The Rod and Greg Show: Dangers of Sports Betting Apps; Dems Focus on "Affordability"

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Just like Cowboys fans. And I'm sure we're gonna hear
it from Rod tomorrow. They're they're going to the playoffs.
You Raye, you know that they're gonna make a run.
This is the big this is the big moment.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
Yeah, we don't know.

Speaker 1 (00:10):
I don't know if I want to break it to Rod,
but I'm sure he's probably part of that bandwagon. Now
that they've played well against the Las Vegas Raiders, all
the Cowboy fans think this is this is it, this
is the corner they have turned. And so Rod's on
his way back home and we'll have We'll be back
and reunited for Wingman Wednesday tomorrow. But in the meantime,

(00:31):
we have a power pack show for you today. We've
we've got some great discussions coming your way. We're gonna
talk about this affordability issue. You know, we've spoken about
this before. Rod is every time we've gotten on the
morning show call, he's really drilled down on this and
this our program has really focused on what is going
on out there? Why don't we see prices drop? We've
talked a lot on the show about it. We're gonna

(00:52):
talk to Larry Barons, he's with he's a director of
communications for Power of the Future. We're gonna talk about
the afford affordability issue. You but really, where are the
Democrats coming from? Are they really a source we can
trust with all that we have lived through. We're gonna
we're gonna talk about that. We're also going to talk about, uh,
if you if you knew, if you know any of
the climate change. You know, religionists, those that think it's

(01:15):
a religion and they think the world's ending, they are
a bunch of chicken littles. They've had some bad news
related to the doomsday they've been promising us. It didn't
deliver as promised, and we're going to talk about that.
We've got some data that it will be very hard
for them to digest that says what they've been screaming
about and warning about didn't really happen the way they

(01:36):
thought it would. And so we'll get into that in
this hour. That's the four o'clock hour later, we're going
to talk to on the program. We're going to talk
to con Carroll. He's with the Washington Examiner. And this
is a topic that I've been waiting to see someone
talk about. I've been a little bit on tilt about
the sports betting convict or arrests that we've seen. We're
seeing athletes that are uh rigging game now that you

(02:01):
have what they call prop bets. If you're not if
you don't know what prop bets mean, it's it's the
proposition bets that aren't are you going to win or
gonna lose? How much you're you gonna win? Buy how
many how much you're gonna lose by prop bets are?
How many rebounds is the play is a specific player
going to get? How many points would that player score?
In football? How many receptions will the quarterback throw? Things
like that, just different performance measures for individual athletes and

(02:24):
individual sports, and.

Speaker 2 (02:26):
You can bet on those you can.

Speaker 1 (02:27):
There's a lot of specificity there. Will come to find
out a lot of these athletes are aware of where
those bets are and they can easily manipulate the outcome
to make sure that those that they know or those
that they are affiliated with win big because they didn't
score as many points.

Speaker 2 (02:45):
They picked the under on how many points? But anyway,
I've just.

Speaker 1 (02:48):
Been shocked that these high profile, well paid athletes have
been indicted. The evidence looks pretty condemning everyone's innos until
proven guilty. But there's a lot of disturbing evidence out
there that we're reading and then all of a sudden
it disappears and we don't talk about it anymore. And
I think it meant some of that has to do
with the corporate sponsorship of these gambling apps and casinos.

(03:12):
It's become more mainstream, and I think there's a ton
of money in it, and they don't want to they don't.

Speaker 2 (03:17):
Want to mess up a good thing.

Speaker 1 (03:18):
But there's a corrupt and even organized crime element to
betting in the United States today. It is growing, and
we're going to have a conversation with con Carol about
that and talk about what's happening and how is it impacting,
especially our young our young men who this is becoming
more common again Later in the show, one of my
favorite guests to have on the show. I'm going to

(03:38):
call him a regular now I think we're like pals.
I'm just gonna just assume that's the case. Kirk Schlichter.
I don't know if you've read any of his books.
He is a columnist and contributor for town Hall. Hilarious guy.
He's an attorney. He's been a soldier, and he wrote
a column called time to Purge the GOP backstabbers. Let

(03:59):
me read the whole thing, the GOP backstabbers, sisses and narcissists.
We're gonna have Kurt on to talk about those types
of GOP types that are, you know, making it harder
for us on the Republican side to get the work done.
That'll be a great conversation. We also want to go
to you. We're going to talk get your comments about
the things that going on, especially if there's an appetite

(04:20):
to talk about this, the wagering of sports. I think
it's growing very fast. And after that conversation in the
second hour, maybe we come to you the listeners for
your opinion on what do we do about that, if
there's anything you can do about it, or if you've
seen any examples of where this has gone awry. But
right now, I want to talk about a couple of
things that are confusing me. I try as hard as

(04:41):
I can having you know, as I am a recovering
public servant, to watch what's going on in our legislative body,
watch what's happening in state politics, watch what's happening in
other states, and then nationally, and then trying to connect
dots for you every day on this program. And I
saw a court ruling of a federal court today that
is throwing out the Texas Legislature's redistricting map and why.

(05:05):
And while I'm disappointed in the judges in joining that
map or saying that that map is not constitutional and
that they can't use it for their upcoming congressional races,
it had been my understanding that our current dilemma, and
I would even call it a constitutional crisis, of a
judge and a third party, private special interest group drawing
our congressional maps that have the effect of being law

(05:29):
of the land. I had been under the impression that
this was a state issue and only our state Supreme
Court had jurisdiction to decide. But now I'm staring at
a federal court, a federal judge that has intervened in Texas,
and it makes.

Speaker 2 (05:43):
Me wonder, you know, you don't know what you don't know.

Speaker 1 (05:46):
I don't know how this became a federal issue and
how this federal judge was able to intervene. But in
some ways, maybe that's good news, because if we could
get what happened to this state in front of our
US Supreme Court. I think it wouldn't last five seconds
because I think it's it's so indefensible. But we don't
have the strongest court judiciary judicial branch in Utah, and

(06:06):
certainly not as strong of a state Supreme court as
we used to have. I have much more faith in
our US Supreme Court, but that's confusing to me that
the federal government has intervened in that case when I again,
when we're looking at issues that are similar in terms
of who gets to decide to redistrict and what's going
to happen. Maybe the common denominators. If you're a Democrat
and you just know judges, you just get your way.

(06:28):
Maybe that's what I'm missing. Maybe it's just you get
to be what doesn't matter the jurisdiction. If you can
get in front of a judge, any judge, federal state,
and you're a Democrat, that's the that's the key, because
you'll get what you want. I hope not, but we'll
find out. Also want to talk about the h There's
a lot have you seen. I think I talked a
little bit about this before we ended the show yesterday,

(06:49):
but it is an ongoing discussion about the about the redistricting.
The Democrats, you know, they don't know how to handle success.
They've gotten so excited they're infighting in the Utah Democrat
Party in terms of who's going to run for this
now twenty four percent plus Kamala Harris district that nobody
in a million years thought was even possible in the

(07:12):
state of Utah and shouldn't have been. But now you
have Ben McAdams, who was kind of the darling.

Speaker 2 (07:18):
He was the one.

Speaker 1 (07:18):
He'd been a member of Congress for one term, he'd
been a multiple term Salt Lake County mayor. Many Democrats
had lined up behind him, believing there would be a
map congressional map that might might be a competitive for Democrats,
but you'd need the right Democrat to run, to get
unaffiliateds and people that are maybe not from the base

(07:38):
of the Republican Party to come on over and vote
for Ben. Well, now that it's a Bernie Sanders district,
Now that AOC could win that district walking away and
literally from New York City, probably do it by mail
and win that seat. You've got about a thousand Democrats
who woke up after they saw that map in the
percentages of A plus twenty four percent Kamala Parris District,

(08:00):
and thought I could be in Congress, I could do this,
and so Ben mccadams campaign all the members of the
Salt Lake City Council who were endorsing him, with Mayor Mendenhall,
the Salt Lake City mayor. The only person that you
see endorsing Ben mccadams now is Mayor Mendenhall. All the
members of the city Council have rescinded their endorsements and

(08:22):
are in a wait and see mode, which means I
interpret that to mean, and they all want to run,
and they all want to see which one of them
has the you know, has what it takes to get
Bernie Sanders endorsement. That district is so liberal, that district
is so beyond the pale. It is not a competitive seat.
You won't see a serious Republican even run for it.
It is so it is so left wing that literally

(08:45):
Bernie Sanders, if he wants to weigh in in this
race in Utah, whoever he decides, and AOC decides if
they do it together, they'd like to travel together. They're
going to decide the Democrat member of Congress for Utah
on their own, it won't matter what Ben m Adams does,
it won't matter what any Democrat does. Somebody has to
satisfy those two. And we know their politics, we know

(09:07):
where they're at. They're part of that extreme left. It's
why the Democrat Party is losing registration, party affiliation nationally,
and it's why they are leaderless.

Speaker 2 (09:16):
I mean, you spot the leader, is it, mom? Donnie?

Speaker 1 (09:19):
Is that the leader of the Democrat Party? Who is
their leader at the moment. I can tell you two
voices that are trying to tell Democrats to get sane.

Speaker 2 (09:29):
That is Bill Maher, you know on his show.

Speaker 1 (09:32):
But Senator John Fetterman of all people, he's been saying,
the things have gotten out of hand. We got to
we got to pull back in. But after those two,
I don't know, and I don't know who the leader
would be. But the Democrats in Utah, they are they
they're not enjoying the rich, the you know, the embarrassment
of riches of such a Democrat seat. They're now in
fighting in terms of who gets to be leftist enough

(09:53):
to represent that seat. We'll see what happens. We'll see
what happens with that that seat. If it sticks, if
it stays, if it does, what happens in the party. Okay,
when we come back, we're going to talk about our
affordability issue, and we're we're going to dive into that
and see what the Democrats that mean by by when
they say affordability. We'll get into that too. You want

(10:14):
to hang on after the break. You're listening to Utah's
Talk Radio one oh five nine cannras. Okay, folks, we're
just talking about a myriad of issues, but we were
talking about affordability. It's something that we have discussed on
this show. We're looking around. We want to see gas
prices lower, we want to see our groceries uh become
more affordable.

Speaker 2 (10:32):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (10:32):
And it's it's been tough, and I don't think it's
happened very quickly. So you're seeing the Democrats, Oh boy,
they all of a sudden care a whole lot about this.
That you're hearing some talk about affordability from Democrats that
we just didn't hear in the last administration with Biden.
To kind of unpack that for us, we have Larry Barns.
He's the director of communications with Power of the Future.

(10:53):
Larry thank you for joining me on the Ronning Greg Show.

Speaker 3 (10:57):
Oh it's so good talk with you, Greg. I had
no idea as a Cowboys fan. I'm have to rethink
my whole structive here that you.

Speaker 1 (11:03):
Know, thank you, I you know, I'm it is it
is concerning, isn't it. We have to really a lot.
You're the only guest I've had on that's really had
to really reevaluate things upon that otherwise very.

Speaker 3 (11:14):
Intelligent person and then behold to find out this.

