The Rod and Greg Show: Dems In Trouble Despite Outcome of Special Elections; Planned Parenthood Shouldn't Be Taxpayer Funded

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hang onto your hat. If you're gonna go and you're
gonna engage in a trade war that you've been beaten
to a pulp over for decades and you want to
change the status quo, you're not. It's gonna be a fight.
But it's one that I think that A. It's worth it,
but B I don't. I just don't see it being
as as miserable or as negative as all the all
the critics are saying right now. I just give you

(00:22):
this little swing thought. Okay, if whatever you're saying sounds
exactly like what Chuck Schumer is saying today, you might
not be on the right path. That's it, just right there.
That goes for guys like even Ben Shapiro. By the way,
that guy ticked me off today while he's talking about
these tariffs, how it's so bad. Then what I asked
the question, fundamental question. You can't be a nation of consumers.

(00:43):
Every one hundred percent of everything you get from overseas,
you make nothing, You have no jobs. Then what if
not trying to have fair trade agreements with these other countries?
Then then someone please tell me what we're supposed to
do from here.

Speaker 2 (00:55):
Oh, we're all talk a lot about that today. Also
coming up, we'll talk about the Democrats who are giddy
over what happened in the special elections. On Tuesday, we'll
get into that. Leed's Eldon, the administrator of the EPA,
along with RFK Junior, will be here on Monday as
a Monday or Tuesday is one of those days next
week and Monday, thank you Ray. And he has made

(01:18):
a bold move. He has shut down the EPA Museum,
a museum dedicated to the EPA.

Speaker 1 (01:25):
Yeah, I've seen that, a large museum on a tour.
I've gone there, but I've saw it. To me, the
toy it's it is, it's a it's a glorified RV.
So it's a little costs millions to the They spend
over six hundred thousand dollars a year just to main
stream for tend museum.

Speaker 2 (01:40):
The tariff debate overshadowing very good news on the job
market today. Gary Gigy will join us later on in
the show. We'll also talk about abortion. We'll talk about
a brand new documentary on America's aging nuclear arsenal. It's
kind of scary, folks, so we'll have that for you coming.
I just want to know. Greg, I just wonder do
you have your poster ready? Do you have your T

(02:02):
shirt ready for the big demonstrations tomorrow?

Speaker 3 (02:05):
No?

Speaker 1 (02:05):
What demonstration?

Speaker 2 (02:06):
Demonstration tomorrow? Eleven hundred demonstrations around the country, several here
in the state of Utah. They're calling it the hands
Off Demonstration. The demonstration is to tell Donald Trump, keep
your hands off everything, buddy, keep your hands off Social Security,
keep your hands.

Speaker 1 (02:22):
Off, the hands off the fraud, just keep your waist
the abuse. Yeah, we like your hands off that. We
love this way. Fraud, waste, and abuse. Just leave it
way at the way thirteen million people that are supposedly
one hundred and twenty years of age in order getting
soci Security. Hands off those Social Security checks. That's good
money spent. Well, they're going to protest Donald Trump. Apparently

(02:42):
Donald Trump cannot touch our tax money, but they can. Yeah,
they're going to protest against Elon Musk. Boy, that's a surprise.
They're gonna protest anything dealing with Trump. They're protesting tomorrow. Yeah.
I just want to say thank you to Elon Musk.
I wouldn't even say he's doing us a favor. I'd
say he's actually saving the Republic. I think this guy

(03:03):
by way of freedom of speech, I think I just
think he has done so much for the right reasons.
And you can't buy a guy. I said this again,
I said it yesterday. You can't buy someone. And someone's
ulterior motives are hard to It's hard to accuse someone
when you have a three hundred and forty billion dollars
net worth. What can you offer this man? He can't
just go ahead and get on his own. There's nothing

(03:25):
he already he has it. You don't have it. There's
nobody out there, all those those goons out there that
that that's what their mind goes there, because that's what
they do. You know, they think that he has ulterior
motives because they have ulterior motives.

Speaker 2 (03:37):
I no, he doesn't. He doesn't. So if you want
to see a collection of people who hate America, and
these people.

Speaker 1 (03:42):
Hate America, Yeah, they want to fail.

Speaker 2 (03:44):
They want to make the Democratic Party wants America to fail.
What a sad scenario that is that they want the
party to fail. And so you're if you want to
see a collection of utahs who want to see the
party fail, the country fail, I should say we want
to see the party fail but the country failed go
to that, see that demonstration. The media will be all over. Yeah,

(04:05):
you know, it's a slow weekends are always slow news days,
so this will probably be the least story on the
news except.

Speaker 1 (04:11):
For Freak show that that rally ends up being you're
gonna watch that and everyday. Common sense Americans will look
at the people there go yeah, that's not that's not
my crew, that's not my neighbors.

Speaker 2 (04:19):
That's not going to happen. Well, speaking of tariffs, this
is going to bring you comfort.

Speaker 1 (04:24):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (04:25):
A Utah delegation led by our esteem governor and former
and still Trump hater, Now Utah and I did, I
did Jeff Flake are going to Canada next week and
tell the Canadians how great Utah is and basically to say,
ignore what Trump is doing because we can do better.
That's what they're doing.

Speaker 1 (04:46):
Yeah, so you guess who else is doing that? That's
that would be what Governor Newsom in California is doing.
He's out there trying to tell everyone, Hey, it's not me,
it's that it's that Trump. He or please love California.
Somehow Utah wants to go on an apology tour. I
look if they're there to try and explain that that
you can't charge our dairy industry two to three hundred
percent tariffs for our milk and ice cream and everything

(05:08):
else while you're coming down here into America with no
terror for barrier. If that's what they're going there to
explain the math of great But a guy like Governor Cox,
who for the longest time did not like the president,
has had a conversion and loves our president.

Speaker 2 (05:23):
Well, it's a true conversion of just a convenience conversion.

Speaker 1 (05:27):
I'll let the listener decide, and then Jeff Flake, who's
never liked the president a single day in his life,
probably wouldn't. Now, that's your delegation to defend the America's
foreign policy and its trade agreements. Goods to That is
not the two. That's not the a team in terms
of defending the president's trade agreements that he's trying to

(05:47):
hammer out.

Speaker 2 (05:48):
This is what he told that has red news. This
delegation is not going to criticize the Trump administration or
Washington for any of its policies. We're just saying that
it's important for u JAB businesses to navigate this environment
in a way that benefits the State of Utah. B s, Well,
if you've.

Speaker 1 (06:05):
Ever seen Jeff Flake's you know, you know that Jeff
Flake is criticizing Trump with this one. Tell if you
see his lips move. Okay, So for him for the
governor to say, we're not there to criticize Trump if
you're bringing Jeff, if you're bringing Flake, he's there to
criticize him. Look, he's a Republican from Arizona that was
appointed as an ambassador by Biden. Okay, he was like,

(06:29):
they love traitors, Republicans like Kinsinger, Liz Cheney, Romney, and
now Flake, they love him. He awarded, he gave, he
gave Senator then Senator Flake where he retired and didn't
run again. What ambassadorship to Turkey? He's on the other team.
He's you're going up there to defend the president's tariffs

(06:51):
or his trade agreements with a guy that's on the
other team. Flake, Come on, well.

Speaker 2 (06:57):
That's gonna happen next. Apparently absolutely sick now people who
are speaking out in favor of the President, and I
really like the job he's doing. I'm talking about Marco
Rubio in Europe. I mean, he went right face to
face with European economic leaders. He's in Europe now. This
is what he said at a news conference later after
meeting with them about the President's teriff plan.

Speaker 4 (07:18):
We can't continue to be a country that doesn't make things.
We have to be able to make things to provide
jobs for Americans. That's it. It's that simple. China is
an example. I mean, it's outrageous. I mean they don't
consume anything. All they do is export and flood and
distort markets, in addition to all the tariffs and barriers
they put in place.

Speaker 2 (07:36):
So the President.

Speaker 4 (07:37):
Rightly has concluded that the current status of global trade
is bad for America and good for a bunch of
other people, and he's going to reset it. And he's
absolutely right to do it.

Speaker 2 (07:45):
Yeah, he is absolutely right to do. We do not
make anything in this country anymore. We're a service oriented
economy that's funded by federal spending. And it's got to
stop or we are not going to survive.

Speaker 1 (07:57):
We're not. And here is the ragingocracy of the Democrats
right now. Okay, what has always been their go to
to try and get the everyday people on their side.
It's to condemn the rich, to tax the rich. They're rich.

Speaker 5 (08:10):
The rich the rich.

Speaker 1 (08:11):
While these billionaires by number are far on their side
the democrats side. Wall Street has sided with the Democrat
candidate for present last three elections in a row three
or four. The elitists have clearly lined up with the Democrats.
Every day Americans. So when we sit there and we
worry about the stock market, I'm reading from Treasury Secretary
Scott Descent right here. Do you have this on a clip? No,

(08:32):
this is an interesting stat So before we all start
losing too much sleep over the stock market, and what
we really want to make sure is that we have
jobs in this country. Forget the cheap socks from the
big big you know, the big box retailer. Top ten
percent of Americans own eighty eight percent of equities in
eighty eight percent of the stock market. Okay, the next
forty percent own twelve percent of the stock market. The

(08:53):
bottom fifty percent of this country has debt. And then
the summer of twenty twenty four, more Americans were using
food banks than they ever have in American history. So
when we talk about who we're trying to protect, don't
crime me a river on because the stock market is
going to be fine. That's gonna roll out they're just
thrown a tantrum. We're gonna be good.

Speaker 2 (09:13):
Yeah, before we go to a break here, I want
to hear, as she stepped up again today, that we're
talking about batcha ungarsargun. Yes, she talked about what's going
on on Wall Street today.

Speaker 6 (09:25):
Let's be clear about what we're seeing right now. This
market selloff is Wall Street trying to short President Trump's agenda.
They are betting against the American worker. It's utterly despicable.
Instead of doing what President Trump is doing, which is
saying we're going to invest heavily in our middle class,

(09:46):
we are no longer going to be a country in
which our economy is an upward funnel of wealth from
the hardest working Americans into the pockets of the international
global elites, Wall Street is trying to control the President's
agenda with this total anti American selloff. And I think
it's unbelievable that the President is not caving and that
he is standing strong with the agenda that he promised

(10:09):
the American people. This is what he was given a
mandate to do. And it is so exciting to see
somebody actually make good on the promises they made to
the American people.

Speaker 2 (10:17):
You know, I am so frustrated, Greg. I mean this,
These are difficult time. They may be difficult times. You
and I may disagree a little bit on that. I
don't want to say difficult times, but some challenging times.
Why is it the American people cannot get behind to
president and say let's go get them.

Speaker 1 (10:31):
We can do this. She put a trip. President Trump
is standing with the American people. Democrats are standing with
wall streets while they screamed talks to rich and then
who are they with? What camp are they sitting in?
That's what It's not even true. They're not even going
to tax a rich. It's a scam because that's their
friends that those are the ones that are all upset for.

Speaker 2 (10:47):
Yeah, they sure are all right. We've had a lot
to get to today. And lest we forget, we have
another pair of Thomas Rhett concert tickets to give away
sometime this afternoon. So out of one of our commercial breaks,
if you hear a Thomas Rhet song, you're the tenth
caller and call this number eight eight eight five seven
O eight zero one zero, you could win a pair
of tickets to see Thomas Wright in concert.

