Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It was so nice, beautiful weather. It was so nice
to get inside a hot car.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
I know I have that feeling too, when the car
has been warm, get in it's kind of hot. Having
not felt that quite some time, I kind of.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Felt that that was kind of fun. Well, how are
you everybody? Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show on
this Wingman Wednesday. And if we got another jam pack
show for you today, I.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
Brought our cat citizen, Greg Hughes.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
All right, if you want to stay on top of
what's going on, we invite you to download the iHeart
Radio app so you can listen to the show anywhere anytime.
Make sure we're on the presets.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
And the reality is I challenge anyone to find this
show along the Wahsatch Front and Utah anywhere. You are
only hearing this commentary nationally, but also locally right here
on the show program.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
There's no other conservative talk show host in town.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
You know why? Why Because they're scared.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
I think so.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
They're afraid.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
They don't want to take it. They don't want to
have a take because someone because it'll bother someone. We don't,
we don't care, no, we don't. We give no consideration
to that we don't.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
Care at all. Now, Greg and I, Well, let me
tell you what we'll talk about today. We're on to
talk about how a plan to destroy the Democratic Party.
That's kind of interesting. Election integrity. The RNC has a
new unit out there. We'll talk about that. We'll talk
about the postal Service bleeding cash like you wouldn't believe.
And why is the left freaking out over d Oe
Department of Education. We'll get to that. But the story Greg,
(01:22):
you and I are wrestled with today. Do we talk
about this? Do we let it go? We're talking about
signal Gate?
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Yes, yeah, I I I I I have sympathies for
this is this is all the Democrats have, and they're
making a mountain out of a mole hill. And we
should we should just let this this new cycle run
its course. We should be done moving on. There's so
many important things the president's looking to do in Congress
is doing. Let's get to the work at hand. But
there's another side that says there's some buffoonery going on here,
(01:48):
folks that we need to keep calling out because you
need to know that they're not intellectually honest, They're not there.
There's outrages absolutely selective, and it's it's there's a it
is the further know subtraction of this party where they
just can't get it right, and it's hard to ignore
it and not at least bring it to your attentions.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
So I feel both.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Well, we you know, and we have seen three examples,
one today and two others in the past two days
as to how low the Democrats are willing to go.
Right now, you had, you know, you had Jasmine Crockett
calling the governor of Texas, you know, governor governor on
hot wheels. You had mad Max Maxine Water yesterday calling
for Trump to deport Millennia. First that made a lot
(02:30):
of sense, and then today it happens yet again. Greg.
So the intelligence community, the leaders go before the House,
this time to explain what happened with you know, the
the uh A text message and how it got out right,
listen to the question. I don't think they could get
any lower, but this goes pretty close. A question from
Representative Jimmy Gomez is from California. As the intelligence leaders
(02:54):
appeared before that committee today, to.
Speaker 5 (02:56):
Your knowledge, do you know whether Pete Hexa had been
drinking before or he lead classified information?
Speaker 6 (03:03):
I don't have any knowledge of Secretary Hegseth's personal habits.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
Director Radcliffe, same question, yes or no?
Speaker 7 (03:14):
You know no, I'm going to answer that. I think
that's an offensive line of question. The answer is no.
I find it interesting that you want to you as
you want to answer no. Listen, you don't want to
focus on the good work that the CIA is doing,
that the intelligence community.
Speaker 5 (03:31):
Director, I want to reclaim my time. Director, I reclaimed
my time here. I have huge respect for the CIA,
huge respect for men and women in uniform. But this
was a question that's on the top of minds of
every American.
Speaker 8 (03:47):
Huh.
Speaker 5 (03:48):
He stood in front of a podium and Europe holding
a drink, So of course we want to know if
his performance is compromised. If you were people were asking
if the General Austin was compromised because of a heart issue.
Speaker 7 (04:06):
Was his performance compromised because.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Of a successful strike?
Speaker 7 (04:10):
Mister, I bring my you want to know. You want
to talk about accepting response time. Do you think my
time responsibility for a successful strike to make Americans safer?
Speaker 9 (04:20):
I want to.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
That's John Ratliff. Can you believe that question?
Speaker 10 (04:24):
Greg?
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Was he drunk before these texts were sent? Out. I mean, how,
I mean, what are they trying to do here?
Speaker 2 (04:32):
So it's performative, it's the it's political theater, it's not real.
And here's here's an interesting twist this this uh, even
this issue. I think these these uh, these congressional hearings
had already been scheduled.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
These the people that Telsey.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Gabbert, uh CIA Director Ratcliffe, they were already scheduled to
appear before Congress. But the topics were going to be
the successes of the Trump administration, the things they were doing,
as well as their OBJECTI going forward. Then this signal,
this text message story comes up, and they just wedge
it right in there and make the whole thing about
(05:07):
that why it's meant to demean Secretary of Defense hag Seth,
but also the president and his administration. But it is
also to get the Republicans and Trump's administration off topic
and not be able to talk about the things that
the Americans would immediately say, Wow, that sounds like process. Wow,
that sounds like America is safer today than it was
(05:29):
prior to Trump coming into office. They wanted to stop
any of that discussion, and that's why you're getting these
He's being argumentative on purpose. He knows he's not a child.