Speaker 2 (11:17):
Yep, yeah, that's right.

Speaker 1 (11:18):
He has you know, his voice is like, you know,
like silk, but you know that Cowboys fan stuff.

Speaker 4 (11:22):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (11:23):
So look, I love the fact that you are pointing
out some things that you you even state in this article.
You the Democrats are really really hoping that the American people.
I don't remember the last term or the last administration.
What is it about the left talking about affordability that
strikes you as odd or wrong? And what is a

(11:45):
bit ironic about it all?

Speaker 3 (11:47):
Yeah, it's it's clear. You know, if you're a family
trying to make in meet, and I know a lot
of families are, affordability shouldn't matter about who's in the
White House. Or it shouldn't be a care only when
you're part in the White House. Affordability matters all the time.
And so for folks on the left, all of a
sudden say, oh my gosh, let's take a look at affordability. Well,

(12:09):
let's take a look at what you guys were completely
silent on. You know, there were only four months out
of Joe Biden's entire presidential term that gas was below
three dollars a gallon national average, and those were the
first four months. Never again did it go below three
dollars a gallon. And I know we're getting close to
that today and Trump hasn't even been in for a year.

(12:32):
So I'm not saying that affordability. You know, we need
to turn our blind eye to it now because President
Trump is in office, But we also need to have
some perspective. They were quiet during the highest gas prices
in the history of our nation. They were quiet during
nine percent inflation, and so for them to say, oh,
my goodness, I'm really worried about affordability is an arsonist

(12:54):
trying to tell you they're really concerned about fire seats.

Speaker 1 (12:57):
So wait a minute, I wait, if I go back
in time, it was transitory inflation was transitory. There was
if you saw the nine percent inflation, you were just
maybe not sophisticated enough to appreciate how I mean, this
is what Thomas Friedman from the New York Times was saying,
you're just not sophisticated enough to know how good you
have it. I guess that didn't really sell with the

(13:18):
American people, did it.

Speaker 3 (13:20):
It didn't, and that's why they elected who they elected
in November. And you're exactly right. They called it transitory.
I mean, there's a clip, folks can go look at it.
There was a Fox Business host who asked Jennifer Granholm,
who was Biden's Secretary of Energy, asked her, Hey, are
you going to increase production to try lower gas prices?
And she just starts laughing and she goes, that's hilarious.

(13:41):
They were, Yes, they were completely condescending about what the
American people were going through, and that's why they lost, right.
I mean, Kamala Harris tried to pretend that she wasn't,
you know, in the Biden administration while she was running
for office, but we all know she was there lockstep
with all those terrible prices and our you know, trial

(14:03):
subscription to the Green New Deal and what it delivered,
and so I really struggle with leftists now. I mean,
it really grinds my gears when I see a letter
from Elizabeth Warren Donald Trump is in office for one
week and she says the prices of eggs are too high,
and it's like, oh, my goodness, gracious. I mean, it
is a fact that I know they're going to play

(14:25):
partisan games, That's what I expect. But the denial of
reality for the past four years that they were in
charge and what that inflicted upon the American family is
what you know, we all remember. But they definitely need
a reminder about.

Speaker 1 (14:38):
You know, in your column, you you go back a
little bit in time and you say, you know, these
Democrats are the same people that for the last fifteen
years have been celebrating the closure of four hundred coal
mines or coal power, of power plans, the destruction of
oil and gas plans, electricity, you know, taking our energy,

(14:59):
depleting it, cutting down the energy generation because they wanted
to make it cleaner. But you point out it became
more expensive and it and that rippled across our economy
in a way that they didn't even want to acknowledge
they thought that was actually good news.

Speaker 5 (15:14):
Yeah it is.

Speaker 3 (15:15):
And again we're gonna mention your favorite senator of mine,
Elizabeth wore she was actually at the closure of a
coal plant in Massachusetts with Joe Biden. They were cheering.
They said, this is the future, this is how it's
going to be. And this was in twenty twenty two.
And lo and behold, electric prices are through the roof.
If you take off reliable, affordable energy sources out of

(15:36):
your grid, then prices are going to go up. And
so that's what I've told folks. They said, oh, well,
we just need a just transition. Well, the fact of the
matter is we haven't. They haven't been able to just
transition to affordability, not in any place that the Green
Agenda has been tried. And so if you know, solar
panels and windmills were more affordable, then they would be
more affordable. We wouldn't need all the taxpayer dollars to

(15:59):
support them, we wouldn't need higher electric bills to support them.
And so that's part of it. They think the American
people have the memory of a goldfish and won't remember that,
Oh yeah, we cheered all these electric plant closures, and
now your electric bill is growing up. But just because
Eald Trump happens to be in a White House, it's
totally his fault. These plants are not going to be
rebuilt overnight. It's going to take time, and they know that,

(16:20):
but they honestly feel the American people are too stupid
to figure it out.

Speaker 1 (16:24):
You know. Final question is and again you say that
when we're talking different languages. Sometimes when we you and
I are talking affordable, we're talking about what we can afford.
Imagine that affordability is what you can afford. Democrats actually
when they talk affordability, they talk subsidy. Maybe explain to
our listeners, what is the goal for the word affordability
if you're a Democrat, if you're a leftist.

Speaker 3 (16:47):
Ah, such a great question, Greg. I would say that
if you were a leftist, you measure success by how
much money you've spent. And you see it in our schools,
you see it in any in the Green New Deal,
you say we're going to spend this much money to
do this thing. If you're on the right, you try
to measure it by results. And I am not trying
to pull the wool over anyone's off here and say

(17:08):
everything is perfect and affordable. Now. Absolutely not. But I
am saying that these guys, you're able to wreck a
car in a matter of seconds, rebuilding it and getting
it working again takes time, and that's the process we're
in right now. And for folks to come to say,
you know, look, look it's not affordable, well, they were
the ones who brought us here, and so it is
a great lie and they truly believe we're too stupid

(17:30):
to understand it.

Speaker 1 (17:31):
Yeah, you want free, you want you want afordable healthcare,
subsidize it. You want the cheap food, That's what snaps for.
They just want to subsidize it. As you point out,
spend spend, spend, that's what they think affordable means. Uh, Larry,
thanks so much for joining us on the program. Keep
up the good work and keep this up. I think
the irony cannot be lost, and we can't let it
be lost between what we live through with the Biden

(17:52):
administration and what we're doing right now.

Speaker 2 (17:53):
Thank you for joining us.

Speaker 3 (17:55):
Yeah, thanks, Greg, I really appreciate it. And tell Rod
everything I said about the Cowboys. I'm on the right.

Speaker 2 (18:00):
I will convey, sir, I will convey your message.

Speaker 1 (18:02):
Thank you you too, all right, folks. I was Larry Barrens,
but he's the director of communications with Power of the Future.
He's right on top of this, he's seeing it. I
just I want to close before we get to the break.
This was a President Trump's pledge yesterday and feel the
way to this. He says, my pledge to every family
and every small business is that I will not rest
until you are richer, stronger, more successful, happier. That begins

(18:25):
with making America affordable. I think there's weight behind that
because I think there's there's there's measurables with what he's
already done since he's been in office.

Speaker 2 (18:33):
So I think he means it. I mean he means
what he says.

Speaker 1 (18:35):
Okay, folks, when we come back, we're going to get
into the climate issue. We touched it a little bit
on this last interview. We're going to get into the
climate and some of the predictions, whether they came true
or not. Spoiler alert they did not. When we come
back after the break, you are listening to Utah's Talk
Radio one oh five nine can rest We continue on.
We had a very very good discussion about the Democrats

(18:56):
and how they what they've done to our economy and
how they used energy and under the banner of green
policies took away our ability to generate energy and how
that's impacted our economy in a negative way. Joining us
now on the program, Steve malloy, Steve is going to
talk about We're going to talk about the hurricane season
and the predicted apocalyptic consequences of climate change. Steve, thank

(19:21):
you for joining us on the program.

Speaker 6 (19:23):
Hey, Ron, thanks for having me back.

Speaker 2 (19:25):
So here's the deal.

Speaker 1 (19:27):
We heard from the climate alarmists that we could have
as many as nineteen hurricanes this season, and that is
because we're frankly, human beings are cooking this planet and
we're going to continue to see these catastrophic storms and
hurricanes because of the carbon emissions that we create. And

(19:47):
your article says that that might not actually have been
the case. As we near the end of this month
the hurricane season, maybe share with our listeners what has
happened in this year twenty twenty five hurricane season.

Speaker 7 (20:00):
Well, so this is the second year in a row
where the preseason hurricane forecast was you know, just overestimating
the season. Last year, Noah estimated as many as forty storms,
and less than half of that occurred.

Speaker 6 (20:19):
And this year they came back down to earth a
little bit, estimating.

Speaker 5 (20:25):
Nineteen storms and a.

Speaker 6 (20:28):
Above average hurricane season in terms of activity. And as
it turns out, well, we're almost.

Speaker 5 (20:36):
At the end, just like two weeks left and the
storms on the horizon, and instead of having nineteen, we're
only having thirteen. And of course we've had no landfalling
hurricanes in the US, which is a big disappointment through
all the climate ambulance chasers.

Speaker 6 (20:53):
They thought that they thought that.

Speaker 5 (20:56):
The oceans, who were the Caribbeans, a lot warmer, so
they expected more hurricanes. But of course hurricanes, your hurricane
activities is a lot more complicated than just temperature in
the Caribbean.

Speaker 6 (21:08):
So you know, to no one's surprised they were wrong.

Speaker 1 (21:16):
Now let me ask you this, Steve, I didn't know
until I read your article and even your post on
X that having having no hurricane make landfall in the
United States, that's I was surprised that it didn't happen.
I you know, I wasn't keeping close track. That's that
doesn't happen all the time, does it? How infrequent is

(21:36):
it that we don't have a single hurricane actually make
landfall in the.

Speaker 6 (21:40):
Well, it's actually you know, it's actually a Washington Post article.

Speaker 5 (21:43):
I was just posting an x about it. But you
remember in two thousand and five when Katrina hit.

Speaker 6 (21:51):
New Orleans, there was a storm.

Speaker 5 (21:54):
Right after that, and between that storm and twenty seventeen,
which is a period of about almost eleven years, there
were no landfalling hurricanes since twenty seventeen until you know,
last year, there were some landfalling hurricanes this year. Once again,
there's no landfill that happens. You know, we don't really

(22:15):
understand storm formation. It's more complicated than emissions.

Speaker 6 (22:20):
As a matter of fact, there's none other.

Speaker 5 (22:21):
Said admissions has anything to do with any aspect of
hurricane activity. They're not more frequent, they're not stronger, they
don't become either, they don't intensify that none. There's no
characteristic of hurricanes that has anything to do with emissions
that anyone's discovered so far.

Speaker 6 (22:42):
So, you know, we just don't understand.

Speaker 5 (22:46):
We just have to take it as it comes because
there's nothing we can do about it.

Speaker 1 (22:50):
You know, you know you're right, and I want to
correct Myselfie, these are you were pulling the information from
the Washington Post, which actually makes us even better, because
you know, the Washington Post is no friend of the
truth when it comes to climate, and so for them
to have to confess these things is actually to me
even better.