Speaker 1 (11:07):
Yeah, the better, better in Boots Tours coming. It'll be
here September twentieth at Utah First Credit Union Amphitheater and
tickets will and tickets and more information. You can go
to live nation dot com.

Speaker 2 (11:19):
Check it all out. Sometime today we'll give those tickets
away again. All right, More coming up on the Rowden
Greg Show. The Democrats, a lot of them. We are
saying we have a glimmer of hope Tuesday's special elections.
Yes we lost in Florida, but that judge won in Wisconsin,
and that's a glimmer of hope.

Speaker 7 (11:37):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (11:37):
They spent, They spent millions more. The eighty percent of
the money came from out of state. While they they
said that that Elon Musk was somehow the problem. They won,
They won the Wisconsin that Wisconsin race. They did not
win any of the congressional vacancies that they put a
ton of money into. And they think a fifteen point
loss is somehow a victory. Well, okay, you can take
that if you want. Yeah, but really to kind of

(12:00):
translate all this for us, as you know, wiser people
than myself, for us, as our next.

Speaker 2 (12:05):
Guest, Henry Olsen, he's a senior editor or a senior fellow,
I should say at the Efficts and Public Policy Center.
He's joining us on our news maker line right now, Henry.
Thanks for joining us, Henry. In relation to the article
you wrote in the New York Post about this, I
want to read you a few headlines. Democrats get the
smallest amount of good news. Republicans are increasingly anxious about

(12:26):
the midterm elections. Should Trump and the GOP worry about
this week's elections? Henry? What do you think of those headlines?

Speaker 8 (12:33):
I think it shows you how often the mainstream media
is in the tank for their friends, and their friends
are not in the Trump administration.

Speaker 1 (12:42):
So I find it it was in April first elections
is in spring they dumped. I think every Republican canidate
be at the special elections in Florida for the congressional
seats and that Supreme Court state Supreme Court race in Wisconsin.
I think the Democrats outspent the Republicans one or more.

Speaker 9 (13:01):
So.

Speaker 1 (13:01):
They dumped a ton ton of money in there. They
didn't make they I guess they're calling it a win
that they that they lost Zelden's congressional seat by fifteen
points last time I checked. That's that would be still
a robust win, especially when you consider it's just April first.
You said that it's you know, when you have friends
in the media and people that want to make anything
look like it's a win. What is the quickest way

(13:24):
to counter that. I've had some Democrats say, look, you're
over explaining. You're over explaining. That means you're losing. How
can I, in the best way explain to my Democrat
friends that they didn't do as well as they think
they did.

Speaker 8 (13:37):
The quickest way to explain to the Democrat friends is
to say, you won because of turnout, not because of persuasion.
The Democrats have been turning out in low turnout elections
much more than Republicans because they hate Trump. And this
is what's been going on for eight years. It doesn't
mean squat that they can do overperform Joe Biden or

(13:58):
Kamala Harris April of an odd year and still lose
the seats when the full elector comes out in the midterm.

Speaker 2 (14:05):
Henry, what you Henry? What do you think the Democratic Party?
They still don't understand where the American voter is today?
Why can't they grasp where the American voter is today.

Speaker 8 (14:16):
Henry, because doing that would would mean that they would
have to admit that they were wrong. They would have
to say, we're not going to have a policy that
ignores biology when it comes to women in sports. We're
going to have to recognize that they don't want a
green New deal that is going to make people poorer

(14:39):
while it's still not going to save the planet. People
don't want to recognize that they're wrong, and so they
stretch at any explanation possible to show why they're not wrong.
And what they're saying in the special election is essentially that,
which is, Hey, we're not wrong. The special election proves

(14:59):
that we can and win by doing exactly what we've
been doing. And if you're a Republican, what you want
to do is just say you're right, Just keep doing
what you're doing.

Speaker 1 (15:08):
Yeah, operation let them speak. I agree, there is one eyebrow.
I had an eyebrow brow raise at the some of
the down ballot issues that were in Wisconsin, and one
was a vote to require a photo ID to be
able to vote. And I believe it was known that
the candidate for Supreme Court that was running, the Democrat candidate,

(15:32):
is opposed to having photo ID to vote. How do
you suppose and I guess that she received votes sixty
thousand or something where they didn't even go down ballot
and vote for the rest of the candidates or issues
that were in front of them. How do you suppose
Wisconsin voters voted in a large margin, a high margin,
for requiring government issued ID to vote, but yet voted

(15:57):
for a Supreme Court justice that does not have that
same belief.

Speaker 8 (16:02):
You know, people vote for lots of different reasons, and
there are lots of different issues that they consider. Abortion
is one of those issues. And I think what you
had in a case like this is people who were
pro Trump and also pro abortion rights, and they didn't
prioritize other things, and they wanted to make sure somebody

(16:25):
who supported abortion rights was going to be on the court.
And that's something we see all the time, is that
there are lots of voters who are cross pressured and
they said, Okay, this is I don't agree with candidate
A on X, but I agree with them on Y
and Z. Those things matter more to me. And I
think that's what you saw with the voter ID is

(16:46):
people said, yeah, I can get voter ID by voting
on this, and I can get what I want in
the Supreme Court race by voting for this, even though
she doesn't agree with me on the voter I d do.

Speaker 2 (17:00):
I mean, we're months away from midterm elections, But what's
your early prognosis as to what may happen. There's a
lot of time, of course, between now and then. But
what do you what do you see maybe happening?

Speaker 8 (17:10):
Well, you know, the thing is it's it's not really
wise to jump out ahead like that. Is. The thing
is that what we know about midterms is that they
will rise, they will rise or fall based on the
job approval of the president at the time of the midterm.

Speaker 1 (17:25):
And so that's what.

Speaker 8 (17:26):
I'm looking at, is that if Trump's job approval rating
is roughly where it is now forty eight percent, rounding
out boards and the real clear politics, average Republicans that
have a good midterm, you know, they'll get ninety five
or ninety percent of the people who like Trump, and
they'll get ten percent or so of the people who
don't like Trump. And that's a majority. If Trump's job

(17:48):
approval rating is forty three percent or even worse than
the Republicans are going to lose. So that's what I'm
looking at and predicting where Trump Trump's job approval is
going to be eighteen months from now is not something
that a serious professional.

Speaker 2 (18:07):
He's a he's a senior fellow at the Ethics and
Publicly Public Policy Center. And RYE. Olsen right here on
the Rod and Greg Show in Utah's Talk radio one
oh five nine, k n R. S Leeds Eldon, who
is now the administrator of the EPA, and Robert F.
Kennedy Junior will be in town on Monday, can't wait.
They will be complementing Utahn's and the Utah Legislature for

(18:29):
their efforts on making America healthy again, removing fluoride from water,
addressing school lunch issues, all kinds of things.

Speaker 1 (18:37):
And then I, you know what, have you heard that
the Transportation Secretary might be coming?

Speaker 2 (18:41):
I did not hear that. Really, I am oh on
the the you know what.

Speaker 1 (18:45):
I'm talking about?

Speaker 2 (18:46):
Yeah, I know who you're talking.

Speaker 1 (18:47):
I think he might be coming here too, really looking
at inland Port, oh area.

Speaker 2 (18:50):
I did know that, see you off connections.

Speaker 1 (18:53):
That's word on the street. I don't know if that's official.
Maybe I heard maybe I heard that from Sean Duffy
Sewn Duffy there is. Yeah, that's him, and I think
he might be here too, you know. I hope I'm
not betraying confidences. But that's the word on the street.

Speaker 2 (19:06):
That's the word on the street. Well, one of the
great stories. We learned so much each and every day
from what Doze's finding. And we'll have more on that
here in a little bit. But a small museum, which
is apparently dedicated to the nation's environmental industry, is now
history as well. Leeds Eldon. He walked us through it
earlier this week on Laura Ingram. He gave us a

(19:26):
tour of it. How big was it great?

Speaker 1 (19:28):
I think it's a little bit wider than a bus
b No, I think I think our vs have been
more spacious than this thing, which costs millions of dollars
to build, quite a bit to maintain.

Speaker 2 (19:37):
Four million to build, six hundred thousand a year to maintain.

Speaker 1 (19:40):
And I don't know what I mean. I want to
be part of that maintaining for six hundred km. I
think this room we could maintain this room for this
would be easy to do. Yeah, And I think that's
about the size of that museum. Maybe it's a little
bigger than this, but six K to maintain this?

Speaker 2 (19:55):
Come on, not much. We'll joining us on our newsmaker
line to find out more about this is Steve Malowe.
Steve a senior fellow at the Energy and Environmental Legal
Institute also an advisor to the President on the e
p A. Steve, thanks for joining us. What do you
make of this team? How ridiculous is this thing?

Speaker 9 (20:12):
Well, it's kind of funny. I mean, it's it's definitely
a small thing. But you know, e p A, I
guess had built a memorial to itself, you know, a
one room museum, you know, both propagandizing on its issues
and itself. And so ep Administrator Lee Zeldon he had

(20:33):
shut the thing down. It was costing what, six hundred
thousand dollars a Year's not not much in context of
EPA's you know, twelve billion dollar budget, but hey, there's
hardly anybody going it is six hundred thousand dollars. And
EPA is the last last agency that should have a
monument to itself. You know. E PA's very first major

(20:56):
decision was to ban the insecticide DT in nineteen seventy two,
and that has led to millions and millions of deaths
among poor black and brown people around the world. That
is more appropriate for a Holocaust museum than what EPA
was doing.

Speaker 1 (21:13):
You know, Steve, I saw a segment where Lee's elden
secretary Eseldon was giving someone a tour of this museum.
It's a little wider than a bus. Okay, it's not
big at all. It was two or three or some
It was not one million, but it was more than
a million. I can't remember exactly how much it was
to build this thing, which if you've gotten on Zillo

(21:34):
and looked at a cost of a home, two to
three millions can get you a serious home that's bigger
than a bus. So they overspent for the museum itself.
The six hundred thousand on going to maintain that tiny
space is an insult to me. But here's where I
think that they spelled their own doom. They have a
timeline of all the great things that the EPA has
ever done. They literally stop in the year twenty fourteen

(21:57):
and pick it back up in twenty twenty one. They
do it does so they have all these different displays,
and all of a sudden, there is four years of
American history that's been wiped from the EPA history books,
and that is Trump's first term. So if they were
that brazen, did they just think a Republican would never
be elected again or that someone would not notice that

(22:19):
and see that it was an affront to fairness? I mean,
what was this thing today? I don't even understand the
motive behind it.

Speaker 9 (22:27):
Well, so EPA has been this arrogant for the fifty
four years that it's been in existence, and Republicans have
always been afraid of doing anything to it. Even President
Trump and his first administration was really kind of shy,
and the EPA administrators he appointed, you know, had no
cajones to speak. But you know, we're not being shy anymore.