He knows what he's saying is so out of left
field and wrong to say, but he wants the argument.
That's what he wants, and he does not want to
get to the substance of what they're doing that is good,
(05:52):
that is protecting this country. They don't want to talk
about that.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
My thought on this, greg was how many people ask
Kamala Harris how many glasses a one?
Speaker 3 (06:00):
And oh my gosh, not enough. Not enough people. There
need to be an intervention with her A long time ago.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
Did anybody ask her those questions? No, but they're gonna
ask John Ratliffe, Tulsea Gabbert, They're gonna attack Pete Haig
Seth because of his quote drinking problem that they think
he has. It's just egregious. It's so low.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
And all I can say is that the important part
that I the role that we need to play here
is one to bring this to your attention because we're
not glued to the TV during the day, we're not
watching c spam, we're not certainly not going to watch
the talking heads, and and the real I think news
coverage won't get into this performative politics that you're seeing.
But we're reporting it because you need to see. This
is all they've got. They don't have anything else but this.
(06:40):
They only know how to attack, destroyed demean They've got
nothing to build on, nothing to agree upon. That's who
they are.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Yeah. Well, and Secretarry Pete haig Seth, he was in
Hawaii today. Of course, The Atlantic put out a new
article today basically saying, well, here are the war plans,
and haig Seth responds this way in Hawaii.
Speaker 7 (06:57):
Nobody's texting war plans.
Speaker 11 (07:00):
Well, I noticed this morning out came something that doesn't
look like war plans. And as a matter of fact,
they even change the title to attack plans because they
know it's not war plans. There's no units, no locations,
no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no
(07:22):
classified information.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
You know who sees war plans.
Speaker 11 (07:25):
I see them every single day. I looked at them
this morning. I looked at attack plans this morning. You
know who does attack plans and warplans. Men like that
Admiral right there, Paparo for the Indo Pacific or Eric
Carilla are general in Sentcom. They do attack plans.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
You know, Greg. I was wondering if Jeffrey Goldberg over
the Atlantic knows the difference between war plans and attack plans.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
He does.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
I don't, but I wonder if he does it.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Look, no, any Pejora, any words that they can put
together consecutively that sound like something that they can say,
this was so something that sounds super super serious that
they can then use to say, Look, how how you
know cavalier and irresponsible they are? He doesn't know any
difference between were plans, attack plans, or any plans at all.
(08:12):
He doesn't know any of it. And what I've heard
already is that a lot of this is what would
be communicated with leaders those that they would interact with.
These are leaders that are on this text thread together,
which is, by the way, was an approved government communication
in the Biden administration and the Trump administration coming in.
This is an approved condovitive communication. So it's not something
that they're using cavalierly or wrongly, but it's things that
(08:35):
they're going to be able to explain as people as
the people that they interact with. I want to know
more information, and so it's look, I don't know how
this this of all the members of the media, one
of your biggest critics, just nothing but an attack dog
towards Trump gets on that thread. It's a clear mistake.
It should be framed as much as a mistake. But
(08:57):
I will tell you that you got Bill Crystal out
there saying Seth gone by Friday. He's going to be
gone by Friday. That guy is so deranged. And what
DOJE and Data Republican have shown in terms of you know,
looking at following the money, Bill Crystal makes a king's ransom,
having sold out from the nineties to the guy he
is today. He even promotes transgender philosophies now or you know,
(09:21):
vision or whatever culture now where he used to be.
You know, we'd call it out in the nineties. The
guy is just such a sellout. But I read him so,
you know, ladies and gentlemen, I read his stupid ex posts.
Why in fact, they come up first on my feet.
I look at him so much. You know why why
Because he is really like the poster child for this side,
(09:43):
for their narrative, for their voice, for whatever they're thinking.
Bill Crystal post will tell me exactly what they're thinking
or how they're trying to frame it. And it's always
laughable or and I can't help it. I chirped sometimes
back at that guy. I know he doesn't read him,
but it just makes me feel better. But no, he's
crystal is like just he is the example of all
of these on the left, the Party of subtraction, party
(10:05):
of you know, just trying to attack. They don't know
how to do anything positive.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
Well, what they're trying to do greg keep it alive
until the Sunday morning talk shows, and you know this
will be the number one topic this Sunday. That's all
they're trying to do.
Speaker 10 (10:17):
Well.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Trump just announced new tariffs, He's you have so many
things that you have a cease fire between Russian and Ukraine.
They can try, but what's really killing them, and we
know this is that they used to be able to
take an issue like this, and they used to be
able to have congressional hearings, and they used to be
able to have the news and the editorial and then
the Sunday shows. Things are moving too fast. They can
(10:39):
come back to this if they want, but they'll be
skipping over a bunch of very worthy current events news comings.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
That's for sure. All Right, We've got a lot to
get to so we invite you to stay with us.