Speaker 3 (23:07):
High mind.

Speaker 2 (23:08):
I know so.

Speaker 1 (23:09):
And one of the things that you said is that
not only was it only thirteen, not only was it
the first time we didn't see a hurricane make landfall
United States in the last decade. Not only is it
what much more unpredictable and maybe not as consistent as
the climate alarmists have said, but it might not get
better for the climate alarmists because it looks like el Nina,

(23:30):
which is which would according to this article, would be
a would be one of the drivers that would contribute
to hurricanes. Was al Nina was supposed to last in
the counter years of twenty four and twenty five. So
if you don't have al Nina and that is a
driver of hurricanes, we may have even less now.

Speaker 5 (23:51):
Yeah, Ninya, I mean, they were expecting, you know, l
Nina to boost hurricane season Akiv, and of course it didn't.
They you know, these people just cannot get over that.
They do not understand, Uh, storm formation. You know, we
just it's a complex system. Nobody understands it. They thought

(24:13):
it was as simple, or at least they try to
tell everybody else that, you know, they knew.

Speaker 6 (24:17):
It was as simple as the amount of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere. In course, that's not true when you
get right down to it.

Speaker 5 (24:25):
Nobody can show that emissions have had any effect whatsoever
on any aspect of the weapon. Uh.

Speaker 6 (24:32):
You know, you know, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas,
for sure.

Speaker 5 (24:36):
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, you know, has a warming
effect for sure, but you know the sort of that
that level of carbon dioxide is different than the emissions
that add to it.

Speaker 6 (24:48):
And you know, as we go forward, I wish I
had a graph to show you. It's hard to do,
of course on the radio. But as as we increase.

Speaker 5 (25:00):
Emissions, each admission has theoretically the last effect on.

Speaker 8 (25:05):
Us potential effect on the warming.

Speaker 6 (25:07):
So you know, if we can't if we can't hook
up admissions.

Speaker 8 (25:10):
With weather events yet, we're never going to be able
to do.

Speaker 2 (25:15):
Steve A.

Speaker 1 (25:16):
Wet thank you for joining us on the program. I'm
glad you're bringing this to light. I think there's these
eco terrorists like the one that torched l A and
those fires, you know, so then trying to trying to
make a point about you know, the climate and doing
and doing the damages himself to try and make that point.
I think people need to know when they're wrong, because
we only hear every time there's a fire or something.

(25:36):
It's all our own fault. So thank you for your work,
and thanks for pointing out at Washington Post WAPO article
that kind of outs itself that they're kind of wrong.
They're wrong on their their predictions. So thank you for
joining us on the program.

Speaker 6 (25:49):
Thanks for having me Ron.

Speaker 2 (25:50):
Thanks.

Speaker 1 (25:50):
When we come back, folks, we're going to finish up
this first hour. We're going to talk about, uh, this
whole eco terrorism thing and how it's how it's worked,
how they pen and put money on and need money
to get you afraid enough to change your behavior to
save the planet. We'll talk about that when we come back.
You're listening to Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine.

Speaker 2 (26:11):
Canteress.

Speaker 1 (26:12):
We were just talking about how the eco terrorists who
and the climate change alarmists who make their living on
the fear that they can foment over this planet, getting hotter,
and the ocean's rising, and your life becoming more threatened
by what by humans and by everything that we do.

(26:32):
They want to get rid of your cows and the
emissions that they create. They want to get rid of everything.
It is so draconian in nature. And then when they
predict that we're gonna have the worst hurricane season ever
and you have one of the lighter hurricane seasons, you
have the first time in over a decade that there
wasn't any landfall of a hurricane, you have, you have

(26:53):
thirteen storms that which is far less than the average itself.
That kind of throws a wrench into their into their narrative,
and they hope you don't notice it, because they only
want to talk about the things that are that would
scare you, not the things that would show you that
the weather isn't something you can predict as they try.
I had a call, and I just want to I

(27:14):
had a call from a from a lawmaker and he's heard.
He's a listener of the show, which I would imagine
many smart lawmakers are, and he wanted to talk to
me about the climate change and the money game behind
climate and what he wanted to talk about was the
carbon credits. So I sat down with him and it
just happened this morning, and he kind of walked me
through these carbon credits. This is a cap and trade

(27:37):
deal that many many nations around the world have subscribed to,
and thirteen states in the United States have subscribed to.
And what that does is it kind of puts some
context to why you would shut down, say a coal
fired power plant, without any replacement of how you would
generate that energy, that electricity the same you were with
the coal fired power plant. Why would why would it

(27:58):
be Why would environmental list and leftists be so shortsighted
as to shut those down without something in its place. Well,
there are carbon credits that can be earned if you
can lower the carbon emissions that were once being generated,
and you can get paid by those. There's a dollar
per metric ton, And if you can shut down a
coal fired power plant, there's a calculation there that generates

(28:21):
real dollars in some form of bitcoin. I can't follow
it all, but I will tell you that there is.
It's not just a way to compel general behavior. There
is a kind of a scary and sad real money
game where if you want to build a power plant,
and it cost you ten billion dollars to do You'd
need to buy ten billion dollars worth of carbon credits,

(28:43):
so it cost you twice as much for the power plant,
the coal fired power plant, just to do it. And
there is the people that would you would buy those
credits from are going to make a ton of money
from the empty field they have somewhere in the world
that doesn't create any carbon, and they get paid for
those carbon credits. If you reduce carbon, you get paid
for those too.

Speaker 3 (29:02):
There.

Speaker 1 (29:02):
So there's a bit of a profit mode of going
on here that I probably didn't understand the depths of thought.
You should understand it. We got a lot more to
talk about when we come back after the break. We're
going to talk about sports betting, these sports betting apps,
but they're all about you're listening to the Rodd and
Greg Show on Talk Radio one oh five to nine
Pan Arrests. We're going to switch gears and we're going

(29:23):
to talk now about an issue that when I saw
this hit the news, I thought it would be a
much bigger deal, and it was that the FBI announced
arrests of major professional sports players in the NBA, in
professional baseball, and it's and it's all wrapped around a
thing called prop bets. And prop bets are when you

(29:43):
can bet on specific performances of an athlete, how many
shots they're going to make, how many rebounds, or how
many pitches they even have, pitch counts, how many balls,
how many strikes. Well, they have found that for not
very much money at all, these well paid athletes are
willing to artificially, uh throw those counts and do it
in a way that will make people a lot a

(30:04):
lot of money. And so obviously that is illegal, but
it has now cast a shadow on professional sports or athletes.

Speaker 2 (30:11):
What's really going on? Is it fair?

Speaker 1 (30:13):
Is the is the fix? In joining us to talk
about this issue is con Carrol. He's a commentary commentary
editor for the Washington Examiner. Con thank you for joining
us on the program. I've been waiting for someone to
write this article, someone to talk about this. Tell us
why we should be worried about these gambling apps and

(30:33):
these prop bets.

Speaker 9 (30:35):
Well, for a number of reasons. I mean, I think
it's a big problem beyond the sports, just because it's
bankrupting young men. These are gambling apps that target young
men in particular who you know, kind of take big risks,
and it's targeting at a time in their lives when
they need financial security to start families. And so that's
why it's a big issue for me. I understand for

(30:56):
sports fans and other people, the integrity the game is
an issue too, and and I'm a sports fan, I
think that's part of it. But for me, the real,
real biting issue here is how it's destroying young men's lives.

Speaker 1 (31:08):
So so one side I want to get I want
to get into two parts of that. I want to
get into the because you're right, I think gambling they
call it an at tax on the stupid really because
it's it does take people's money more than anyone ever
wins from it. But uh, but but you know a
lot of these apps are really really popular. It's it's
it's you see it on ESPN now that it's been mainstreamed. Uh,
convince our listeners that people are going bankrupt on this,

(31:31):
because if you luck, it'll look at corporate America. They'll
tell you that this is just the funnest way to
spend a few bucks, and it'll just make you follow
the sport a little closer and it's no harm, no file.
What's out there that would that would prove otherwise.

Speaker 9 (31:44):
There's actually a huge growing body of a real solid
academic research, you know, because you had sports betting unfold
legally different in different states. You can do economic experiments.
We can look at different states and which ones adopted
it first, in which one didn't, and see who in
particular suffers the most when sports betting is legalized. And

(32:07):
it's it's young men. I mean, I would call them
maybe more impulsive than stupid, but their age where they're
inclined to take big risks and and and make bad decisions.
And that's always been true. But you know, previous generations
didn't have these apps, and these ads constantly shoved down

(32:29):
your throat. I mean, I've been watching you know, sports
on television, you know, since I was old enough to
watch television, you know, so I'll give it away, you know,
since since the eighties, and you know, nowadays you just
can't watch uh television, a football game without having these
ads crammed down your throats. And the worst part is

(32:50):
the pregame shows game day. I don't want to single
them out. NFL all the NFL pregame shows they all
craub the cram these top bets down your road, and
it's like, I don't even want this context, but because
there's a slice of the population that spends big money
on it, Yeah, I think it's I think it's rooining
the aesthetics of the sport.

Speaker 2 (33:10):
So and I agree with you.

Speaker 1 (33:12):
I think that this prop bets, where you bet on
people on individual athletes performance. I think this is this
undercuts the just the integrity of these sports so much
and should send a signal to those that are betting
on them that the fix is in. Because if you
have a prop bet, let's say an NBA where it's
an over and under for a certain player is going
to score so many points or grab so many rebounds,

(33:33):
do you once once, now that we've seen the indictments,
now that we know not just wonder or worry, but
we know for fact that it colors the performance of
those athletes in that sport because they don't have to
worry about if the team ultimately wins or loses. They
just have to know whether they're gonna get as many
rebounds or they're going to how many shots are they
going to miss, so that they're on the under once

(33:54):
you have players who can actually control the outcome of
all these bets, doesn't Doesn't that mean hate to use
the pun? All bets are off, isn't Isn't it now
not even betting? You've got people that just to fixes
in and doesn't that indict the whole thing by itself?

Speaker 9 (34:10):
It should? I totally agree with you, And that's part
of the reason I really wrote this story is because
you know, I feel like a lot of people kind
of understand that prop ex exists. The example I use
in my article is that we've all been to Super
Bowl parties where you know, you put in five bucks
and it's like you pick who you think is to
score the first touchdown and if you win, you win
the pot.

Speaker 3 (34:30):
Right.

Speaker 9 (34:30):
You understand like there's like smaller side that's that can
happen in a game. I understand that. I just was
not aware of how granular with these apps the prop
thats have become. And so when you look at this
this case of the Cleveland Guardians, the Cleveland Indians Guardians whatever,
that's yes, you have this all star closer Emmanuel Place
and his his buddy Lewis Luis Ortiz, and apparently there

(34:52):
are you can bet on individual pitches, individual pitches and
a facebook. I'm not not even an individual at bat,
but like individual pitch, you can bet whether it's going
to be a ball or a strike. And so, you know,
the defense lawyers for these guys are like, well, we
never fixed an outcome of the game. It's like, well,
that's not a defense to what your.