(22:51):
President Trump is, you know, obviously large in charge about
everything now, especially at EPA. Lee Zelden, you know, he,
unlike any other EPA administrator before him, is doing what
Trump wants him to do. Usually these guys think that
they are law into themselves and do whatever it is
they want. But he's doing what Trump wants, and so

(23:13):
all this crap is being shut down. I mean, once again,
this is a small thing. It's six hundred thousand dollars
years as a one room museum. But we don't need
federal agencies building monuments for themselves, right, That's it's ridiculous.
And I mean this is not even an agency that
was created by law. This was created by you know,
Richard Nixon, by executive order. I'm hoping that President Trump

(23:34):
just does away with EPA by executive order. You know,
we could. You know, Nixon took all the different environmental
efforts of the federal government consolidated into an agency. I
would just as soon disperse them to other federal agencies
and get rid of EPA because it's just it's just
it's been a huge drag on our economy. You know,

(23:55):
it's where you get all these negative lefties together to
use the environment to just torture our society.

Speaker 2 (24:02):
Steve, I was going to ask you about there. There's
talk and there's a plan on the part of the
administration to get rid of the Department of Education. Why
not get rid of EPA. I mean, what damage would
that do if we got rid of it and shifted
everything it does to other agencies.

Speaker 9 (24:14):
Well, so that's a great question. You know, it is
no longer nineteen seventy, It is twenty twenty five and
now as opposed to nineteen seventy. Now virtually every state has,
you know, a very respectable environmental protection agency or department
of environmental Protection. The vast majority of environmental protection is

(24:35):
done in the States. We have cleaned up the environmental
problems that spurred Nixon's executive order in nineteen seventy. I mean,
the air is clean, the water is clean, or as
clean as it's going to be with three hundred and
you know, fifty million people with an industrial economy, and
you know, we're still going to be making progress, but

(24:56):
it's going to be done locally in the States, and
we don't need this, you know, federal agency that is
just costing US billions and billions of dollars, and it's
actually turned into a giant negative. You know, I worked
in the coal industry during the Obama administration. Obama killed
fifty thousand high paying coal industry jobs plus several hundred
thousand other support industry jobs, devastating communities. You know, today

(25:20):
you see all these left lingers, you know, protesting and
crying about the loss of federal jobs. No one did
that for coal miners, No, And it was a tragedy
and these people actually had productive jobs either. They weren't
trying to tear down America. They were powering America.

Speaker 1 (25:34):
You know, Utah has had its a terrible experience with
the EPA with as you just mentioned, we have clean
coal and our and our coal has always been under
attack with our airshed and everything else. The other issue
that we suffer through here, and I think every state suffers,
and that is our infrastructure. That's whether it's our transportation infrastructure.

(25:54):
If you have to do an environmental impact study, it
takes eighteen months and then you have to go to
the Army Corps of Engineers do another study. If you
want to expand a road, build a road, build a bridge,
it takes another eighteen month months. And when you're finished
with the Army Corps of Engineers eighteen month study, the
first one, the first environmental impact study, has expired. Okay,
And we go through this game in the state of Utah,

(26:14):
in a fast growing state where the EPA has gummed
us up. Meanwhile, you see third world countries like in Africa,
they can build a rail line, they can build people
are building things very quickly around this world. Our ability
to even enhance or build our transportation infrastructure because of
the EPA has come to a screeching halt. Is there
enough of that understood to help do away with this agency,

(26:36):
like we are looking at the Department of ED.

Speaker 9 (26:40):
I mean, this is a great issue, and I don't
think people realize that. You know, we became an industrial
powerhouse without an EPA and without a national environmental policy
act with it. With EPA and a national environmental policy,
we could not have built the railroads. No, you know,
in nineteenth century we have never built anything. We have. First,
the first nuclear power player in the US was built

(27:02):
from plans to producing power in four years. You can't
even get the permits.

Speaker 1 (27:09):
No, you're looking at a twenty five year time horizon
nuclear energy in the state.

Speaker 9 (27:14):
If we need to get rid of of all these
rules and regulations that are blocking our development, we you know,
President Trump wants to reindustrialize the country. In fact, we
have to reindustrialize, but you can't do it with the
senseless environmental regulations that we have.

Speaker 2 (27:30):
Yeah, environmental regulations have been killing this country for so long.
Remember there was one, oh it was years ago. I
think it was during the Obama year, greg where if
you had a large mud puddle on your farm as
a result of rain. You couldn't do anything about it. Yeah,
EPA wouldn't.

Speaker 1 (27:47):
Let you touch it. Well, the PA has gotten so
out of control, I mean they really are. They they've
they've they have stopped, they've they've interrupted local land use decisions,
everything else. It's been. It's been a real problem in
the state of use.

Speaker 2 (27:57):
Yeah, sure has all right, more coming up on the
riding Greg Joe Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine.
Kate and Are asked, the jobs report today was absolutely amazing.
I mean it was way above expation.

Speaker 1 (28:09):
Yeah, I blew the roof of.

Speaker 2 (28:11):
The estimates, right, No one's talking about that today. All
talking about the market and panic about the tariffs is like, really, folks,
come on.

Speaker 1 (28:21):
Yeah, and it doesn't. And I so when the market
was doing well, this is when the New York Times
Thomas Freeman was telling America, we're having such great economic
times and if you don't understand that, then you're just
not sophisticated enough to understand the indicators of our economy
that show how well it's doing. And that's that's a
that's a rich guy talking about his portfolio. Okay, that's

(28:41):
not about what groceries cost. That's not what gasoline costs.
By the way, people are interpreting the commodities market going
down as a big, big nightmare too, Well, let me
tell you what that means. A barrel of crude oils
now in the sixty dollars range. That's going to finely
start to move our gas prices down. And Utah is,
for some reason, strangely on a lag and it's as

(29:03):
far back as the Huntsman years. I remember that this
has been a problem with Utah. We're seeing national gas
prices go down and we're still stuck up higher.

Speaker 2 (29:12):
I paid three thirty three, three thirty eight last week.

Speaker 1 (29:15):
It's coming down, but I.

Speaker 2 (29:18):
Was talking about coming down when.

Speaker 1 (29:20):
So when I was a lawmaker, I asked, like the
people that own Maverick and Sinclair, the larger companies, because
this became an issue, constituents really talking about it, and
they said, well, we're also our lag is. Also when
gas prices go up, we're some of the last We're
the last state usually to go up, so we don't
go up as quick, and nobody remembers that. They only
remember that we come down slower slow. That's been the

(29:41):
argument for twenty years.

Speaker 2 (29:42):
So you know, all right, Texas lawmaker Jasmine Crockett not
the smartest person in the world, no, but she gets
a lot of media attention. Has done it again.

Speaker 1 (29:53):
I know. This is an amazing thing. She She's bragging
in this clip, ragging before.

Speaker 2 (29:58):
A congressional committee how she got her job.

Speaker 10 (30:01):
When I first became a public defender, I had no
criminal defense experience. And I walked in and I told
my boss, Charlie, I said, listen, you should hire me.
He said why, I said, because I'm black. Charlie looked
at me like I was crazy, and I said, let
me tell you something. When I walk in, I'm gonna
walk in with the level of rapport and understanding, then

(30:21):
maybe some of my other colleagues will not.

Speaker 2 (30:24):
Charlie offered me my.

Speaker 10 (30:25):
Job, and I worked my butt off, and I worked
really really hard for all of my clients, not just
those that look like me. And that is what it looks.

Speaker 1 (30:35):
Like to serve.

Speaker 2 (30:36):
So she just admitted she got the job even though
she wasn't qualified, and she got the job because she's black. Yeah,
I know the ei. Here we go.

Speaker 1 (30:45):
Yep uh.

Speaker 2 (30:48):
She is an interesting character, to say the least. All right,
we've got more to come. Another two hours of the
ride and great show coming up, including Gary Giggy will
join us. We love having Gary on the show. When
the op numbers come out, he'll join us and break
them down and look for the silver lining. That really
good cloud. That's bad cloud. It was a good cloud.

Speaker 3 (31:07):
Here.

Speaker 1 (31:07):
Let's hear from the from the biggest brain about the
economy here in Utah.

Speaker 2 (31:13):
Gary will join us coming up, So stay with us.
It is the Friday edition of The Rotting Gregg Show
on Talk Radio one O five nine kN rs.

Speaker 1 (31:26):
Well, there's their silver market, their stock market crying today
is just for the wealthy. There's one group. If you
were going to retire this week, this is a problem, okay.
If this was the week you were going to cash
out that four, if you're going to cash it out, okay.
But if you're not ready to cash out that portfolio
right now, and you just wait, you're just going to

(31:47):
see as you always do. I mean, I've seen. I
just saw a chart that showed twenty one twenty two
where the market was far lower, of which the media
completely ignored it. Oh, it went up, up, up, up up,
It's gone down it's what it's gone down doesn't even
come close to where it was down during the Biden years,
and there was ignored down there. Yeah, and panic up
here in this recent drop. And it's a big drop

(32:09):
comparatively over two days. But where it sits today versus
where it's sat in twenty one twenty two, it's mild.
It's higher by a lot year over year. I think
we're just about the same. We haven't even gone lower
than we were this time of April twenty four. So,
but they're acting like this guy's falling and they're going
to continue to that. I don't care what kind of
even success. Let's say all these trade agreements. Trump is

(32:30):
able to negotiate very fair agreements with each country these
across the board, you know, broadswath trading career or tariff
increases go away. It becomes more surgical and you start
to see an economic boom from it. You will still
hear from the regime media and the Democrats that the
sky is falling. There will be no version of good

(32:51):
news coming while he's president.

Speaker 2 (32:53):
I'm almost certain greg China is not going to negotiate.
Why would they want to negotiate. They don't care they
don't care, right, and I would thank you for not
and Europe probably won't negotiate. Okay, see ya, we don't care,
but there will be other countries. As a matter of fact,
Vietnam is already negotiating with the administration to come up
with zero tariffs because I mean, a lot of our

(33:13):
clothing and a lot of our sports equipment now come
from Vietnam and from India. I mean, just look at
the labels on the things you buy. You can see
where it comes from. China is a tough one and
I don't think they're going to give in, and I
don't think Donald Trump's going to you know what, we.

Speaker 1 (33:27):
Need to wean ourselves off the dependency of China. Anyway,
They're not. They did not become more democrat and like
a more free market they became. They stayed totalitarian as
their economy grew. But I'll tell you this, if you're
telling me that means we might have stronger and better
trade partners from all this will sign me up. I
would love to. I don't mind if it's Malaysia at Vietnam,

(33:47):
you name it, India. If somebody, if a country wants
to make a deal and wants to be a better
trade partner than China. Thank you. We need it, We
need it to be a trade partner that's not China.

Speaker 3 (33:56):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (33:57):
Well, and nobody on the left. Nobody's pointing finger at
the left. But remember the left over the years. Well,
if we welcome him into the World Trade Association, if
we welcome him in, they'll see the benefit of free enterprise,
and no longer will they be a totalitarian regime. They'll
become a democracy, they'll become independent. That really worked out.

Speaker 1 (34:17):
Ye, No, that hasn't worked out at all. NAFTA hasn't
worked out. There's there's a bunch of different attitudes people
have taken towards all this. I've not seen anything, but
the American middle class and working class has been decimated
by the closing of factories. Trump mentioned it yesterday. Ninety
thousand factories and production sites that since NAFTA passed that

(34:38):
have been that North American Free Trade Agreement was under
Some people say it's Bush. It wasn't. It was Clinton.
That was a Clinton deal. But there's not. There's not
been any upside for us. But it wasn't. The rising
tide lifts all ships. I was I got duped I
thought that this was lowering it for everyone, lowering barriers
and enhancing trade across the across the way. It was

(34:59):
lowering it for the while they continue to keep us out.

