01:19:27):
what they've done with them. You have to allow snap
inspections to come in, and you have to declare all
of your nuclear sites. And if you do all of
those things, then the United States will urge Israel to stop.

(01:19:49):
And I suspect Israel, with that as a guarantee, would
be willing to do that. But they're not going to
stop until they take out the entire nuclear program without
really firm guarantees that it's not going to restart under
a mountain near fourdo.

Speaker 1 (01:20:06):
Charles Lipson, author contributor from the Spectator, Professor emeritus from
of International Politics from University of Chicago. I think he's
absolutely right. I just think that they have dated, they
are painted themselves in a corner, and we'll just see.
We'll just see how this works out, won't we. Okay, folks,
when we come back more here on Utah's Talk Radio
one oh five nine canas. On our listen back Friday,

(01:20:27):
we want to go back and listen to our interview
with Guy Shiraki. This is a Pittsburgh guy. This is
someone that I've known for a long long time, and
he wrote a fabulous article about the Democrats are telling
us who they are.

Speaker 2 (01:20:39):
Guy, Welcome to the program.

Speaker 1 (01:20:41):
You write that you can define people by what they
say and what they do.

Speaker 2 (01:20:46):
That's the case. Who are these Democrats?

Speaker 7 (01:20:49):
Well, unfortunately, you know, Democratic elected officials have spent the
best part of twenty twenty five doing everything humanly possible
to stop President Trump from succeeding, and they have turned
down every opportunity to work with them. So, you know,
you look at the state of the parties and look,
Republicans aren't perfect, right, that's not news. Republicans aren't perfect,

(01:21:12):
and we're not always right. But the Democratic Party has
going off the cliff. And when you look and see
the last several weeks of them flying to l Salvador
to meet with an illegal immigrant gang member. When you
see them getting arrested, rushing cabinet secretaries at press conference,

(01:21:33):
rushing ice detention facilities, when you see them obstructing go
to court to force President Trump to rehire people that
are fired, to spend money he's trying to save. You
have to step back and say, this is the twenty
twenty five Democratic Party. It's a party that believes in
open borders, illegal immigrants, wasting money, riots in cities, and

(01:21:56):
the police officers and secret service agents are taking literally
taking their lives in their hands because one of the
two major parties doesn't have their back. So I thought
I'd step back and look at all that's happening and
say this is who the modern Democratic Party has become.
And I'm hoping desperately for the sake of the Republic
that somebody in the Democratic Party steps forward and says

(01:22:19):
their party's going off the rails and needs to come
back and be about the serious business this country needs.

Speaker 2 (01:22:24):
Guy.

Speaker 1 (01:22:24):
We've been exploring this concept, this eighty twenty percent. Why
are the Democrats just doubling and tripling down on the
twenty percent side of this? Against it? Common sense everyday Americans.
We've been exploring it with different guests. What would you say,
where is the pivot? Why are we not seeing at
least for Machavelian reasons? You know, show me where the
people are going so I can lead them there type

(01:22:45):
of thing. Why are democrats, other than maybe your own
John Fetterman, why are they not pivoting to common sense?

Speaker 7 (01:22:51):
Yeah, you point out a good thing, right, Greg, with
Senator Fetterman, think of this with all the members in Congress,
with all of them are credic numbers. In the Senate,
there's one person who's noticeable because he says things that
folks in Salt Lake City or Philadelphia you would think
walking into, you know, a sandwich shop, would say, which

(01:23:13):
is you know? If you're here illegally and break the rules,
we should probably send you back. If you hold a
rally on campus and burn the American flag or spew
saying from Hitler, you probably aren't doing things that we
want and we ought to keep an eye on you.
If Moss wants to take innocent children hostage, they should

(01:23:35):
release them if they expect the war to end. And unfortunately, Greg,
those statements are known by people not only in Pennsylvania,
but in Utah because they stand alone. Why is he
the only voice? Because I think their objective is to
vance an agenda. It's not to govern, it's not to
get this done. They are all running for awful so

(01:23:57):
that they can give speeches and make Instagram they're preaching.
I'd say, respectfully, it's become sort of like the cult
they're preaching, and they're looking for an audience. And I
think they're going to keep doing it until we remove
them to oblivion or someone other than John Fedterman, other
than Center Fedterment's that's follow I think it's because they

(01:24:18):
truly believe this and they can't get it up because
it's become almost an article of faith, and they're going
to keep using social media to promote this, this philosophy,
this cult like approach to governing, which is something we've
never seen before. You know, Democrats and Republicans both used
to say we're going to steal the border. They just

(01:24:39):
disagreed on how They both said that people that commit
murders should be arrested. We debated the murders of the
this tumnel that everybody thought they should be in jail.
We thought that if you said a cop car on fire,
you should be arrested. The other party has withdrawn from
all those things we used to agree, and the only
conclusion and have is they don't care about winning or losing.