Speaker 4 (35:10):
Cues, though it's exactly right of.

Speaker 9 (35:13):
Throwing a ball when you should have been trying to
throw a strike. And you know, of course a pitcher
can can can pull one pitch in the game. And
so that was eye opening for me. The other eye
opening things for me in these indictments was just how
little cash these players are getting. Like you have plays right,
the three time alls are He's making five million dollars

(35:34):
this year. If he had kept his nose clean, he'd
be making ten million dollars two years from now. And
he sells out his career for twelve grand. He's making
twelve ground an outing, you know, almost a pitch, and
he's going to throw away his career for for for
twelve thousand grand. Extra throw a ball in the seventh inning,

(35:56):
top of the seventh inning. And it's just that mismatch
that really kind of blew my mind mind about the
possibilities and if these guys doing of course college can
be doing it. Of course NBA players doing it. And
at that point, like, what what are we even doing?

Speaker 1 (36:10):
So let me throw a scenario out because this has
become so mainstream because you've got apps that are I'm
not going to say their names, so I'm not promoting
any any particular one over the other. But you've got
you've got a plethora of sports apps where you can
bet on these prop bets on performance and everything else.

Speaker 2 (36:25):
It was said by the commissioner of the NBA.

Speaker 1 (36:27):
We have algorithms and we could see if someone's trying
to manipulate that or if there's cheating going on. But
the reason these indictments were handed down is because organized
crime is embedded in all of this. Doesn't It doesn't
the legal sports apps even if someone could argue, and
I don't think they can, but if they could argue,
all there's clean as a whistle, nothing nothing to see here, folks,
But doesn't it's very existence fuel a criminal enterprise.

Speaker 2 (36:51):
That's that's now getting one hundred percent.

Speaker 9 (36:55):
It's just an escalatory difference, like It's one thing to
have Vegas in Atlantic City. We have to go someplace
and bed and that's fine. I love Vegas, I'll confess
I like going. But it's different to have twenty four
to seven access all over the United States to empty
your bank account into these things. That is just a
huge market for organized crime to tap into. And just

(37:18):
to circle back to your point about the league's the
worst part, and I'm going to forget the player's name,
The worst part is that the NBA investigated the player
in question and clear to him yes, before the FBI
came on and further indicted him. The league has every
incentive to cover these up because if they were to
actually expose and tell the truth about what was happening,
it would cut into the revenue for the gambling. They

(37:40):
have every incentive to lie, and they have been proven liars.

Speaker 1 (37:45):
So this is the last question, but just real quick,
the fact I've been shocked at how that it's been
hidden night. It's not on the front page. If no
one's talking about it anymore, it should be still being
spoken about because it's so scandalous.

Speaker 2 (37:58):
Is it gonna Is it not going to go away?

Speaker 1 (37:59):
Because there's too much money in it, and I worry
because you haven't seen anything. You've seen these stories buried.
Do you think that this prop betting and these sports
apps are going to go away anytime soon?

Speaker 5 (38:11):
I don't.

Speaker 9 (38:12):
I'm I'm I'm pessimistic, you know, I've I'm in VC.
I try to ask people around, like why is why
is no one championss like you'd think. I don't know
between Elizabeth Warren or Ted Cruz left right populist, Like
somebody's got to speak up and be like, these are
you know, big billion dollar corporations that are taking money

(38:33):
from from young, vulnerable people and no one cares. And
I haven't gotten a good answer. So I'm I'm I'm
unfortunately pessimistic on this.

Speaker 1 (38:44):
Con Carroll, he's a commentary editor Washington Examiner. Thank you
for joining us, and thanks for bringing this issue up.
It is not being spoken about enough. And folks, I
gotta tell you, you just can't watch sports and not
think that something's amiss, something's going on when you have
athletes that can that easily manipulate these prop bets. I mean,

(39:05):
if you watch this pitcher throw this ball, he threw
behind the threw it past the pitcher or the catcher,
it went to the there was no one on base,
it didn't didn't allow anyone to score. But it was
just a wild pitch. To think that that pitch was
worth five thousand dollars. And how do we know that
because the FBI was wired tapping organized crime and they
found out that this that they there were big bets
on how many balls and all these different things.

Speaker 2 (39:26):
That guy was making.

Speaker 1 (39:27):
Five million dollars that you're going to make ten million
dollars in twenty twenty seven, and for five thousand on
one pitch he threw it that way, You got to
imagine that they're doing this for friends. They're doing it,
and that's because if you're not, if you're doing any
of this and you're not involving organized crime, I'm afraid
even the big corporations aren't getting caught. I think that
the only reason anyone got caught is because it was
the mob that was doing it. But I don't believe

(39:47):
they're the only ones doing it. I think this really
does cast a dark cloud over our professional sports in
this country, and I think prop bets wholly and fully
should be should be banned. I just think that it's
too easy for athletes to manipulate those and it's not
betting anymore. They're going to decide the outcome themselves. So
that's my take. If you'd like to talk about this issue,

(40:08):
no one does really. I don't know why, but I
think it's a real concerning issue for a number of reasons,
and I think con Carol expressed them really well.

Speaker 2 (40:15):
Eight eight eight five.

Speaker 1 (40:16):
Seven zero eight zero one zero is the number to
call eight eight eight five seven zero eight zero one
zero if you have a comment.

Speaker 2 (40:22):
Also, don't forget our Talk Back Live.

Speaker 1 (40:25):
If you got the app, hit that red microphone button,
give us a thirty second take love to get them.

Speaker 2 (40:30):
We come back. We'll talk.

Speaker 1 (40:31):
Take your calls on this or anything else you want
to talk about here on the Rodd and Greg Show
on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five to nine can ress.
We just spoke with con Carol from the Washington Examiner
and he wrote an article that I just think people
are afraid to write. I don't know why this isn't
being discussed more. I don't know why this isn't I
don't see it on the news of the news, cable

(40:52):
news channels and the talking heads, but I think it
has gotten very little attention, and I think it's quite disturbing.
And what it is is it's the way the these
sports betting apps. You can bet on individual athletes performance
and a bunch of different categories. And what they found
is that the people are are artificially they're they're they're

(41:13):
rigging it. They're rigging it, they're they're they're performing less
than that. That than the bet is saying, you can
make money if he if he doesn't perform or he
doesn't perform at a certain level, you make the money
if they do. And if they know what that is,
they can they can tank it and not perform and
people make money. And I am just I think it
it's it should have it should have spelled the end

(41:35):
of prop betting in America right then and there and
never to see it again because because it's been found.
I mean, look, there's still charges pending, but I don't
know how they're getting around him. But I think it's
I think it just condemns a whole effort. I'd like
to hear from you, our listeners, what you think about this.
Am I overreacting? Is it just a is it a
nothing burger? And I'm just making it a big deal.

(41:55):
Uh eight eight eight five seven zero eight zero one
zero is the number to call if you'd like to comment.
Right now, let's go to the phones. Let's go to
David and Sandy. Who's been waiting. David, Welcome to the
Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 10 (42:09):
Hey, Greg, Yeah, so you did notice it was just
a one day story about the active NBA coach and
the active player that we're gambling. It's because ESPN and
the media and the teams, they're all in it for
the money, and gambling has just like taken over everything

(42:31):
and they wanted to move past that story so fast
like it was a one off. But we know that
it's not because then you had the baseball that you
talked about. I think it's going to ruin sports if
it hasn't already.

Speaker 1 (42:45):
David, I could not agree more. So let me ask
you this. I could see why they would want to
bury this and why they'd want to move on. And
they're making a ton of money working with these casinos
and these sports apps. I get it why they want to,
but why do you think I'm surprised that the people
that that we don't hear people talking about this more
social media not talking why why is it? Why are

(43:08):
they so effective at burying it?

Speaker 2 (43:09):
Do you think?

Speaker 10 (43:12):
Well, I mean again, they didn't cover it. There's you know,
there's people that are really into it that know about it.
But I bet your average casual sports fan has no
idea that the active coach of the unless you're in Oregon,
that the active coach of the Trailblazers was busted for gambling.

Speaker 1 (43:33):
Yeah, yeah, David, thank you for your call. I agree
with you one hundred percent. I'm glad you noticed. I'm
glad our callers noticed that the people aren't making a
big deal about it.

Speaker 2 (43:43):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (43:43):
E Ray just mentioned that Chauncey Billups and the player
they were the fish, they were the whale bringing people
to poker games, and they were rigged poker games, had
X rays for the tables, and that they knew that
the cards were doing and they would bring in other people.
I heard an interesting commentary even about that, and that
is that if a casino had done the same exact
thing the mob did for those bringing those guys in

(44:06):
and giving them basically free chips to bring in high
net worth people to bet, there would have been no
problem at all.

Speaker 2 (44:11):
But because the mob did it, that was the problem.

Speaker 1 (44:13):
I think the problem is this, you're gambling, you're losing money,
and then you're on the hook. You're on the hook
with people that you owe money to, and I think it.
I think it's going to undermine our sports if it,
as David pointed out, if it hasn't already. Let's go
to a talkback We got a talkback live comment that
came in while we were here. Actually, let me make

(44:33):
sure I've got this on all right, e Ray, this
is a big test here.

Speaker 2 (44:38):
Let's see if I can do it. Actually I don't.
I don't. I don't know. I'm gonna try to talk
back live. See if it works. Here we go. No,
I don't. I don't have the button on.

Speaker 1 (44:49):
I let's see, I don't know which button it is
era to put on for the for the talkback live.
But we'll get to that one. But I the issue
I have with all of this, frankly, is I don't
care if they don't make any big deal.

Speaker 4 (45:07):
I don't.

Speaker 1 (45:07):
Well, I do care that they don't make a big deal.
But with the reality is still the same. These games
are being manipulated. Think performances are being changed by money
changing hand not because athletes are getting out there and
doing doing the doing the job, trying to win the game.
And I think once you get past it was one
thing when you could when the way you had to

(45:28):
do it is you had to determine the outcome of
the of the game, whether a team was going to
win or lose by or by how many points. But
once you get down to individual prop bets and their performances,
it is just too easy and it is too hard
to police. I mean, let's say, let's let's pretend for
a second you don't do it with organized crime. Let's
say it's just your friends. You know someone and you

(45:49):
know that if I if I get ten rebounds, you
know that's a bet, and you tell your friends I'll
do nine. I won't get ten, and they bet the
house on it, you know somewhere. I mean, I just
think it's I think it's right for corruption. Love to
hear your comments again when we can. We're gonna go
to a break, But if you're on hold on the phones,
hang on, we'll get back to you right after this break.
You're listening to talk Radio one oh five nine canters.

(46:12):
The topic we're talking about sports betting, sports apps that
that that you.

Speaker 2 (46:17):
Can bet on.