Speaker 2 (35:02):
They did all their firt They didn't play fair, and
that's it's been that way for thirty or forty years. Well,
there was good news today. The US economy added two
hundred and twenty eight thousand jobs last month, far above
the predictions that were expected. Joining us on our newsmaker
line right now is Gary Gigy. Gary is with Giggee
Capital Management. All we'd great to have Gary on the

(35:23):
show to break down the numbers. All right, Gary, what
do you say about the numbers that came out today?

Speaker 11 (35:27):
All in all, this was a good report. But this
is like the old comedian Rodney Dangerfield. It's getting no
respect because of all what's going on in the markets
right now.

Speaker 9 (35:37):
But you're right, it was a good report, rod.

Speaker 11 (35:40):
I mean, only one hundred and forty thousand was expected,
even by the highest economists. Got two hundred and twenty
eight thousand jobs created. That's wonderful. Revisions to the prior
couple of months was forty eight thousand, So it still
ends up better than expected at one hundred and eighty thousand.
I love that. And if you dig into the number,
you're going to see that hourly wages went up, so

(36:03):
people are making more money. Hours worked went up, and
so people are not only earning more per hour, they're
working more. That's a fairly decent jobs report. And the
unemployment rate ticked up to four point two percent from
four point one percent, but for a good reason. It's
because more people are looking for jobs, and so the

(36:23):
labor force petition participation rate moved up. So these are
all good things that are happening. And if you look
at the type of jobs, not as many manufacturing jobs
were created. I expect that probably to increase over the
next little while. Not as many government jobs were laid off,

(36:45):
but I expect that to continue because this numbers calculated
based on actual laying off. But a lot of the
people that got laid off in government still have severance
and deferred compensation show up over the next few few months.
But all in all, you guys, this was a really
good report.

Speaker 1 (37:05):
Yeah, just one more detail before we get into the
elephant in the room, and that's the tariff discussion bit.
Because I'd love your take on this. But in this
report also you saw the growth of private sector jobs
increase and maybe even federal jobs decrease, So you're seeing
a shift. I think a lot of the Biden years
you saw that the job growth numbers really reflect government jobs.
It looks like that shift to the private sector is happening.

(37:27):
Am I reading that right in this report?

Speaker 9 (37:30):
Yeah?

Speaker 11 (37:31):
I wouldn't read too much into a one month report,
but the more months that you can string together where
the private sector jobs are really increasing, I think that's
what Trump is going for as we've had a US
economy that was largely driven by government, large s government spending,
and he's trying to switch that so that it's in

(37:53):
economy driven by the private sector. And if he's successful
in doing that, you're going to see private sector jobs
being increased almost every month.

Speaker 2 (38:02):
Jerry, how long is it going to be before you
we actually start seeing the impact of the DOJE efforts
of laying off federal employees. Is that going to take
a little while?

Speaker 3 (38:11):
You know?

Speaker 11 (38:11):
I think that's going to start showing up just because
the deferred compensation cannot continue forever, so people that are
still on the payroll of the US government, they're going
to start falling off. So you are going to start
seeing bedroom job losses continue, probably throughout the summer months

(38:31):
and maybe even longer. So I expected to see a
little bit this month. I did not, So I'm waiting
next month to see exactly how that's going to shake out.

Speaker 1 (38:41):
Okay, so let's get into the terriffs. I think there's
a lot. I am. I'm bullish on what the President's
trying to do, and that I am concerned of a
country that makes nothing and consumes everything, who needs its pharmaceuticals,
most of everything from its imports coming into this country.
I worry about all out America, heartland of factories that

(39:02):
used to exist that don't exist anymore, and so I
think you have to reset that. But what say you.
I know that the and I don't even worry about
the stock market they've got. They look like their horizon
of time is twenty minutes. I mean, it doesn't. I
don't think that that's what's happening in the markets is
necessarily an indicator of the economy on the ground. But
I'd love to hear your this is your wheelhouse, what

(39:24):
do you make about this?

Speaker 11 (39:26):
I think the tariffs are really fascinating. And so, to
be honest with you, Greg, nobody knows how well this
is going to work out or not well, because the
tariffs are very different than anything that Trump did in
his first term. Tariffs existed during Biden's term, but this

(39:47):
is very different and so and the reason there's been
so much volatility is because I think the tariffs came
in stronger than what the market had expected. Therefore it's reacting.
But if you look at the reason of the rationale
behind what the president's doing, He's trying to reindustrialize the nation.
That's a good thing. He's trying to reinvigorate the manufacturing sector.

(40:10):
That's a good thing. So if he's successful in doing this,
wages are going to go up, and these will be
high pain manufacturing jobs. That is all good that will
be felt throughout the entire country. So exactly how this looks,
I don't really know. But when I when I look
out over the next few years, I think, like he

(40:34):
talks about this, this will be a golden age for
for America, and I'm pretty I'm pretty bullish on it.

Speaker 2 (40:41):
Has the market been overvalued? Gary, do you think?

Speaker 11 (40:45):
Yeah?

Speaker 12 (40:45):
It has?

Speaker 11 (40:46):
And that that's been that's been talked about for some
time though, because if you look at the price earnings ratio,
it's been around twenty times earnings and that's and that
is elevated. So the market kind of was waiting or
or expecting something to happen, and it got it this week.
And so sometimes the market expects it but they don't

(41:09):
want it. I think that they were expecting weaker tear ups,
but they actually got stronger ones and that was not
factored into the price of stocks. And that's why you've
seen so much volatility over the last two days.

Speaker 1 (41:24):
So uh again, I I feel like I lived through
a four years of Bidenomics where I saw the highest,
you know, inflation rates, and I saw interest rates on
homes that are just going straight up. I saw the
price of everything go up. I feel like I've lived
through very difficult economic times and I didn't get a
better trade agreement for it. So is it is it

(41:46):
fair to say that while we may see something, if
it's a fight you and you be bruised a bit,
could it Could it be worse than what we've already
lived through in terms of Bidenomics?

Speaker 11 (41:58):
Probably not? And so and so that's we're talking about
different things. There is that you had an economy that
was driven by the government and a lot of government spending,
and that created inflation. It wasn't the tariffs that Biden
had that created inflation, because if you look at what
Milton Freeman said, inflation is always a monetary phenomenon, meaning

(42:21):
that comes from the government. And so right now inflation
is starting to come down, but it's still higher than
what we like. And so I think this is a
different set of economic data data. And as long as
countries continue to call the President and I hear that
they are and bring their tariffs down to zero, we'll

(42:44):
bring tariffs against them down to zero. That's a healthy environment.
And so he's trying to reset the trading world, not
just in the US but everywhere and if he's and
if he's successful, this will truly be a golden age.
And I think that that's why I'm bullish, and Greg,
that's it sounds like you're feeling the same way.

Speaker 2 (43:04):
Yeah, I think we're all bullish on what the President
is trying to do is going to take some time.
But if you know, he had said from the beginning
that he is trying to save America and if we
don't do something, there won't be an America left.

Speaker 1 (43:18):
So either I don't know where I heard this, if
it's in between commercials it was our discussion, or if
this was an interview, but we got three options. Yep,
status quo, and I'm telling you this status quo is
not a trajectory that's going to see be sus number
two number two socialism. We can just be a socialist
coming that's where Biden was going.

Speaker 2 (43:37):
Well, that's where the progressives would like us to be right.

Speaker 1 (43:39):
Or three rite the economic ship and go through this
the way Trump is. You got three status quo socialism
or Trump writing the economic ship. Pick your poison. I
say ye.

Speaker 2 (43:49):
Well, today, of course, being Friday, it is think Rod
and Greg is Friday. We're going to open up the
phones to you now and let you talk about whatever
is on your mind. It has been a busy newsweek again.
Seems like that way every week with Donald Trump in
the White House. And that's why we love it.

Speaker 1 (44:04):
I love it, love it. He's shaking things up.

Speaker 2 (44:06):
Eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero on
your cell phone dial pound two fifty and say hey, Rod,
we'll get to your calls and come in. It's coming
up right here on the Rod and Greg Show. It's
your show. We don't pick topics. There's a lot that
we've talked about this week, but you can weigh in
on whatever you like to say. Maybe I had a
bad week. You just want to get it off your chest. Yeah,
maybe we're here for maybe I had a good week

(44:28):
and you want to say something on into the weekend.

Speaker 1 (44:30):
You want to hear, you want to hear some We
got good news, We've got we've got ramts, we got everything.
But if you want to come talk, it's eight eight
eight five seven zero eight zero one zero is the
number to call. Let's go to our calls. What do
you say? I'm ready, Let's go to our great listeners.
Let's go to Jim in Salt Lake City. Jim, Welcome
to the Rod and Greg Show, Open Line Friday. What
say you today?

Speaker 13 (44:57):
Hello?

Speaker 1 (45:02):
Are you there?

Speaker 2 (45:02):
Hello? Jim? Well, if he's there, he's not there anymore.
I couldn't get through him. Try again, Jim, if you
want to get on this show, can I bring up
one thing that really bothers me?

Speaker 1 (45:11):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (45:12):
Today?

Speaker 1 (45:13):
How long is it's not me?

Speaker 14 (45:14):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (45:14):
Wellsily occurrence We had a member of the state school
Board on I think it was Tuesday, Cole Kelly. Yes,
and they wanted to get a letter approved by the
State Board of Education that would go to the President
in their support for the Department of Education and the
elimination of this The board dismissed it yesterday on a

(45:35):
vote I think of ten to four. Doesn't I tell
you where a state school board is. Yes, a bunch
of radical.

Speaker 1 (45:41):
Leftists and not a good It's not a good sign.

Speaker 2 (45:43):
Not a good thing. Well, here's here's what a couple
of them said. You know, this was a letter just
showing Utah's support for the president trying to get rid
of the Department of Education, which I think many of
our listeners are great listeners agree. But here here, here's
an interesting comment. One of the board members expressed dout
that Utah would replace the federal funding if that money

(46:04):
was lost. They have indicated greg that money may not
be lost, it just may come from other departments.

Speaker 1 (46:10):
Yeah, it's a false narrative.

Speaker 2 (46:12):
That's a false narrative.

Speaker 1 (46:12):
Million is not gonna show up.

Speaker 2 (46:14):
But this one, this one just cracks me up. This
was a board member. Her name was Carol barrow Lear
District six. She's do you know who she is?

Speaker 1 (46:24):
He's infamous.

Speaker 2 (46:25):
Yes, listen to this coming. There is no evidence in
my mind to say the state can do this better.

Speaker 1 (46:32):
Then get off the board.

Speaker 2 (46:33):
Then get off the board. If you don't think that.