(01:24:59):
They care about it answering the cause, which is a
shame because we have real problems in this country and
we could use both parties focused on solving them.

Speaker 1 (01:25:07):
So you said that we've never seen this before, because
what I'm about to ask I probably have never asked
before this year, and that is it seems to me
the way you're describing it, and I would agree, they're
throwing away seventy seven million people that vote for Trump.
They do not care. They have actually cast aside the
American voter nationally, and it looks like they just want
to reset, maybe change who voters are, maybe bring in voters.

(01:25:28):
Maybe they don't care who votes, just who counts. It
looks like that the way forward is not to capture
the hearts and minds of American voters, but to maybe
what find new voters that currently don't exist. Is this
a strategy?

Speaker 7 (01:25:43):
Well, you know, I it's interesting. I don't know whether
it's a strategy, but certainly you know, when you go
back and look at the pieces.

Speaker 11 (01:25:50):
I think you're right.

Speaker 7 (01:25:51):
They're not interested in talking to you or me.

Speaker 5 (01:25:53):
They're not interested in talking to people. They're voters for.

Speaker 7 (01:25:57):
Donald Trump, many of whom were first time voters, of
people that had dropped out of the system and decided
they had given up on politics that don't come for
them back, They're not interested in talking to them. So yes,
I think we're now seeing as Democratic politicians fly to
El Salvador to meet with people that have been deported,

(01:26:19):
as they go to court to block future criminal the
legal immigrants from being deported. And then when they talk
about giving them free licenses or you know, drivers licensees
California and New York City, talk about allowing them to
vote in local elections, you get this sneaking suspicion, not
because of something you know, you're read on a third

(01:26:41):
rate website, but because of what they're saying out loud
that they're trying to bring new people into this country
and rush them into the system through drivers' licenses and
voting in local elections, because apparently they think these people
who come here burn American flag, waive their own flags
and tell us America is wrong and American some cases

(01:27:03):
the devil. They think those should be the new American.
I think all of us and you're listeners, you know,
we may have some disagreements about how legal immigration should
be done, but we believe in re immigrations. You know,
I joke. My name is Hieraki, my relatives literally my
wife is from poland we didn't come over on the Mayflower.
But I can tell you I was taught that to

(01:27:25):
be in America was a blessing and that it was
our job to contribute to it and to participate in it.
There are no records, there are no pictures in shoe
boxes of my family burning American flags or yelling at
American politicians or shoving American cops around. It's a very
different approach of look. As a Republican, it's great that

(01:27:47):
the Democratic Party BHA want and govern because we're going.

Speaker 9 (01:27:49):
To win election.

Speaker 7 (01:27:50):
As an American, it's dangerous that forty or forty five
percent of his party is being led in a direction.
It's not only different because they're not conservative, and they
truly are looking to destroy the fiber of this and
that's why to write it particularly, you know, this is
a message to the so called Republicans that don't like
Donald Trump. This is a message to independent we need

(01:28:11):
your help because the other party doesn't want to solve
problems in government. So whatever disagreements we have over policies,
they pale in comparison to the people who want to
actually harm America. So this is a cult to the
folks that perhaps are in the middle or unsure about
President Trump. You don't have to love President Trump. You
have to love American recicize. The other side is trying

(01:28:33):
to stare it apart, and we need your help and
maybe that will wake the other side up.

Speaker 1 (01:28:38):
Kaishi Raki, commentator, contributor, Broaden Liberty. He's a great voice
in Pennsylvania and especially with Republicans, has been for a
long time kind of dropping the truth bombs on Democrats
when they tell us who they are. Folks who ever
believe them. Look, it's been a great week. We've had
a great time lot going on. We have just gone
run the gamut.

Speaker 2 (01:28:59):
I have no.

Speaker 1 (01:28:59):
Idea what will be the top of top of mind
on Monday when we get back after this weekend with
all that's going on, But I can guarantee you this,
whatever happens over the weekend, whatever is said, we're gonna
be analyzing it, we're gonna be bringing it to you,
and as usual, you're gonna have you're gonna have the
truth bombs, and we're going to define and help sort

(01:29:21):
it all out and interpret, especially the liberals and their
twenty percent issues and the whole they're digging and that
they keep digging.

Speaker 2 (01:29:29):
We'll be here to describe it all.

Speaker 1 (01:29:31):
Hey, folks, listen, I want your hands up, your chin down,
your eyes forward, answer the bell, and I will see
you back here Monday on Utah's Talk radio one oh
five nine.

Speaker 2 (01:29:40):
Can arrest have a great weekend.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

Cold Case Files: Miami

.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 Kennedy on SCOTUS Gender Affirming Care Ruling

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;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

Cold Case Files: Miami

All Episodes