Speaker 1 (46:18):
And then what I think is the biggest issue in
the and really undermining the integrity of sports is these
prop bets proposition bets on the individual performance of athletes
and how that can be I see no way to
police it, and I see it being a way for
people to make money and to compromise the integrity of
the sport in terms of people's performed athletes performances. But

(46:39):
con Carol we we spoke to him and he talked
about it, and he also talked about the eroding a
factor that might have on young men who are willing
to take risks and may lose a lot on these
on these very appealing U sports apps and betting apps
and things like that.

Speaker 2 (46:53):
So let's go to you.

Speaker 1 (46:54):
I want to know what you what's the collective wisdom
of the listeners. I always love to code to our
listeners and have a chat and see what's going on
and see what you think. So let me go to
Rob and Sandy. Rob, thank you for holding Welcome to
the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 8 (47:10):
Yeah, can you hear me? Okay?

Speaker 2 (47:11):
I sure can. Thank you for calling.

Speaker 8 (47:16):
So I don't know how old you are or how
long you've been watching sports. But do you remember Mark Maguire.

Speaker 1 (47:21):
Yes, he was part of the Blues Brothers. They went
to send He went to Bash Brothers and then he
went to the Saint Louis Cardinals.

Speaker 8 (47:33):
And then and then broke fabe roots record, you know,
and then got caught with taking drugs. Right to do that?

Speaker 2 (47:41):
Yep him, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds.

Speaker 8 (47:45):
Yep, Sammy so So yep. Exactly. That's pretty much when
I stopped watching sports because I was kind of disenchanted
with the whole thing and the greed. It was never
really about the sport anymore. And it seems to be,
you know, it's sports. These people are way overpaid compared
to what the common man makes in the plumbing industry

(48:05):
or the electrician industry, and and I'm very amazed at
how many people are so glued to the sports. Yeah,
and for what these people make on an annual salary,
you know, and it just blows my mind. But the corruption,
I think began there, and it's kind of like on

(48:27):
now that's again, remember Pete Rose.

Speaker 2 (48:29):
Yeah that on baseball.

Speaker 1 (48:31):
He's not in the Hall of Fame because of it,
and you know, he's passed away now never made the
Hall of Fame. Hey, Rob, let me ask you a question,
because I think you're right, and I find myself I'm
glued to professional sports and it's starting to feel I
don't like what I'm seeing and I think it's undermining
the sport. But what about amateur sports?

Speaker 2 (48:46):
Are you are?

Speaker 1 (48:47):
Do you watch college? Do you watch maybe high school sports?
Is there any any of those that.

Speaker 8 (48:52):
Are still catching? I would say college would probably be
a little more exciting. Yeah, college would be a little
more exciting. But you know, I I kind of got
away from it all. I really did at that point
when when that happened, and I walked away from it,
and I used to watch it. I was an Oakland
Raider fan. I love back in the day when Ken
Stabler and Ray Guy and yeah you know and Ted

(49:14):
Hendricks and you know the Steelers kids.

Speaker 11 (49:17):
You know Ken Stabler or Terry Bradshaw, but whatever the
quarterback was back in the day of the Pittsburgh he
was great.

Speaker 8 (49:27):
That's when they played sports. I mean, have you watched
a football game in the snowstorm ever lately?

Speaker 2 (49:35):
Yeah? Rob, I'll tell you what.

Speaker 1 (49:37):
I agree you don't you know, they're all dome stadiums
now they're all domes. They don't want to play in
the bad weather. I love, I love bad weather games,
and I think it's it's a shame if you don't
have In fact, I think if football inside and indoors
just doesn't feel right. Even baseball and it's inside a
dome feels weird to me. But thank you for the call.
And I get what you say. It does have a
it does. It is disappointing. Let's go to our talkback

(49:59):
calls and se what you have to say. Oh, hang on,
hang on, here we go.

Speaker 12 (50:09):
Thank Greg. So here's what I'm I want to poll
us this question about the whole betting apps. How is
that any different than the apps that we use for
fantasy football, fantasy baseball, fantasy basketball, fantasy.

Speaker 4 (50:26):
Hockey, all of those.

Speaker 12 (50:30):
Should there be a regulation that those cannot be charged
at all, no money whatsoever.

Speaker 2 (50:37):
It's a good question.

Speaker 1 (50:38):
And these are the apps, I mean they have so
they the fantasy those fantasy sports apps that you put
money in and went back, those are those are the
proposition bets.

Speaker 2 (50:48):
That's part of it. Some of it said over.

Speaker 1 (50:51):
You know, if you are in a fantasy football league,
there's some universal ways that you can score your running
backsyards and touchdowns and things like that. But even those apps,
they can you can get even deeper into those and
get into specific players individual stats for the purposes of betting.
And I think you're right. I think when you're when
you're getting into that, if it's broad enough, maybe that's okay.

(51:14):
On the fantasy football team and your team of players
and how they perform their best, you don't get money,
in other words, if they don't perform. But on prop bets,
you can make money when they don't perform. And it's
just too easy for athletes to not perform and make
people to make money from that and profit from that.
And when they don't perform, what happens to our team.
Our team doesn't do as well, which undermines the whole

(51:36):
purpose of watching your team. So I think that the
fantasy if it's you're getting, if you're getting points for
how they perform, and the better they perform, the better
of the points. I can get my head around it.
I can't get my head around anymore prop bets, where
if they don't get as many pass completions, if they
don't get as many rebounds, then the failure for them

(51:56):
to hit that mark rewards people financially.

Speaker 2 (52:00):
Le's go to another. Let's go to another talkback.

Speaker 13 (52:03):
Hello Greg on the sports fitting out.

Speaker 1 (52:06):
Now.

Speaker 13 (52:06):
I'm not going to sports myself and I don't gamble.
But for those that want to gamble on the app,
give all the pros and cons and let them make
their own decision. Don't baby them, don't try to protect them.
They're adults. They can make their own decisions, thank you.

Speaker 1 (52:28):
So I understand what he's saying, and that goes to
part of what con Carol is talking about, his concern
about young people and how well it's marketed and pulls
young people in and it might lead to financial demise.
I don't like protecting people from themselves. We're all adults.
I'm talking from the fans, So I get that part.
But the part I have still have a problem with

(52:48):
is as a fan, I expect the team that I'm
cheering for. Every one of those players on the field
is doing their their level best to perform that they're
trying to win. They're trying to do it as a team.
They're trying to to That's why I'm watching. I would
watch otherwise I'm not. I mean, I I don't do
the prop bets either. I don't do this fantasy sports.
I need I want my team to win if I

(53:09):
find out that my team or any member of that
team is giving less of an effort so that his
pals or the mob or or anyone is gonna make
a ton of money because he doesn't perform up to
an amount. Because remember those prop bets, it's like ten
rebounds or less, Like are you do you think he'll
make ten or more? Or do you think he'll make less?
And once an athlete knows the less and he can underperform,

(53:31):
and people make money when they underperform.

Speaker 2 (53:33):
It's just too easy. They can do it.

Speaker 1 (53:35):
I just, I just I don't think those are the
things that ought to be wagered on. Eray, do you
have time for another call? To take it after the break?

Speaker 2 (53:44):
Take it right now?

Speaker 1 (53:44):
Okay, let me go back. Let's go to Barrett, who's
in North Salt Lake. Barrett, thank you for calling the
Ron and Gregg Show.

Speaker 4 (53:52):
Hey, what's going on? So I'll just be real quick
for you. Well, I'll just want to say rest in peace,
Rush Limbaugh, love you guys, what you guys are doing.
But as far as the betting, goes. Yeah, man, I
listen to them every day on my way to work.
I drink coffee with you know, my my mentor doing
tile work for fourteen years, you know, and anyways, you know,

(54:14):
it would always love hearing them on there. But here's
what I want to say about the about the betting. Okay,
like me and my dad, we've had a a what
do they call that, a function where we would always
go together right to went over whatever, you know, for
super Bowl, for this or for that. You know, they
always have the point spreads. You know, it's like a family.

(54:35):
It was like a family thing, you know. And after
hearing about all this stuff, the way, the way that
I come off on it is Okay, well, I think
the most important thing is to educate the people on
what they're doing, of course, but it's not gonna stop it,
you know. I don't think it's going to stop it.
Just educating the people and then you know, when you
catch somebody, you know, they get in trouble. I don't

(54:56):
think it's gonna stop it. Fully, I think the best
way to stop that would you be to educ eight
people to the fact that hey, look stop doing the
point spreads. Stop, you know, putting all your faith in
one player and just do it as a whole team,
because that's what I always do whenever I go. Yeah,
Dad's like, hey, you want to play the spread, you
want to do this. I'm like, no, I'm just gonna
bet to win. And that's it. You know what I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (55:18):
That's called the money line. It's the money line.

Speaker 1 (55:20):
And you take the money line because you don't care
if your team, if you won, if you if your
team lost but they lost by less than seven points.
Do you do you feel any better?

Speaker 2 (55:29):
I don't.

Speaker 3 (55:29):
I don't.

Speaker 1 (55:30):
I don't. This point spread is nothing to me. It's
my team wins or loses, you know, exactly like.

Speaker 14 (55:38):
You said, you know, I want my team to win,
and I'm gonna bet on them to win. I mean,
all of these different little spreads and stuff.

Speaker 4 (55:45):
I mean, if you look at.

Speaker 14 (55:46):
Online, like you guys were talking about, they've got more
fantasy football leagues and all these different dabbles and stuff
where you can, like, you know, bet and whatever.

Speaker 4 (55:55):
It's like, just bet to win.

Speaker 3 (55:58):
You know what I mean.

Speaker 15 (55:59):
That's it.

Speaker 2 (56:00):
I'm with you, brother, thank you.

Speaker 4 (56:01):
It's a team effort.

Speaker 1 (56:02):
Anyways, I agree, Thank you, Barrett, thanks for the call.
I'm seeing it the way he is. I only watch
sports to win. I mean, I hate losing more than
I love winning, So I want my team to win.
That's it. I don't care about to spread as much.
I don't care as much. I don't care at all.
I want to win. Okay, when we come back, well,
let's uh, this will be the final statement. We'll land
this issue, and then we have a very exciting final hour.

(56:24):
We're gonna talk into six o'clock hour with Kurt Schlichter.
He is so tired of the GOP backstabbers and cissy's
and narcissists, and we're going to talk to him about
what do we do as a party with these people
that do this type of stuff. When we come back
after the break, we'll get into that as well. So
you're listening to Utah's Talk radio one oh five nine
can arrests in the next hour. We have a couple

(56:44):
of things I've been telling you. We're going to talk
to Kurt Schlichter about, you know, these backstabbers and narcissists
that are on the Republican side. Uh, all the drama
that's going on, UH with some of some of the people.
I mean, we'll get into that with Kirk Schlichter, but
there's also a something I want to jump into at
I think at the top of the hour. Have you
seen on social media the Democrat's latest video where members

(57:08):
of Congress who also had served in the military, served
in the CIA are openly telling Americans that they don't
have to follow the law. They don't have to follow orders.
If they feel that the orders that they are receiving
in the intelligence community, in law federal law enforcement, or
in the military are in their opinion, unlawful, then they

(57:31):
don't have to do it.