Speaker 1 (46:35):
She's been an attorney for the so called attorney for
the state school board years ago, and then she finally
ran for the seat and she's a school board member.
She's been left of center. She's a proud Democrat, liberal democrat.
And that right there, that tells you all you need
to know. Is she she actually even defended They caught
some administrator's state school board as well as one of

(46:55):
the school districts. They were a married couple embezzling money
Title I money, taking textbooks for special ed kids and
then photocopying them and selling them at high rates. They
got caught doing it, and Caro Leer and her crowd
they were apologists for them. They were part of their
wine and cheese crowd. I don't expect Caroler to say
anything different, but I'll tell you if she just if

(47:17):
that's really her sentiment, someone ont to run against her
and put that in the campaign fire and say she
doesn't think she, as as a state school board member,
could do any better than that three thousand mile away
a department of Department of Education bureaucracy sitting in DC.
She thinks that you have no ability at a closer
level to the people of doing anything better.

Speaker 2 (47:35):
Well, it really does say something when ten of the
board members they don't want to do that. Greg, doesn't
I say something about the State Board of Education? I
sure do. All right, let's go to the phones eight
eight eight five seven eight zero one zero on your
cell phone dial pound two fifty and say, hey, Rod.
We begin in Syracuse with Elliott tonight on the Rodding
Greg Show. Hey Elliott, how are you?

Speaker 3 (47:57):
Oh?

Speaker 13 (47:57):
Very well, thanks. I was just checking to say a
few Greg. We're familiar with the Trump's US Trade representative
on the cabinet level position, Jamison Greer b y u Grad.
That's right in the middle of managing these tariffs and
doing a good job.

Speaker 2 (48:15):
You know, I'm not.

Speaker 1 (48:17):
Out, so tell me more.

Speaker 13 (48:22):
I was just looking at a couple of Castle articles
this past week where there's some interaction between him and
and Jeff Flake. Of all people, this Flake has been
really really down on China and the tariffs that the
Chinese have had. But he's had a lot of confidence
in this Jamison Greer and the skills in the high

(48:46):
that's cabinet level position that apparently he hasn't and he
was assistant under Trump's previous administration, but seems to be
doing a great job and trying of spearheading Trump's activities.

Speaker 2 (48:59):
We were not aware of that.

Speaker 1 (49:01):
That's good. That's good news because look, and I like
hearing that. If I think what what Elliott said is
that even Jeff Flake is supportive of the of this gentleman,
and and that would be a good that would be
good news because all I've ever heard from a former
senator and former US ambassador from Turkey, Jeff Flake out
of Arizona, has been negative commentary about Trump. So I
would love to hear something positive coming or confidence being

(49:24):
expressed by Flake about the Trump administration what they're doing. Again.
Three options. You can stay with the status quot which
isn't gonna get us there. You can go to socialism,
which Biden tried to do, or you can try to
write this economic ship, which is what Trump's doing. It's
it's it's a big move, but it's it's that's what
always happened. This, this recoil is what happens when you
try to change the status quo on anything that's impactful.
Let's go back to our our listeners, our callers. Let's

(49:47):
go to Scott in Utah County. Scott, welcome to the
Rodney Gregg Show.

Speaker 14 (49:52):
Thank you very much. Just had a quick comment. I
wanted to know with all this does saving money, finding fraud,
waste and abuse. We hear about when are people going
to get held accountable for the fraud and the abuse?
The sound be illegal, and I don't hear people getting
indicted or in trouble. We just hear about the money
they're fining.

Speaker 2 (50:13):
I don't know where they're going to go. That's going
to be up to I would imagine Greg the Justice
Department to turn over this information. Leave it up to
Pam Bondy to prosecute or pursue charges against these people.

Speaker 1 (50:24):
So, Scott, it's a great question. And here's here's what
I've picked up over the comp I have heard Elon
Musk and then his doache teams say that they have
turned over evidence of where it is it is. They
believe what's happening is illegal. We have heard from Cash
Bettel that they're looking into things. And then Dan Bongino,
who was you know who's now in the FBI. I

(50:45):
think he's a deputy director. He had this very ominous
text that he wrote and said, just because you don't
see it doesn't mean it's not happening. That's true, and
you could apply to I hope Scott that you can
apply to this. I hope we see the the justice done.
The one thing we want to do is see that
the money get cut off from these robber barons. But
what we really want, we want to see is some

(51:06):
justice served, Scott.

Speaker 2 (51:07):
And if it is, you'll hear it right here on
The Rodden Gregg Show. That's for sure. All right, more
calls coming up on this. Thank rodin Greg is Friday
eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero, or
on your cell phone dal pound two fifty and say
hey Ron.

Speaker 1 (51:20):
Robert, thank you for holding and welcome to the Rodding
Gregg Show.

Speaker 3 (51:24):
Hey, thanks, I wanted to talk to you about Trevor
Milton if you've heard of him and Trump and Trevor
Milton fake faked the electric semi truck and became a billionaire,
and he bought two hundred acres two thousand acres up
in Weaver Canyon and he destroyed Weaver Canyon. That's got

(51:47):
a river running too, and he diverted that river. He
was sentenced to four years when they caught up with
him about the fraud on the electric truck and he
was out on bailso and then last week present Trump
pardoned him.

Speaker 14 (52:01):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (52:02):
He never spent time in jail.

Speaker 13 (52:05):
You know.

Speaker 1 (52:05):
You know, Robert, I'm glad you've brought this up because
I've had some So he's from Utahi. He did business
in Utah. Do you remember the name what it was
the name of that name of that company that made
the hydrogen electric vehicles, do you do you recall Nicola
la R. Yeah, And so you know he they did
a lot of lobbying of the state when I was
on the clock there. And so they wanted they wanted

(52:27):
seed money and invest money, and Utah doesn't provide incentive
that way. They do a post performance model. And uh.
And Trevor had said to lawmakers, including myself, well, you know,
Arizona's really competing for our our to open up shop
and start it there, and so is Georgia. And we'd
rather do it here in Utah with Utah workers, and
we just said we'll go to those states that they'll

(52:48):
give you seed money, because we don't do seed money.
So I have heard since that pardon from people that
I know that felt that that he was deserving of
that conviction and that he had not been honest about
his business dealings and it defrauded a lot of people.
So I have heard, Robert what you're talking about, and
was surprised to see that pardon. But do we know why?

Speaker 2 (53:08):
Do we know why Trump? What did Trump say?

Speaker 1 (53:10):
Trump said that he was targeted because of how much
he had donated to Trump's campaign and how much support
he had led to Trump in his campaign, and so
he caught the interest of the DOJ, the Democrats DOJ,
and that's why he was convicted. That's that was the
reasoning given for his pardon.

Speaker 2 (53:28):
Robert, do you have any more insight that Greg and
I may not know about that could shed some light
on this.

Speaker 3 (53:35):
He was he was a total fraud because he he
made a commercial where he took one of his trucks
with no engine it. He couldn't develop the hydrogen or
electric semi truck that he wanted to and he got
that truck to go downhill, and then he took pictures
of it, videos of it, and turned it into a commercial.
And he got everyone from Blackstone to every other big

(53:58):
investment company to invest billions of dollars. And he defrauded everybody.
And he was he was supposed to the next Elon
Musk and then and then he destroyed our cane that
I have a cabin cabin up in. And then uh
like diverting a river a river, and the State Party
got after him, and and then Trump just out of

(54:20):
the blue. The pardon the part of things out of control?

Speaker 13 (54:25):
Yeah, it is.

Speaker 2 (54:27):
It is on both parties. I agree with you, Robert.
Interesting story. All right, let's go back to the phones.
Let's go to Brian and Bluffdale tonight here on the
Rodding Greg Show. Hey Brian, how are you?

Speaker 13 (54:37):
Hey?

Speaker 15 (54:37):
Guys, I just happened to catch the end of the
uh conversation you had before the break where you were
talking about this Utah school board member who thinks.

Speaker 5 (54:49):
UH government somehow?

Speaker 15 (54:50):
Is that the answer?

Speaker 8 (54:52):
All?

Speaker 3 (54:55):
Yes?

Speaker 7 (54:57):
Yeah, Well, why don't what's shopping us from recalling her
and making her justify her position and then possibly getting
rid of her?

Speaker 1 (55:08):
Yeah, you know, I don't think we have recall, I
don't think here on the state at home top. But
I got to tell you, Brian, you're one hundred percent right.
If you have someone you've elected to represent you on
the state school board and their statement is I don't
think we can do it better than the Department of Education.
If that isn't a disqualifier, I don't know what you
what else? What else could you say they would disqualify

(55:30):
you from that job than that?

Speaker 2 (55:32):
Well, Brian, And what is she What is she saying? Brian?
What is she saying to every teacher who bust their
butts every day to educate our children, all those people
who are trying to make education in Utah work and
I think we do a pretty amazing job with it.
What is she saying to them? Oh, you can't do
it better, so the government's going to tell you what
to do. I mean, what are ridiculous stakes?

Speaker 15 (55:52):
She's also saying they're inadequate.

Speaker 1 (55:56):
Yeah, her name is Carol Lear.

Speaker 3 (55:58):
Remember the rest of the entire board.

Speaker 5 (56:01):
Yeah, well Carol, hello, Carol topic.

Speaker 1 (56:05):
I mean, I want Harold hello. We need we need
him to run. He needs to run. He's got the
vimin bigger heat. It's I I just I just find
that that's kind of because I've known that some of
these people for a long long time. That is just
as quintessential. Carol Leer, where is district sick? You pray that,

(56:26):
I don't know, I don't know the area. It's off
the wall edch it's in the watt edch front somewhere.
But but I'll just tell you that she that that
that statement to be able to just I know she
thinks that, Oh but somebody said, you know you said
that out loud. You know you were quoted. You know
that was That's something that you see I thought you
secretly thought. But now you've just about you've made it official.

(56:47):
You don't think that you're doing anything that that the
education shouldn't do themselves. Great, wonderful.

Speaker 2 (56:55):
Yeah, we'll put it in your hands. Carol. Thanks all right,
more coming up and more your phone calls eight eight
five seven O eight zero one zero eight eight age
five seven O eight zero one zero for the Rotten Gregg.

Speaker 1 (57:05):
Show represents the Summit County area, Park City and East
Salt Lake City talk about a liberal bash. I would
guess that between Park City and East bench of Salt
Lake City. They'd like the Department of Education to run everything. Yeah,
I don't even know why they have school districts. As
far as the people in those two towns.

Speaker 2 (57:23):
Well, they'd like to select the teachers, select the curriculum.
That's what they'd like to do.

Speaker 1 (57:28):
Nothing's better than bureaucrats in DC, three thousand miles away
make all the decisions here. Why have any why have
any other? You know them?

Speaker 2 (57:37):
I just don't even know if we could do it better.
I just don't know, right, Come in, lady, all right,
back to the phones. Let's go to Zaane and Ogden
tonight here on the Rodding Gregg Show. Hi, Zane, how
are you.

Speaker 3 (57:50):
Good?

Speaker 16 (57:50):
How are you guys doing?

Speaker 2 (57:51):
We're doing that.

Speaker 3 (57:53):
Good.

Speaker 16 (57:54):
Yeah. I wanted to talk about these judges that are
blocking Trump's executive orders.

Speaker 2 (58:00):
Yeah, the seventh, the seven hundred presidents of the United States.
Is that what you're talking about, Zaye?

Speaker 16 (58:06):
Yeah? Yeah, I think that if any of their ruins
against the president ever are considered uncut ruled unconstitutional by
the Supreme Court, they should be permanently disbarred. That should
be a good determent for them going through and trying
to do these activist rulings.