Speaker 2 (57:32):
You're gonna have to hear it to believe it. I
think it's an absolute.

Speaker 1 (57:34):
I mean, for a party that screamed insurrection for how
many years for them to air this video the irony,
it's not even irony, it's just so offensive. And the
easy test for that, and like I said, in the
next hour we'll get into it, is to could Trump
say any of the words that you're about to hear
from these elected Democrats.

Speaker 2 (57:56):
The answer is no. They tried to say.

Speaker 1 (57:58):
That he said these type of things and that he
was an insurrectionist, and he never said anything like you're
going to hear and yet you know, they had the
hearings of January sixth hearings and they did all of this.
They try to keep them off the ballot in twenty
four but somehow it's okay for them to do this.
The selective logic and outrage from that party, it just

(58:19):
seems like they're in a hole. They just keep digging.
I just wonder how many Americans are buying this and
when they hear things like this, does it does it
disgust them? Do they do they WinCE? And do they think,
oh my gosh, what are they saying? We're this is
still America, We're Americans here. So again, I just want
to get into that as well. I think if you
haven't heard it, it happened today, So I don't know

(58:39):
if you've heard it yet. Today we're going to definitely
play it for you. But on the on the issue,
just to finally about the betting apps and everything else.
I was just saying to someone because I like that
Barret boy, I thought he has answers were kind of
it's kind of how I feel. I think that the
problem is it's not I can I can subscribe to
We're not going to protect people from themselves if they

(59:00):
want to take their chance gambling, and it might even
be that the the what they're gambling on, the fix
might be in and that's just buyer beware. But for
me who watches sports who doesn't gamble, I'm assuming everybody
that's on the team, everyone the coach puts on that team,
they're there to win. They're there to get as many rebounds,
or they're there to complete as many passes. What would
it be like if there was an over under on

(59:22):
on receptions for a quarterback to throw and you need
another reception to win the game. But if he does it,
it's the over So he misses just because of the
of the because it's going to make the people he
knows a lot of money. That that's that That that
that messes with the entire team.

Speaker 2 (59:38):
That messes with me.

Speaker 1 (59:40):
I cannot subscribe to a system where players on their
own based on their individual performance if they don't perform.
It's one thing if if the more you perform, the
better it is because you want your all players to
perform well and all the positions that they play. But
if you get paid for not performing, and the and
the athlete knows it, and he can easily just not

(01:00:01):
do it. I think I that that that that undermines
the integrity of the sports in which I've been watching
my whole life, and that I quite enjoy, and I
would hope that that would be banned in some way anyway.
Come when we come back, we're going to talk about
this video.

Speaker 6 (01:00:16):
This.

Speaker 1 (01:00:16):
I call it an insurrectionist video by the Democrats in Congress.
You'll have to hear it to believe it. So stick
with us here on one O five nine canters.

Speaker 2 (01:00:24):
You're I R S ninety.

Speaker 1 (01:00:26):
So I told you before the break there's a video
that I wanted to play, and I want you to.
I want you to listen to this because it's I think. Okay,
I had to. I had to do something, so I
have I have a way, I have my own system,
and I had to. I just set it up here
for a second. Okay, Now I want you to listen
to this. I'm not gonna give it any more play.
I'm not gonna give it any more hype. I'm not

(01:00:47):
gonna describe it. I just want you to have a listen.

Speaker 16 (01:00:50):
I'm Senator Alyssa Soockin, Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Chris Deluzios, Congressman,
Representative Chrissy whola Han, Congressman Jason Crowe that was a
in the United States Navy, former CIA officer, former Navy,
former paratrooper and Army ranger, former intelligence officer.

Speaker 2 (01:01:07):
Former Air Force.

Speaker 16 (01:01:08):
We want to speak directly to members of the military
and the intelligence community to.

Speaker 17 (01:01:12):
Take risks each day keep Americans safe.

Speaker 16 (01:01:14):
We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.

Speaker 12 (01:01:17):
Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk.

Speaker 17 (01:01:21):
This administration is pitting our uniform military.

Speaker 16 (01:01:24):
And intelligence community professionals.

Speaker 17 (01:01:26):
Against American citizens like us. You all swore an oath.

Speaker 2 (01:01:29):
To protect and defend this constitution.

Speaker 16 (01:01:32):
Right now, the threats to our constitution aren't just coming
from a broad from right here at home.

Speaker 17 (01:01:36):
Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.

Speaker 16 (01:01:40):
You can refuse illegal orders.

Speaker 17 (01:01:42):
You must refuse illegal orders.

Speaker 16 (01:01:45):
No one has to carry out orders that violate the
law or our constitution.

Speaker 17 (01:01:49):
We know this is hard and that it's a difficult
time to be a public servant.

Speaker 16 (01:01:52):
But whether you're serving in the CIA.

Speaker 17 (01:01:54):
The Army, or Navy the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.
And know that we have your back because now more
than ever, the American people need you.

Speaker 16 (01:02:04):
You need you to stand up for our laws.

Speaker 17 (01:02:05):
Our constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don't give up.

Speaker 5 (01:02:10):
Don't give up.

Speaker 2 (01:02:11):
Don't hear that.

Speaker 1 (01:02:14):
So they're saying that if you are in the CIA,
if you're in the if you are in the intelligence community,
federal law enforcement, or the military, and you feel that
the orders you've been given are against the law or unconstitutional,
that they say you can and then one says you must.

Speaker 2 (01:02:31):
Refuse those orders.

Speaker 1 (01:02:33):
Here's here's what's disturbing about that. That's a partisan commercials.

Speaker 4 (01:02:37):
There's not.

Speaker 1 (01:02:38):
That's not a bipartisan message that you heard. And have
you ever heard them? Have you ever heard, especially during
the Biden administration, how they're fighting to save democracy. Well,
how do you fight to save democracy? Well, you call
veterans potential domestic terrorists. You call people parents that go
to school board meetings they're upset, potential domestic terrorists. You

(01:02:59):
call people that exercise their second Moment right and own
guns potential domestic terrorists. That doesn't sound like you're defending democracy.
It's a democratic republic to begin with. But some of
the things that we've heard the left accused Trump with
Trump arrangement syndrome being you know, linked to it. But
is it's unconstitutional? How is it unconstituted? He was elected?

(01:03:23):
He is it in the constitution that if you're a
Republican you're not, and you're elected president, you're not allowed
to exercise the authority of the executive branch. Because the
Democrats actually are making constitutional arguments, going to courts and
even getting lower k lower federal judges, lower district courts
to agree with them that no, the judge can tell

(01:03:43):
a president you can't enforce our immigration laws and execute
those laws of people that are violating federal law.

Speaker 2 (01:03:51):
You can't do it.

Speaker 1 (01:03:53):
The amount the ways that Judge Boseburg has allowed for
warrantless wire tapping in the past of President Trump and
his campaign, the way he tried to turn around planes
there are not international waters and then tried to hold
members of the administration in contemp because he himself did
not want the deportation of these criminals. What is does

(01:04:17):
it mean to do something that in your opinion, and
this is their message in there, if you think, and
it's your opinion that what you're being asked to do
is unlawful or is a violation of the Constitution, then
you may not obey or you should not obey. Now
I haven't been in the military, okay, and so I'm
not a veteran. I know people that are. I have

(01:04:38):
never been left with the impression that the orders that
you receive and the instruction and the missions that you're
asked to carry out are open to interpretation by the
members of law enforcement, federal law enforcement, intelligence community, members
of the military.

Speaker 2 (01:04:54):
Is there a poll that is taken. Does everybody think
what we're doing is legal? Is it not legal?

Speaker 1 (01:05:02):
You could say, you could say that, uh, it's treason
if you refuse those orders. And when these members of
Congress say we'll have your back, what will that actually mean?
Because I mean, was it. Let me ask you this,
when members of the Special Forces didn't want to take
the vaccine and they and they discharged all those members
of the military, was that constitutional? Was there was there

(01:05:26):
a freedom to refuse the vaccine if you wanted? The
Democrats said there wasn't. You had to take it or
you had to get out. We lost generations of special
uh Special Force Special Forces members because they didn't want
to take that vaccine. Only after the Trump administration came in.
Have they been either brought back in or they were
honorably discharged and they were given back pay. But depending

(01:05:47):
on the administration, that's uh, that's in office. Boy, this
whole follow the law and the constitution starts to feel
pretty subjective. I think it's pretty easy to say if
a federal law says that you can't be here illy,
if you entered illegally and you're not here lawfully, you
can be deported. I don't think you have the luxury
of deciding whether that is illegal or not constitutional, now

(01:06:11):
that we know that Democrats do. That's why you have
these mayors and everybody that's trying to fight the federal
government or these federal law enforcement officers from enforcing federal law.
That's why I keep saying when I see I like
that ICE keeps putting out the criminals that they would deport,
they capture and deport, and I keep saying, these criminals
are not oppressed, and enforcing the federal law is not oppression.

(01:06:33):
But I think that's what I'm hearing. If in the
easy test on this whole, you don't if you think
the law, if you think your order is illegal or unconstitutional,
you don't have to follow it or you should not
follow it. And to know that that is very, very
dangerous to be saying to anyone and trying to give

(01:06:53):
them the political cover or even the way it sounds,
the legal cover that they don't have to follow any
orders say those things. Could the Trump administration say those things?
Of course he couldn't. Of course they would. They would
recoil immediately. Of all the things I've heard about January sixth,
and him at the rally telling you know, let's our

(01:07:14):
voices be heard and everything else, and that being construed
as try to interrupt a free and open election, try
to stop the transfer of power, and what they tried
to say that him saying you're here to protest. Protest
for them to construe that as an insurrection or him
inciting an insurrection. And then they get on this video

(01:07:35):
right here and specifically tell members of the intelligence community,
the federal law enforcement community, and our military to not
follow orders if they think subjectively that they are illegal
or not constitutional.

Speaker 2 (01:07:49):
What do you say about that? Do we have? Can
anyone give me an example?

Speaker 1 (01:07:53):
Are any of our listeners have you been a member
of federal law enforcement, intelligence agencies or the armed forces?
Could tell me what what would happen if you looked
at your commanding officer or you're superior and said, no,
I don't like what you're telling me to do. I
actually think it's illegal. I don't think it really follows
a constitution. I'm not going to do it. I'm not
going to comply. What happens? Does that happen a lot?

Speaker 4 (01:08:16):
Is it?

Speaker 1 (01:08:17):
Do these decisions go to the to the to the whole?
Do they get the vote on it? If you have
an opinion, a take, or an experience that could help
shed some light on what the Democrats are encouraging people
in these positions to do, feel free to call eight
eight eight five seven zero eight zero one zero is
the number to call, even on our talkback live line

(01:08:40):
if you'd like to leave a message. I'm actually looking
for the real life experience of those who would know,
can you do this? Can you do what they're what
they're they're asking people to do right now, and that
is just to disobey if you think it's illegal or
you don't think it's constitutional. Because those two terms illegal
and unconstitutional, the Democrats have been thrown that around very loose,

(01:09:01):
and it's pretty much if you're Donald Trump. Everything's illegal
from that part on. Or you're destroying democracy, You're you're
destroying the constitution. So anything that the president asks you
actually falls into that category. If you listen to them,
is that what they're talking about? It sounds it sounds
like treason, but it's like treason light. You know, it's

(01:09:22):
like they don't tell you what specifically to do, but hey,
you know, you don't have to actually do any of it. Really,
it's just and then to say they have your back.
Let's see, let's see if they do. If anyone, if
any of the people with Trump Arrangement syndrome watch this
video and think, wow, all these members of Congress and
the US Senate just gave me permission to disobey orders
because I don't think it's legal.

Speaker 4 (01:09:43):
I don't.

Speaker 1 (01:09:43):
I don't think it's constitutional. Now I don't have to
do it anymore, and so they don't What happens next,
I don't know. I think I know that there would
be a negative consequence to doing that, But maybe I'm wrong,
Maybe there's a maybe I'm Maybe it's more a collective
decision on whether orders are followed or instructions given.

Speaker 2 (01:10:05):
I don't know. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:10:06):
It seems weird to me, but that's the that's the
that's the buzz right now. That came out today. That's
been a lot of discussion going on around that video
and those Democrats telling people and armed forces and federal
agencies that they don't have to follow the law. If
they think the law they're asked to follow is illegal,
you don't follow it.

Speaker 2 (01:10:23):
You shouldn't follow it.

Speaker 1 (01:10:25):
If you think it's unconstitutional, you shouldn't obey what say you? I.

Speaker 2 (01:10:29):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:10:30):
So we're gonna go to a break right now. If
you have a call comment, come on participate. Let mean
give it and shed some light on this. Tell me
if these people are leading some people down a primrose path,
that's not going to a very good place. We'll be back,
hopefully with your calls and comments here on the Ronning
greg Show. You're listening to Utah's Talk Radio one oh
five nine Cannoris.

Speaker 2 (01:10:51):
Commercial Fence Projects to Defense and your We talked.

Speaker 1 (01:10:54):
About the that that that, you know, the message that
the Democrat members of Congress and the House and Senate
are sending to members of the military and members of
our intelligence agency and federal law enforcement and I think
we've said what needs to be said there. I just
think it's a it's it's hypocrisy and it's dangerous. And
but I guess that's on brand for the Democrats now,

(01:11:15):
so let's move to this. That's the Democrats. Let's talk
about the Republicans. Joining me on the show is one
of my favorite guests. And I think he's a regular
now because he comes on a lot. He's an author
or prolific author. He and he's a really funny guy,
pulls no punches. I think Rod and I played a
clip once where he was kicked off of a British
show because he was just so he was very, very

(01:11:36):
blunt and and the British guy was so stuffy he
couldn't handle it, and need he screamed that he wanted
him off the show. And anyway, so that that that's
that gives me. That's that's points right there. So joining
us on the show. Kurt Schlickter, he is a he's
a senior columnist for town Hall. His column time to
purge gop, black, backstabbers, sissies, and narcissists. Kurt, thank you

(01:11:59):
for joining us on the program. Love the column, Love
Love your take, it's always you pull no punches. Let
me ask you this, these these types of people in
our Republican Party, what is the biggest barrier in the
party when we have when they have people like this?
I mean, how do we deal with people like this?

Speaker 18 (01:12:17):
Well, look, we have a problem in our red states.
And you guys in Utah know it. Well, you can't
get anywhere effectively in a deep red state unless you
join the Republican Party. So people who normally become Democrats
become Republicans, and they become lousy Republicans, soop Republicans, hitty Republicans,

(01:12:38):
Republicans who can't make it happen. I call them the
electile dysfunction caucus. All right, It just it just doesn't work.
And they certainly don't satisfy. These these folks, and there
are plenty of them, and a lot of them are
these loser backbencher you know, I'm I'm in Iowa state senator.

(01:13:02):
You know as if that, You know, I can't think
of anything more pathetic than someone chiseling that into his headstone.
But you know, they have this inflated sense of their
own importance, and they don't understand that they are part
of a movement. It's not about them, it's not about

(01:13:25):
their moral narcissism, it's not about getting attention. It's about
working together to keep these damn communists from ruining our country.
And there are a lot of them, so narrowing it
down is kind of difficult.

Speaker 1 (01:13:39):
You know, you've described the frustration of our politics, and
we've got a lot of it. And we've actually got
a really hostile sub state Supreme Court. We've got a
judge that's redistricted of a plus twenty four percent Kamala
Harris congressional district. Of our four we only get four,
you know, with a candidate who couldn't win a single
swing state in America. So we're dealing with this, these sissies,

(01:14:01):
these fredocons, you know as you call them. Here's here's
my question. Do the people that are Rhino's call whatever
you want. Do they know they're useful idiots for the
left or are they just they're just trojan horses and
Democrats to their core?

Speaker 2 (01:14:15):
What is it?

Speaker 1 (01:14:15):
Are they just are they just being used or they
they're used or they know they've embedded themselves in a
party they don't belong.

Speaker 18 (01:14:23):
Well, they know that, but they also, uh, they've got
the Mike Tennis problem, right, Yeah, and you know it's
Mike Tence, the most ostentatiously Christian value you'd ever meet.
And I do believe Jesus had something to say about
the guys who uh are ostentatiously Uh holy you're so

(01:14:46):
this is the essence of these guys.

Speaker 9 (01:14:49):
You know.

Speaker 18 (01:14:50):
You know when I do things that happen to uh
support my own agenda, why it's from the deep. I'm
drawing deep from the well of morality. When and you
people do things that support your impressed, well, you're selfish
and bad. So I'm a good person by denying the
majority its will No, they're not good people. They're jerks,

(01:15:12):
and they should be treated accordinglys. And we've got to
start getting ruthless about it for two. And I'll tell
you who's fault it is.

Speaker 8 (01:15:20):
Okay, just like.

Speaker 18 (01:15:21):
In California, where I come from, most of the time,
the problem is California's we didn't get out there and say,
hell no, we're not going to take in the problem
in Utah is Utah's who put up with these guys.
The problem in Indiana, for instance, where they won't redispirate
is Indiana's will who voted for these clowns and keep

(01:15:45):
reelecting them because well he's a good guy and he oh,
he's the local buick dealership. You know, he's a swell guy. No, No,
hold them to standard, hold their feet to the fire.

Speaker 1 (01:16:00):
You tah, We've got our challenges here. But you mentioned
Indiana Mike Pence. He went in there and he persuaded
members of that legislature to not redistrict. He's also have
you noticed he's not found anywhere in the Operation Arctic Frost.
I don't see his name with all the other ones.
I don't know if that's a coincidence or what. But
the vim and vigor I'm hearing from Kurt Schlicker right now,
which I love and that's why I read everything you're write.

(01:16:23):
How do we get that kind of enthusiasm in these midterms?
We don't have Trump on the ballot. He's a guy
that's a no nonsense guy, calls it as he sees it.
But we need maybe what you call the non high
propensity voters or the non high propensity votes, people that
really like to vote for Trump, but they don't really
trust politicians or like politics. How do we get people

(01:16:44):
out in twenty six and really do what you're saying.
The people have to address the people that are undermining
this country and the everyday people.

Speaker 18 (01:16:52):
Look, we all have to get out there, we all
have to spread the message. We all have to make
sure that people are going to vote. And it's gonna take
a lot of hard work. But the historical friends are
again stuff. Okay, we've got I mean, the last the
midterm midterm just a few weeks ago showed that our
people aren't turning out. As you pointed out, well, we've
got to go out and do it. It's gonna be hard. Historically,

(01:17:14):
the out of party party loses, So we're going against this.
Free here doesn't mean you know, nothing is written. We
can go and we can change those historical trends that
in fact happened in two thousand and two.

Speaker 2 (01:17:28):
So you're right, Yeah, you know, it's gonna.

Speaker 18 (01:17:32):
Be hard work. It's gonna be time, it's gonna be effort,
it's gonna be money, and we've got to provide results.
Now everything changes that Donald Trump's economic policies come through.
And I've been through this, this is my third time.
All right, we had Ronald Reagan took a couple of
years to fix Jimmy Carter's disaster, and holy cow, we

(01:17:52):
went through the We went through the roof and Trump won.
Took a while, but we got through it and suddenly
we were booming. Hopefully Donald Trump could get things booming
in the next twelve months. If everything is booming, we're
going to do just bond.

Speaker 2 (01:18:07):
I agree with you.

Speaker 1 (01:18:08):
Let's say we get our House in order. You've got
characters like a mom Donnie, and you've got I guess
someone that's a pal of his is going to run
against the team, Jeffreyes. You've got some real dysfunction. I
think on the Democrats side on who's their leader, who's
going who's going to claim that leadership, that manal responsibility,
and none of them look very good or appealing. Is
there a way in the midterms, even with the House
in order, that we can point to these these this

(01:18:30):
clown show and go really is that going to compel
people to not vote for Democrats because they don't have
a leadership and they actually want to be Communists?

Speaker 4 (01:18:38):
Uh?

Speaker 18 (01:18:39):
Look, Montmmy is to to do terrible things. Democrats are
and we should point it out continuously while pointing out
our good things. Okay, we have a big advantage. Our
policies are correct, they're morally right, they're economically right, they're
politically sat down. They're good for America, they're good for fams.

Speaker 5 (01:19:00):
Lady, we're in the right.

Speaker 18 (01:19:02):
So we've got that advantage. I was a lawyer for
a long time. You always don't have that on your side.
So that makes the things kind of you know, it
makes them a lot easier than they could be. The
Democrats have historical friends, but they also have a problem.
You mentioned Mondona. It's horrible. They're going to do terrible damage. Look,

(01:19:26):
I survived California, Okay, I know what these people do
to a great state. And if we could transmit that
message at the same time, say hey and look at
our unemployment. We're a look at the inflation rates, look
at the interest rates. You know, we're gonna have a
compelling case. If we can't do it.

Speaker 8 (01:19:46):
We're going to get our clocks cleaned.

Speaker 18 (01:19:48):
And you know what I mean, how can you argue
that we shouldn't If we don't perform, we don't deserve.

Speaker 1 (01:19:55):
To win here here, Kurt, thank you so much. I
you know you're so oh you're so vague, you're so veiled,
you'll hold your cards so close to the chest. I
have no idea where you're coming from. It's very hard
to tell. Not thank you for thank you for joining us, folks.
I don't know if this is it's a family show.
But the electile dysfunction Caucus, as he called them, I think,

(01:20:17):
is a riot. I think that's so funny. He also
coined the phrase from The Godfather movie, you know, the brother,
the useless brother, Fredo Freid o'conns instead of neocons. I
think Freid o'cons. I love I love Kurt, I just
love him. I love that you joined the show. I
think he's got a lot to say. And I think, look,
I think it's true. I think we've got a lot
of Democrats. They can't win a Democrats, so they become
Republicans and they're not good at it. They're not good

(01:20:37):
at being Republicans, and I think it makes it harder
for all of us.

Speaker 2 (01:20:41):
Look, we're gonna go, We're gonna go to it. We're late.