Speaker 2 (58:27):
Yeah, they're they thank you saying they're way out of
line and they know it.

Speaker 1 (58:31):
Zaan, do you want to threaten democracy? That's us you
are threatening. You are day the fascists want to take
away democracy. When seven hundred federal judges wake up one
morning and say, I all, we all want to be
the next we all want to be commander in chief together.
You know everything that we do get. I just want
to condition our listeners. And because they already know this,

(58:52):
but I just want to condition you, folks. I want
you because you have friends, you have family that they
don't track things as closely prepare them. There's not one
single thing that this president is going to do or
his administration that won't be met with contempt and protest
and outrage by the left and the regime and all
those that you know Doge and Elon Musker are exposing

(59:15):
as being robber barons stealing from the public treasury. They're
going to tell you that the guy that caught that,
that caught the bank robber is the bad guy. The
guy that took the bank robber and tackled him to
the ground, Well, you tackled him kind of hard Well,
that was a little violent. How you tackled him. That's rude.
Go to So it's it's it doesn't matter. And the
joke is if Trump walked on water, the the leftists

(59:36):
and the regime media say, well, he doesn't know how
to swim. Yeah, he doesn't know how to So I'm
just saying that there's these judges. There has to be
and I'm waiting for the Supreme Court, and I'm just
worried the Chief Justice Roberts is what's holding.

Speaker 2 (59:48):
This up or the other one.

Speaker 1 (59:52):
I got to tell you, they cannot let They would
never let this happen for Democrats if there was a
Democrat president in this kind of in this kind of
judicial overreach was happening. They had to shut this down already.

Speaker 2 (01:00:02):
I'm afraid they already did they let Biden get away
with a student loan forgiveness plan. Yeah, of course.

Speaker 1 (01:00:08):
He called him out and stay of the union, and
they just took it. And it's it's from that they
don't defend his presidency in the in the equal and
separate powers of the executive branch.

Speaker 2 (01:00:18):
Howard number three of the Running Greg Show coming up,
Stay with us. You know, Greg, there was a very
important hearing before the US Supreme Court. I think it
was on Tuesday. It had to deal with a South
Carolina law, or an effort by South Carolina to not
allow people who want abortions to use Medicaid funds. Yes,

(01:00:39):
because it's a kind of a roundabout way. I think
greg to have taxpayers pay for abortions, and I don't
think the American people want that.

Speaker 1 (01:00:47):
It was actually it wasn't. Wasn't there a hide act,
a hide fund.

Speaker 2 (01:00:51):
Hide actor is supposed to prevent that, but they find
ways around it.

Speaker 1 (01:00:56):
Yes they have. So what we have is we have
a great guest. Yeah, it's tring to blow the doors
off of this whole scam and from a front row
seat being someone that has worked for Planned Paranoids sometime
before eyes were.

Speaker 2 (01:01:11):
Opened, Yes they were, and that person is Myiro Rodriguez.
She is a former Planned Parenthood employee. She's now with
the group and then there were none, a nonprofit organization.
She was at that hearing earlier this week and joints
us on our news maker line right now. Myra, thanks
for joining us. Why did you go to that and
why was this so important to you? A maira rg I.

Speaker 17 (01:01:31):
Strongly believe that the states have that right that the
people in each state can decide, just like they told
those that the people in each state should decide whether
abortion or not should be legal. Then also the people
should be aware that our tax money are in so
many states paying for those abortions. And if you don't
want to keep making an abortion provider that actually makes

(01:01:53):
billions of dollars from other resources they have, then why
keep funding them?

Speaker 1 (01:02:03):
So my question is what is the role of planned
parent You know, we've seen so much of the NGOs
and the and the nonprofits and the money that federal
money that gets sent in ways that we that the
taxpayers didn't know about planned parenthood. We've known about planned parenthood,
and we've known the nexus to federal dollars. But as

(01:02:24):
we're looking at all of these dollars, is there really
a role that our healthcare system cannot help women that
are that may be in crisis? Why would we ever
any state want to see federal dollars go towards planned parenthood?
Why can't they operate on just private donations if they
want to exist at all?

Speaker 17 (01:02:43):
Exactly right, that's a question that we all should be
raising in our state. That's a question that we all
should be doing to our government. John Parnhut does not
offer any outside specialty services to that other places do
not offer. Just the case we'd said Caroline now which
she was the case that was heard yesterday at the

(01:03:04):
Supreme Court State of Carolina, Plant paring he has only
two locations and they do the only abortions that happened
on the state. The state of Carolina has over two
hundred facilities medical health care facilities that offer not only
the same services with the exception of abortion, like I'm

(01:03:25):
talking about preventive care, STDs, passmears, breast exams, and beyond that,
they have over two hundred health centers that could offer
those same services and better. They do not need plant
paring her. And one of the examples I gave yesterday
some some media people were still argumentative towards plan paring her.

(01:03:45):
It is as a director I worked sixteen years on
the preventive side of Plant parry Her in Arizona. If
I had a patient that came for a past and
her passner came back abnormal, she was quickly referred out
to someone else and never seen again. Why because they
don't want the liability. They don't want the paperwork. So

(01:04:05):
when they say, oh we we do concert screating, you
do a passer And as soon as that papsner comes
back abnormal, you've referred that patient out to someone else
to do the actual saving her life. So you don't
same thing with the breast. They do a breast check,
it does not include a mammogram or a nultrasun and
as soon as that's abnormal, they are referring to someone

(01:04:28):
who actually will take care of the problem. Then if
that woman can be seen by the person who actually
will take care of the problem from the beginning, why
does she needs plant parenthood?

Speaker 2 (01:04:38):
All right, as you just indicated, you work for one day,
think about seventeen years in all faces for planned parenthood
for a long time. What's the one thing you think
the public really needs to know about what planned parenthood
is all about? In your opinion, Well.

Speaker 17 (01:04:54):
That plant has a political agenda, and that political agenda
it's for abortion and as we know now, for the
harmonization of children and some adults. So they're not about
women scared and sadly I found that out. It's through
my years working for them. I accuse them of abusing funds.

(01:05:14):
I accuse them of medicaid fraud. I accuse them of
harming women and abortions and not caring what happens to them.
So sadly, it's not about women. They don't care about women.
They care about one agenda and only in that abortion.

Speaker 1 (01:05:31):
So here's my question. If I get into a discussion
about this topic with someone that's pro choice or wants
to defend planned parenthood, they will always describe the procedures
as medically necessary and the elective abortions as non existent.
And I know that's not the case, but could you
share with us, because you don't just see this from

(01:05:52):
as far as you described you work for Planned Parenthood,
how many of the abortions performed would you say or
estimate with planned parents are emergency medical procedures versus elective
abortions as a way of health of birth control.

Speaker 17 (01:06:10):
During my seventeen years in plant Park, Arizona, zero of
the abortions were an emergency procedure because plum Park weren't
even such a woman that has a medical problem. So
if the woman had like a medical issue, they're referral
to a specialist, right. So, second of all, I will
tell you with confidence that eighty seven percent of the

(01:06:33):
abortions that came through the doors of the clinic I
used to supervise, which it was five to seven days
a week abortions, none of them had a medical issue.
They were all healthy babies to their knowledge. There was
no abnormalities, there was no medical necessary. I can even
tell you that in all of those years, I never

(01:06:55):
met a single woman who was there.

Speaker 18 (01:06:57):
For a rape.

Speaker 13 (01:06:58):
Wow.

Speaker 17 (01:06:58):
So all those three usages in my seventeen years, I
never encountered any of those three scenarios.

Speaker 2 (01:07:06):
Mar Raight, let me ask you this question. As you
work for them and you started to really see what
Planned Parenthood was all about, how difficult was it for
you to stay there, and you started raising concerns about this,
How difficult was it for you personally to work for
Planned Parenthood as you see what this organization is really
all about.

Speaker 17 (01:07:24):
Well, I'm gonna be very honest with you. While I
was my sixteen years working on the preventive side, I
was a very happy employee because I strongly believe what
they tell you, and they tell everyone that I was
helping women, that I was helping low income communities, that
I was helping Latino communities, you know, preventive care, pushing
really all this border control and sex educations in schools.

(01:07:50):
And it wasn't like to cover the abortion facility that
I was able to see behind the scenes, that I
was able to see what everyone on the problem movement
has been saying and what I was blinded to see
because I had not been part of the full abortion spectrum,
and that was that they're corrupted. They don't follow the law.

(01:08:10):
They are literally they are their own boss. Like they
regulate their own industry, which is what makes it even
harder for us to fight them, right because they regulate
their own industry, they report their own complications. No one's
really supervising them, and that's what makes it so hard
for us to try to fight them. I saw the mismanagement.

(01:08:33):
I saw the harboring of women. You know, for many
years I tell women abortions are safe, women don't get hurt,
and that's not what I saw as a director of
the abortion facility. And then the piloting up of the
bodies of the baby is throwing in a zip lock
and then thrown away in trash to be cremated. That
is something a different level. You know, it doesn't matter

(01:08:56):
how pro abortion you are when you are the one
signing up and saying, hey, Mayra Rodriguez allows you to
take five hundred babies killed this week to be dumped
with the rest of the trash from hospitals. That's a
different level that gets to your conscious right when you're
the one piloting up those little siplus with all the
tiny bodies in there, seeing their arms, their legs, their torsos,

(01:09:19):
their heads, and then here the abortion is referred to
baby parts as trash. You know, that gets deep into
your conscious. It wakes you up.

Speaker 3 (01:09:28):
You know.

Speaker 17 (01:09:28):
I am glad to say that the ten months I
lasted as the abortion director wake me up to the
reality of abortion. And thank God that I'm here now
on this side.

Speaker 2 (01:09:38):
Myra Rodriguez joining us on our newsmaker line talking about
an abortion issue now before the US Supreme Court decision
most likely to come down at the end of the term,
which is right near the end of March. All right,
we've got more coming. You were going to say.

Speaker 1 (01:09:51):
Something, I say, man, what a little She's got the
last fight in her and she's been there, she's seen
it all, and she is knocking them out as she should.
I'm glad that she's doing what you he's doing and.

Speaker 2 (01:10:00):
That information she told us. Yeah, sad, that is sad, sad, sad.
All right, more coming up by the rod En Greg
Show right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five
nine can arrests. Now, how often Greg, do you think
the American people think about our nuclear arsenal?

Speaker 1 (01:10:15):
Not at all?

Speaker 2 (01:10:16):
Not at all. Yeah, I mean we just don't think
about it, Dude.

Speaker 1 (01:10:18):
I don't. I personally don't, And I think about a lot.
I think about probably too much. I think a lot
about a lot of things.

Speaker 2 (01:10:23):
A lot.

Speaker 1 (01:10:24):
I can just stare for hours.

Speaker 2 (01:10:25):
But you know, we hope we never have to use them,
but we need to be ready to use them if,
in fact it comes our way. And there's a brand
new documentary out is being put together by the Heritage
Foundation taking a look at the you know, exposing the
vulnerabilities of our aging nuclear arsenal and joining us on
our newsmaker line to talk about that as a man

(01:10:47):
behind it. He is Bob Peters. He's a senior fellow
there at Heritage. Bob, thanks for joining us. Why undertake
this look at our nuclear arsenal?