Speaker 1 (01:20:43):
We gotta get to a break and when we come back,
I got to talk back, call, I want or comment,
I want to play and more to discuss here on
non Utah's talk Radio one oh five nine Cannorus citizen
Hughes flying solo today. I want to thank our listeners.
Been great call, all the calls, the talkback lives. I
think we've had a lively discussion. I think we've had

(01:21:04):
some great topics and great guests on the program. I
want to continue it. You know, I did ask it
at the beginning of the of the show. This comment
from or this video that's online from members of Congress
that are Democrats, the representatives and senators, and they say,
I'm Senator so and so, represent so and so, former

(01:21:25):
member of the Air Force, the Navy, whatever it is,
or I've been a CIA officer or whatever they say
they are. They then and they repeat each other in
the video of all saying you don't have to follow
laws that are illegal, and you don't have to follow
orders that are unconstitutional, and we have your back. And
it's it's caused a lot of consternation because there's been

(01:21:48):
I mean, you can't even find in the United States
judges who can rule rationally on the constitutionality of Donald
Trump's presidency. How many, how much many judges have we
seen at least to slow him down, but ultimately to
stop the president from doing what presidents have done in
the past in terms of executive powers, separate and equal powers.

(01:22:11):
How many times does the Supreme Court had to weigh in?
I mean, this must kill a guy like our Supreme
Court Justice Chief Justice John Roberts, who has been afraid
of Trump. Doesn't want to be He's always he's consumed
with his legacy and he always so he doesn't want
to make these controversial decisions, always tries to find some
standing problem with it, doesn't want to make it. But
some of these rulings from the lower courts are so

(01:22:33):
egregious that they have had to weigh in time after
time after time, clarifying what the Constitution actually says. And
you know, to the point where the leftists are so
angry at the Supreme Court they want to stack the court,
they want to put term limits on the Court justices
because they're so angry that they're saying, no, the President
of the United States has the constitutional authority to do

(01:22:54):
what he's done. They have made an incredible amount of
rulings against our I mean just rulings that I don't
think you've seen federal judges make for other presidents and
other circumstances. But we're seeing it happen a lot. I
think it's accelerating. So with that as the kind of
the backdrop that what's constitutional and what's not, you know,
is beauties in the eye of the beholders. And it

(01:23:16):
looks like this thing is becoming a more partisan, uh
you know opinion. What's constitutional or not? Is it safe?
Is it okay for members of Congress to encourage members
of the military and members of our federal law enforcement
or intelligence agencies to not follow orders if they do
think what they're being asked to do does not follow
is not follow the law or the constitution. So I've

(01:23:38):
asked for you, our listeners, if you have any perspective here,
to call in and give your your you know, give
us your take, because I do want to know what
you think.

Speaker 2 (01:23:47):
And so we thank very much.

Speaker 1 (01:23:48):
We do have a good caller who has called in
and is going to give us a take on the
talk back line.

Speaker 15 (01:23:53):
Let's have a listen, Okay, greg All military members swear
on oath to support and in the Constitution of the
United States. That means we support that above any president
or anybody else. So if they give an order that
is against the Constitution, yes we should not obey. But

(01:24:14):
the problem is we've had the dumb and down of
America where people really don't understand the Constitution.

Speaker 2 (01:24:21):
And therein lies our problem.

Speaker 1 (01:24:22):
Thank you for the caller who for the listener who
called in and made that take, because I get the
fundamental premise there. But when you see what's happening in
these major metropolitan areas where you know where ICE is
enforcing federal law and you see people blocking them, you
see people interfering with the work of federal law enforcement.

(01:24:43):
That's that kind of conduct has never been political that
I remember, or it's something that you can do if
you're a Republican, you can do if you're a Democrat,
but not a Republican. That's I think that's illegal to
do that. But yet you've had members of the DOJ
that they'reployees, that have thrown a subway sandwich in the
face of an ICE agent, screaming at him and yelling

(01:25:04):
at him. You can't, as a citizen, I don't believe
walk up to a federal agent in the as they're
doing their job throw anything at him. I don't care
if it was a subway sandwich, I throw a pillow
at him in the face while they're trying to do
their job. If you do it, I'm under the impression
that that's not legal, that you can't do that. And
we saw that happen in Washington, d C. And the

(01:25:25):
guy was an employee of the Department of Justice. So
if we go down the road of it's what you
think is legal, it's what you think is constitutional, how
does that play? How does that work? I mean, I
think there's some very obvious red flags. I would hope,
but I don't know that we're in a time where
that's the case. I think we're seeing judges rule on
constitutionality that is I think ridiculous on its face. I

(01:25:50):
don't remember these things. I never remember Biden, Barack Obama,
even George w I don't remember any of them being
led around by on a short leash by the federal
judges the way we see President Trump's administration. In less
than a year, what's been going on here. I think
it's just been over the top. So I just think
that's a very dangerous video. I think that it could

(01:26:12):
be interpreted the wrong way and could cause a lot
of problems and I don't think anybody that's on that
video is ready to have the back of someone who
breaks the law, even if they say, well, breaking it
was actually refusing not to follow orders. That we're breaking
the law, and I don't think it's constitutional. So everything's subjective.
I guess I don't know how if that's.

Speaker 4 (01:26:30):
Going to work.

Speaker 2 (01:26:30):
Well, I don't know if that's how it's going to work.

Speaker 1 (01:26:32):
So anyway, appreciate the talk back live the perspective and
and and the point made I don't disagree with.

Speaker 2 (01:26:38):
So we'll continue on with the show.

Speaker 7 (01:26:40):
Here.

Speaker 1 (01:26:40):
We got just a little bit more to go here
on the Rodd and Greg Show. You're listening to Utah's
Talk Radio one oh five nine can ors. Now, the
funny thing is we can't play the bumper music on
our podcast, so it kind of gets a little choppy.
So you know how Rod likes to play the the dirt,
the Michael Jackson Dirty Diana, and we talked about it and.

Speaker 2 (01:27:03):
See that you hear that? Did you hear?

Speaker 1 (01:27:04):
Roddy just came from nowhere? So we can't play the
Michael Jackson version on the podcast because you know, when
we're talking about judge Diana Gibson. But on the podcast,
we can play dirty and so you'll know, So that's
kind of your code. That's that is that is Rodarkutt's
best imitation of Michael Jackson's Dirty Diana.

Speaker 2 (01:27:25):
So so we have that.

Speaker 1 (01:27:26):
By the way, I got I just saw this online
and it's it's you know, it's it's funny. We've been
talking a lot on the program, and I'm sorry if
it bored you, but I've been talking about these betting
apps right in these betting sites. Well today, uh, you know,
the president was hosting Mohammed ben Salmon. He's from where's
he from? Is this Saudi Arabia? Where's he from? It's

(01:27:49):
a Middle Eastern trip. Anyway, he met Mohammad been Salmon.
He makes this joke and he says, before I came here,
someone told me that there are betting sites where you
can bet on me wearing a black suit, and if
you bet on me, you could get almost seventeen times
your money. Sorry, you lose your bet, mister President, Better
luck next time. So even he's mocking the prop bets,

(01:28:11):
and I guess polymarket is that you can do prop
bets on politicians too. So this guy, he said there
was a betting line that you wear a black suit.
I think that's a joke from what is it Zelensky
wearing black and he doesn't wear a suit or something
like that.

Speaker 2 (01:28:25):
But I thought that was funny. That's topical.

Speaker 1 (01:28:28):
They're mocking proposition bets on official state visits to the
White House. And so that's how far and how casual
we've gotten with our prop bets, I guess. So also
I wanted to talk about again we have where this
is coming from. I think it's Sam Benson. I think

(01:28:49):
he's a local guy, but he writes for Politico, and
he's he has information that says that if these congressional
districts hold the way they are, he's being told I
have no confirmation of any of this, and I know
these members of Congress, and I haven't asked because I
think things are in flux. So I don't know whether
this is true or not. But if these districts don't change,

(01:29:10):
and this judge got to pick a private special interest
group drawing our congressional maps as they wanted to, and
they hold, you would find out of that because you
have that plus twenty four percent, you know, Kamala Harris district.
You would find, according to the reports out of Politico,
that Congressman Burgess Owens would retire, and that Blake Moore

(01:29:34):
would take the northern district, and that Celeste Molloy and
Senator and Represented Mike Kennedy would split the other two.
I think that the one that I think the one
the district that Senator Mike Kent or the Congressman Mike
Kennedy lives in that kind of goes down the west
the east side of it's in Utah County, goes down
the east side and wraps around in the Washington County.

(01:29:56):
I think that would be his district, and the one
just to the north and the west, the west portion
of Salt Lake or of Utah would be the one
that Congresswoman Malloy would take. So that the way that's
being reported, we would have one of our Republican members
of Congress retire, Burgess Owens, and I would regret that.

(01:30:16):
I think he's been a phenomenal We've had him on
the show many times.

Speaker 17 (01:30:19):
I love him.

Speaker 1 (01:30:19):
He's a good friend. He was a friend before he
ever got elected. I would regret that if that were
to happen, But that district isn't isn't a straight faced
competitive district in any way, shape or form, And so
I could see I wouldn't blame him if that's what
if that's how that fell, if that went out. But anyway,
that's what Politico is reporting here in the last few hours,
could be the case. I wouldn't bet out this legislative branch.

(01:30:43):
Let's see what they do. I think there's still some
arrows in the quiver in terms of asserting their separate
and equal power as a legislature. I think we need
them to. I think there's a lot that they can
do on this topic. I know this for sure. It's
not over. It's just a matter of when a judge rules,
as late as they do, how do you what is
your recourse, and how do you hold an election? When

(01:31:06):
filing is supposed to start at the beginning of January,
first week of January, and I've heard that county clerks
are even having a difficult time with the actual digital
copies of these maps that this special interest group drew.
They don't have them to start their work yet they're
already behind. So there's a lot of problems that have
been created just on the logistics of holding this next election.

(01:31:28):
But man, I'll tell you what. If I was a leged,
say a branch, I wouldn't vote for them, But I
don't think. I don't know if they're going to vote.
I think they should vote, and I don't think they
should vote for it because they didn't make it. Someone
else did and that's not what the constitution says. So
we'll see how this plays out. I think we're in
the event still of all this, but I hate that
scenario that we'd see one of our members of Congress
right now not seek re election.

Speaker 2 (01:31:48):
I think that would be disappointing if it were to happen.

Speaker 1 (01:31:51):
Okay, folks, thank you for joining me on the program.
It's been fun. Tomorrow I think we're on location and
making catur Broad'll be back. It'll be wing Man Wednesday
until we meet again. Keep your hands up, chin down,
ice forward, keep answering the bell every single day, and
we will talk tomorrow at four o'clock.

Speaker 2 (01:32:09):
Thanks for listening.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Ruthie's Table 4

Dateline NBC

.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: Dangers of Sports Betting Apps; Dems Focus on "Affordability"

Episode Transcript

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

Popular Podcasts

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

Ruthie's Table 4

Dateline NBC

All Episodes