Speaker 1 (01:10:55):
Well?

Speaker 5 (01:10:55):
I think it's because of the very fact that you
mentioned that most people don't look at this issue. So,
you know, most Americans are very concerned with everyday issues
and whether that's their pocketbook or what's going on in
their schools, and that's perfectly understandable, but most people aren't
tracking some of the reports that have come out over
the last three years in regards to what China's doing.
And it struck us there at the Heritage Foundation that

(01:11:19):
this is a story that needs to get broader coverage,
and so we decided about four months ago to do
this documentary to just try to raise awareness for the
average American about these issues.

Speaker 1 (01:11:29):
It comes at a tenuous time with China where we
see so much dependency on imports from China. We're not
making a whole lot here. I think it's the epicenter
of this trade or this terriffy discussion and what we're
going what we're talking about by way of trade. But
so if we're if we're dependent on the trade with China,
they're making ninety six percent of the mining and processing

(01:11:51):
ninety six percent of rear minerals, and there's a lot
of other details to that. Take that take that vulnerability
at the United States feels and also add to that
now are maybe an outdated nuclear arsenal or an inability
to defend ourselves or to defeat the enemy militarily. How

(01:12:13):
worried should we be right now?

Speaker 5 (01:12:16):
Well, you know, the worry is is that, you know,
history is replete of examples of nations stumbling into a
war that no one wanted to get into, but they
didn't know how to avoid. And so you know, the
classic analogy is World War One started because a Serbian
terrorist assassinated an Austrian arch duke and somehow at the

(01:12:37):
end of all that, fourteen million people were dead, four
empires collapsed, and despite America's best efforts, we ourselves got
dragged in. And so we need to understand that wars
are possible even if you don't want to get involved
with them. And when you're talking about China, which is

(01:12:57):
building not only a deterrent arsenal, which would be one thing,
but they're building a nuclear war fighting arsenal with weapons
that are optimized to destroy our bases in Japan and
Guam and Northern Australia, that's when you have to be
really concerned because the question is why else would they
be doing that if not to be preparing to fight

(01:13:18):
a nuclear war.

Speaker 2 (01:13:21):
Well, if our nuclear arsenal is aged and not postured
for you know, a modern warfare, my question would be
do our adversaries know this? Do they know how bad
we may batter shape we may be in We do.

Speaker 5 (01:13:36):
And so you know, everything that is in a documentary
is drawn from the open sources, and we are very
transparent about our capabilities, and there are some good reasons
for doing that. But the downside of that is that
our adversaries know that we removed the last nuclear weapon
from East Asia in nineteen ninety one. Our adversaries know

(01:13:57):
that we were tired to Tomahawk charismissile that carried the
warhead in twenty twelve, and our adversaries know that the
newest warhead and the arsenal is thirty five years old.
And so in some ways this is less meant to
be trying to telegraph to the Chinese some of our vulnerabilities,

(01:14:17):
but it's meant to be a wake up called the
American people.

Speaker 1 (01:14:20):
So my oversimplified view of the world was that once
you hit the status of mutually assured destruction, that no
matter how many more nukes you build, or how new
or more advanced they were. If you had the ability
to launch and and and deploy nuclear weapons like the
other side, and we would the whole planet would be
mutually just you know, we'd mutually destroy each other. That

(01:14:42):
that you can't get worse than that, or you can't
there's what's where is there to go from there? Is
it that ours that our nuclear arsenal won't work? Is
it that they found smarter ways to do it? I mean, what, how?
Where is this? Where is this separation happening where they're
more prepared than we are.

Speaker 5 (01:14:58):
That's a great question, it's great quot So what we
have in the arsenal are the big city destroying weapons
that were relative to the Cold War, and we got
rid of all the smaller, lower yield nuclear weapons that
are pretty darn precise, that have a small amount of
explosive power but are very highly effective. And then they've

(01:15:19):
coupled those with new sensor packages and new targeting packages
that can get right on the deck of a ship
or on the center of an airbase and very precisely
destroy that target. We got rid of all that stuff
the Cold War because we didn't never want to get
into nuclear war fighting. We thought we won the Cold War,
we would never need those things again. And so the

(01:15:41):
challenge is, if the Chinese use one of these low
yield weapons and we have nothing but these huge city
destroying weapons, would we actually respond with a weapon that
is optimized to destroy a city when they've taken out
an air base or a city angles ship at sea.

(01:16:01):
And if we say, if the American president, because he
is the one who makes that decision, and says, oh
my god, I'm not willing to do that and kill
four hundred thousand people because they killed three thousand sailors
or airmen, then the Chinese could say, here's how we're
going to win the war. We're going to use these
very precise weapons and gain operational advantage, and the Americans

(01:16:21):
have got nothing to respond with in kind, Bob.

Speaker 2 (01:16:25):
Is anybody either in the military, in Congress at the
executive level talking about this and what is it going
to do to what are we going to have to
do to update this and be ready for the future.

Speaker 5 (01:16:36):
I think they are. I think they are talking about this.
But what we need to be doing is moving with urgency.
We have to move to modernize the existing arsenal faster
than we are. We're frankly, in the last four years
we fell nine years behind schedule. But worse than that,
we're going to have to move quickly to reset the
theater tactical war fighting posture, both in Europe and in

(01:16:58):
the Western Pacific, and that means frankly, taking stuff out
of the reserve stockpile, the old weapons that are sitting
in storage that haven't been touched into the Cold War,
and putting them on existing cruise missiles so that we
use that as a band aid until we could rebuild
the arsenal that we that we need, and that's going
to take leadership.

Speaker 2 (01:17:18):
Bob Peters from the Heritage Foundation talking about the aging
nuclear arsenal that we have in this country today and
we do need to change things. Hopefully people are thinking
about it.

Speaker 1 (01:17:27):
So have a great weekend, yez. Yeah, we've had abortion
and nuclear weapon But you know, like I asked them
in the question, like you think, once you get to
a certain place with these nukes, you know, there's not
a whole lot more you could do. But now you're
seeing this strategic use for potential use, and it is
a little unsettling that the United States might not be,

(01:17:49):
you know, shoulder to shoulder with our enemies of our state.

Speaker 2 (01:17:52):
Yeah, that's for sure. All right, more our Listen Back
Friday segments coming your way here on the final hour
on this week of the Rotting Greg Show and Talk
Radio nine k NRS. All right, time now for our
Listen Back Friday segments. We do this at the end
of every week. We look at the interviews and the
newsmakers who we've spoken to over the past week and
select a couple who we really enjoyed and we think

(01:18:12):
you may have missed, And let's get started with Listening
Back Friday. You know, Pete Haigseeth is doing a lot
with the Defense Department. The one thing that he has
announced it is right to hold men and women to
the same physical standards when it comes to combat ready.
And you and I totally agree with this one.

Speaker 1 (01:18:29):
Yeah. I really wanted this to be one of our
Listen Back Friday interviews because she this is a veteran,
this is someone who is old school. She was fighting
for this a long long time ago, saying whatever these
guys are doing, we better be able to do the
same thing. And I just love the vim and vigor
of our next guest, and I thought, you know, she
is the perfect person to talk about military readiness and

(01:18:51):
focus on mission and being mission ready and not thinking
about gender and differences DEI, but mission focused. I think
this is a She's a great example.

Speaker 2 (01:19:00):
She is an army veteran, and drag just mentioned a paratrooper.
As a matter of fact, we're talking about Samantha or Narovs.
We talked to her earlier this week about these standards,
and we asked her, first of all, why these standards.
Equalizing the standards is so important, because.

Speaker 18 (01:19:15):
We need to have a military fighting force. It is
one standard for everyone so that when the job needs
to be done, it's not about who's stronger, who's weaker,
who can or who can't. It levels the playing field
and makes us a lethal fighting force, and that is
Secretary hex Its goal.

Speaker 1 (01:19:33):
Can I ask you, I love it, by the way,
I'm all in on this, and I love that you're
a veteran. You're not speaking from some philosophical place. You've
lived this, you know exactly what you're talking about. Are
there are there roles within the military, however, that there
isn't a shoulder to shoulder comparison and strength or or
whatever qualities it would it would be needed to protect
this country. Does that exclude genders from certain duties? If

(01:19:58):
you're putting all the qualifications that need to be the same.

Speaker 18 (01:20:02):
It doesn't exclude gender. What it does is it makes
the mission the priority, not a focus on gender. When
we focus on gender, we are talking about who's stronger,
who's weaker, who can and who cannot. So I think
that's the wrong question when and that's what everybody's asking
where the way we're addressing this is let's focus on

(01:20:25):
the mission. Now. What he has said is combat arms
there will be one standard, and that is a dividing
line that's going to be critically important going forward because
when you just said shoulder to shoulder and fighting forward,
we're talking about a lot of our combat arms units
and we need to know that people who are in

(01:20:47):
those jobs have the physical capacity to do the job
in front of them.

Speaker 1 (01:20:52):
I actually love that. I want to fall up because
you're right. The question I asked is the one that
you hear. But I love your answer because you're saying, look,
if you can't into a pull up, if your mile
run is twenty minutes, you're in the wrong business. It
doesn't really matter whether you're a guy or girl. That
you've got to be. There's a standard to be a
member of the military, to be a fighting force, and
that is what you're protecting. Can is without giving up

(01:21:15):
military secrets? Have you seen that cohesiveness and that kind
of shoulder or shoulder we're not there's no difference by gender.
We're just we're The mission is all that we're focused on.
Can you share with our listeners a front row seat
to that? Have you seen that actually occur in our military?

Speaker 18 (01:21:32):
It has, but it's been situational. And that's the problem
with having different standards is then it's dependent on the
individual people in those units, not the standards and the
qualifications that put them there. I think that's been the
fail point up until now, and that's what's being corrected
when we're talking about combat arms and we have women

(01:21:54):
now in combat arms, and many of those women are
just strong, competent, great people who are doing the same
job with the same qualifications, and they meet the same
physical qualifications and standards as the men do. But because
our standards now are separated between male and female, they're

(01:22:17):
only judged and evaluated by a female standard. That female
standard is lower, and that gives a lot of people
the opportunity to say, well, oh, they're only in the
unit because they're a woman. Well, actually she's in this
unit because she is competent, she's strong, she can do
the job, and if she had been evaluated on the

(01:22:37):
male standard scoring, she would be as she would show
to be as strong as many of her male counterparts.
That is where we need to be as a fighting force.

Speaker 2 (01:22:49):
So, Maantha, how big of an undertaking is this for
Pete Hegseeth and the Defense Department? I mean, how big
of an undertaking is this going to be?

Speaker 18 (01:22:57):
Well, we're at a starting point now, great question because
it's this is no small task. What I wrote about
in the article that was published in The Federalist. I
applaud Secretary Hexth for what he has done, and I've
been in communication with him. I've spoken with him on

(01:23:19):
this prior to his confirmation hearing and moving forward, this
being the first step and that is it. In combat
armed units, the standards will be the same for men
and women. I think we need to then further define
this and look at the mission. What not just the

(01:23:42):
standard being male female and one standard in combat armed units.
The next question is do our service support units need
to have the same high elite physical skills and qualifications
that are com arms do. And I would say that

(01:24:03):
if I'm in a combat arms unit, special Forces infantry
and we're out, you know, beaten down doors, there that
is one physical capability that needs to be established. But
if we're talking about, say a cybersecurity specialist in an
air conditioned building in Fort Mead, Maryland, I think maybe

(01:24:27):
we can look at a different standard because the jobs
and the tasks that that person needs to do on
a daily basis that's very different than a forward deployed
infantry person.

Speaker 1 (01:24:40):
You know, your comments, your observations, your experiences are so refreshing,
and I'm so glad that our listeners are able to
hear your perspective because I got to tell you, up
until recently to this selection of President Trump, we haven't
heard this. We've heard it's almost been a stigma to
even suggest that they be held at the same standard,
or you have to be at it's miss focused, not gender.

(01:25:02):
These are things that have not allowed to be discussed
when you served in the military. I don't know how
what stage all of this was in when you were serving.
But is it tough for women who do not want
to be assumed to have been there because of some
DEI program or some affirmative action program, but do feel
like they can stand, you know, and be held to

(01:25:22):
the same standard. Has it been rough on our our
service women who've been serving this country under the climate
of a focus on gender.

Speaker 18 (01:25:33):
You are speaking my language.

Speaker 1 (01:25:35):
That's oh my goodness, how are you treated?

Speaker 18 (01:25:42):
It's it is really tough. And this is something I've
been fighting since nineteen eighty five when I went to
basic training and the women were told to be over here.
The men were pushed over here, and there were a
lot of things that you know, men had to do,
and during basic did they would say, oh, well the
women can just stay over here, you just sit here.

(01:26:04):
I was loud and obnoxious back then too, and I
was just like, oh the heck with that. Yes, you know,
I've got pictures, and I mean, this was funny. And
I know a few people from back in the day,
and there were a lot of women who were very
angry with me going through Basic because I said, whatever
the men do, we need to do and if we're

(01:26:27):
not doing it, we need to band together, and we
need to approach leadership and we need to say if
they do it, we do too. That wasn't always fun. Oh,
women didn't have to mow the lawn. All the guys
had to mow the lawn. We're all exhausted. It was
just one of those tasks. I've got pictures of, you know,

(01:26:49):
five to two, one hundred and twenty pound me mowing
the lawn because the other women didn't want to, so
I would take their shifts. Because my point was, as
a woman, if I am not out there, I have
no business being there.

Speaker 2 (01:27:05):
On our newsmaker line, Samantha Nirov. She is CEO of
Worlds Threat and also a retired Army lieutenant, talking about
new standards for the military. All right, Moore coming up
on The Rodden Greg Show and Talk Radio one oh
five nine can dress. All right, let's continue with our
listen back Friday segments. America, Greg is facing so many threats.
I mean economic threats, immigration threats, military threats, you name it.

(01:27:30):
We're facing a lot of threats. Everyone had taken a
shot at this country.

Speaker 1 (01:27:34):
Yes, and you know what, we have the perfect president
to fight back. But you know what it does, it
it changes hard. Interrupting the status quo is difficult. We're
not on a great trajectory. We already knew this. This
is why President Trump was elected. But going to the
work and getting to the work is very difficult. And
I do think, as highlighted by our next guest, there
are some qualities and some vital points we need to

(01:27:56):
be aware of as we take on the hard task
of turning things around.

Speaker 2 (01:28:00):
One of the Newsmaker interviews we did this week was
with Jeff Anderson, president of the American Main Street Initiative.
He wrote about the five biggest threats to American As
we began our conversation with Jeff, I asked him, first
of all, why he cited Lincoln in his article about
the threats to America.

Speaker 12 (01:28:16):
Well, Rod, thanks for having me on. Lincoln, of course,
is one of the wisest statesmen we've ever had in
our history, and he gave a speech at a very
interesting time in our history. Back in eighteen thirty eight.
It was only about eighteen months after James Madison, the
last surviving cons Social Convention delegate, had died, and so
for the first time Americans had to face the future

(01:28:37):
without the help of the founding generation, and so the
young Abraham Lincoln is looking around and he says that
the three things that will be in trouble if we
don't have enough of are if we don't have enough
general intelligence, sound morality, and reverence for the Constitution and laws.
And I thought it was helpful to look back at
Lincoln because I think when you look at our political

(01:28:59):
landscape almost two hundred years later, I still think those
are three of the biggest threats we face. A lack
of general intelligence, sou morality, and reverence for the Constitution
and laws. And I think two things that have been
added since Lincoln's day are the centralization of power, mostly
in the federal government, but also somewhat in large corporations.

(01:29:21):
And then just technological advances that I think are threatening
to replace humanity more than assist humanity.

Speaker 1 (01:29:30):
You know, you point out, I really do. This is
such a great article. And in addition to those, the
three that were pointed out, the intelligence, the morality, and
the reverence towards the constitution. This centralization of power are
by government and even by corporate cronyism and technology. It
is a huge concern and it's probably our most glaring

(01:29:52):
examples of where the Constitution might not be revered or
where we see the rules being broken. But let me
ask you this. Are you worried about the man on
the street interviews? Have you worried about the general intelligence
of our emerging workforce? Are the morality? Are we a
secular world now? But I see what you're saying. But
then I think, but wait a minute, I'm looking at

(01:30:12):
the people who are usually the bastion for guard for
all this. I'm going, I don't know, are you Are
you seeing some cracks in it, even amongst the people,
in terms of some of these essentials we have to have.

Speaker 12 (01:30:24):
Well, yeah, I think so. I mean that's what Lincoln
saw too, and even even back in his day, he
saw cracks and these things among the citizenry. I think
that what has perhaps changed is that, I mean, I
still think our citizenry, thankfully generally has pretty good sense
about things. I think it's more our elites now are

(01:30:44):
so called elites that have a real dearth of general intelligence,
sound morality, and reverence for the Constitution and laws in
a way that was not true in Lincoln's day. I mean, Lincoln, stay,
you had some extraordinary statesmen. You know, you had Henry
Clay and Daniel Webster in the Senate and this so
so I think that we now face challenges from elites
as well as from the wider citizenry.

Speaker 2 (01:31:07):
I think my co host just called some of the
American segment of the American population stupid. Jeff.

Speaker 1 (01:31:12):
I think that none of our listeners, Jeff, our listeners
are thinking the same way we are. I am. So
there's that, Jeff.

Speaker 2 (01:31:20):
This this centralization of power that you point out, how
difficult is it going to be to either tame it
or take it down to a level That is what
people like Lincoln, even the Founders thought about, how difficult
is it going to take it down? And can it
be taken down?

Speaker 12 (01:31:36):
Well, it can be, but it's extremely difficult. We've been
trying to unwind this increase of federal power now for decades,
and it's one of those things where it seems like
the ratchet only goes one way for the most part.
But with determined effort, you can actually devolve power back
to the states, to localities, to individual citizens.

Speaker 13 (01:31:56):
You can.

Speaker 12 (01:31:57):
I mean, I think that's part of like the effort
with Doge and and the Trump administration's general push is
they're pretty committed, I think, to stopping the federal government
from wielding power over so many facets of our lives.
And it really is crucial. Alexis to Tolkeville wrote about
the same time as Lincoln was speaking, and he was
so precient, so able to see the future. He was

(01:32:19):
warning even then that what could unravel the whole Republican
experiment in America is if we allow all the things
Americans do for themselves, where they come together and they
form clubs and groups and they do things. If we
start saying, well, let's just have the government do it, it's
going to be more and more things the government will
take control of, in part because people will lose the
ability to do them, and you'll end up with a

(01:32:40):
bunch of atomized individuals. And I think all that rings
truer now than it did in Tokeville's day.

Speaker 1 (01:32:47):
You know, the saying, I might be slaughtering it, but
America is great because America is good, and if she
ceases to be good, she'll she won't be great. Something
like to that nature.

Speaker 17 (01:32:56):
But I.

Speaker 1 (01:32:58):
What's happening now with this second term of President Trump
is I didn't know what I didn't know, and some
of that centralization of power is much more aggressive and
pervasive than I even understood. And I think I've been
trying to stay dialed in for quite some time. So
I think we're I feel like we are at a
moment right now, an event horizon where this is where

(01:33:19):
we decide whether we're going to let that centralization of
power continue to take us wherever it would want to
go without regard to our constitution, or we're going to
take it back because we're getting the information, we're learning
things we've never seen or heard before. Do you get
a sense that we are in a moment like.

Speaker 12 (01:33:33):
That, Yeah, well, certainly the moment I think in recent
decades that's the most reason for optimism that there might
be a willingness for Americans to want to roll some
of this power back, take it from Washington. I mean,
clearly a people saw a lot of abuse of power
by leads during COVID. I think that probably helped grease
the wheels for some devolving a power back to local

(01:33:57):
entities or individual Americans.

Speaker 5 (01:34:00):
Yeah.

Speaker 12 (01:34:00):
So, I mean even talk about like the Department of
Education is one of the most glaring examples of this.
Education is something where Americans used to come together. They
either teach their own children. They would they'd hire a teacher,
build a schoolhouse. The parents were very involved. And to
have the federal government have had the role of education

(01:34:20):
that it's had in recent decades is clearly counterproductive. And
the fact that you now hear discussion of that is encouraging.
So yeah, I think there's reason to have some optimism here.

Speaker 2 (01:34:33):
A Jeff final question for you. We continue to see
on almost a daily basis, some unbelievable stories of waste
and abuse that is taking place when it comes to
federal spending by the Doze, and they talk about all
these agencies and everything else. Are the American people paying
attention do you think, Jeff?

Speaker 12 (01:34:50):
Well, I think they're paying attention to a degree. But
I mean, if you connect it back to what I'm arguing,
are the these five biggest threats. I mean, the debt,
I think is a product of both the centrals, the
of power and the lack of of sort of the
general the sound morality to live within your own means,
the Republican virtue of that, and I think people haven't
yet realized just how bad our situation is with the debt.

(01:35:15):
But at least Doge is pointing people kind of in
the right direction and shining a spotlight on it.

Speaker 2 (01:35:21):
Jeff Anderson, he is the president of the American Main
Street the Initiative, talking about the threats to the United
States kind of scary. Interesting. I mean, Lincoln an amazing individual. Yeah,
and back eighteen thirty eight what he talked about.

Speaker 1 (01:35:34):
You know, he added to Lincoln said, you gotta have
some smarts. You better get some religion. And yet, okay,
you better be a moral people, and you better revere
this constitution. But it didn't just right itself. Okay. But
then the centralization of power is something we have got
to and I think we are actually exposing in ways
they never wanted to be or thought they'd ever be exposed.
And the corporate this is happen. We've had to have
a couple of resets in American economy over time, Teddy Roosevelt,

(01:35:57):
even the FDR, the centralization or accumulation of wealth where
it's just being captured by a few, leaving everyone else behind.
That's something too we have to keep an eye on
because it's real and it's happening.

Speaker 2 (01:36:09):
Sure is Well, that does it for us tonight and
for this week as we say each and every night,
head up, shoulders back. May God bless you and your family,
this great country of ours. Great have a great, great
weekend you too, sir. We will be back Monday at four.
Have a good weekend.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

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: Dems In Trouble Despite Outcome of Special Elections; Planned Parenthood Shouldn't Be Taxpayer Funded

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

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

Dateline NBC

All Episodes