Great to have you with us on this Wingman Wednesday
edition of The Rod and Gregg Show and Talk Radio
one o five to nine k NRS.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
The Wingman Wednesday edition of The Rod and Gregg Show,
here on Talk Radio one oh five nine Canterres, and
everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Well, this is something that both Greg and I wish
the Democrats would continue to do.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Destroy themselves operation let them speak. Let's Senator Kennedy as.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Called that's all we need to do. Joining us on
our Newsmaker line to talk more about that right now
is Scott Pinsker. Scott its public relations and crisis communications
expert Wroughte a terrific article about how to destroy the
Democratic Party in four easy steps. Scott, Great to have
you on the show. I think they're kind of already
doing this, aren't they, Scott. Do they need any help
in destroying themselves?
Speaker 12 (11:35):
Well, they're teetering awfully close to that ledge, but they
might need a little nudge. Yeah. I mean, you've got
the Angel of adage. When your enemies making mistakes, don't
interrupt them when they're damaging themselves, don't give them a
band aid to a large degree, you kind of have
to wind them up and let them go. But through
the subtle art of public relations, media manipulation, and some
(12:00):
che canery here and there, we might be able to
get them a little bit nearer to the edge and
give the Trump administration a tactical advantage because if they're
divided with each other, then can't attack us, and Trump
could effectively run the country with the forties forty five
percent majority.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
So my question is, and I think that your article
is great because I agree that this is they are
a party of subtraction right now. They are really dividing
and really alienating people. And I think some of this
I would point to the strength of President Trump's election
people that in probably January of twenty four were considered
themselves Democrats. Tulca Gabbard, RFK Junior, Elon Musk, Joe Rogan.
(12:41):
I don't think that that Trump did anything spectacular to
draw them in. I think the Democrats kicked them right
out of their party. So how do we keep that
momentum going? What's your what are your swing thoughts for
us to allow them to keep being the party of subtraction?
Speaker 12 (12:58):
Well, you're right with your take on it. They've been
losing key demographics of their voting base for quite a while.
There's been getting a lot of tension how they've been
hemorrhaging the use vote. Young Americans are in the hell
more conservative than boomers, and young people have been a
go to part of the Democratic coalition. I remember there's
(13:19):
an old Goldie Hawn movie where she had a line
where like, I wanted to join the young Republicans that
I found out that they weren't any. For a while,
it was funny, but now it's just not true. And
particularly if you're a man, and if you're under the
age of thirty, you're more likely to be a Republican
than a Democrat. And that's a big change. And the
Democrats hold on minorities has really changed too. One of
(13:41):
the big shockers from the twenty twenty four elections was
that white people were not the number one demographic that
voted for Donald Trump. From from an ethnic point of view,
it's actually Native American, which makes a lot sense because
you're talking about people that tend not to be you know,
you're talking about world voters. You're talking about people who
have probably probably have a bad taste in their mouths
(14:02):
about government overreach and uh, and for a whole lot
of reasons, Trump was able to pluck away keep people
from the Democratic base. And I think the next big
group the fall will be the left leaning libertarians. These
are people who they they don't less and think about
Bill Maher like that.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Would be the post time of it.
Speaker 12 (14:22):
Okay, they don't like, they don't like religion. Uh, they
think it's kind of dopey. They're gonna they're gonna kind
of look up, you know, they look down on you.
But at the end of the day, they want to
be left alone. They want to you know, have their
their recreational activities and and and not be interfered with that.
And they don't want the government to get in their way.
(14:42):
And they cringe at the pronoun insanity.
Speaker 13 (14:45):
Uh.
Speaker 12 (14:45):
They don't like, uh, you know, the far left over
each but they've still have been a loyal member of
the Democratic coalition to the point where Bill Moore actually
donated over a million dollars. And just a week ago,
Bill Maher announced that he is going to meet Donald
Trump in the White House. And you know, we're entering
a world where Bill Maher could be a Republican RFK
(15:07):
Junior's Republican and Liz Cheney's campaigning with a Democrat.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Scott, what is the base of the Democratic Party right now?
Could you could you define it or is there a
base anymore?
Speaker 12 (15:19):
Yeah, I mean it's been a little tricky because the
Democratic Party is really more of a coalition party. It's
really not unified by by an overreaching ideology where you know,
if you're a Democrat, you believe a B, C and
D because if you're a union worker up north or
if you're a left coast liberal, you probably don't have
a lot in common other than that you kind of
agree that the Democratic Party would be the number one
(15:41):
way to promote change and to get a better, bigger
piece of the pie for you. The key people to
Democratic base now are primarily women. They are primarily unmarried women,
and a lot of that. They're still heavily with the
minority vote too, but it's a it's more of a
gender divide than ever before. The gender divide has really
(16:02):
been exploding, particularly among the young people. And you know,
every every decade or so, the people who were you know,
their seventies are at the top of the line and
the people that were eighteen are now, you know, approaching
their prime earning period of their thirties to forties. It's
not voting well for the Democratic Party. That the trajectory
is deeply problematic. They're dying off. They are literally dying off,
(16:25):
and they're not replenishing the people that they're losing.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
So here's here's my question.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
One of the most dangerous Democrats, at least for as
a future leader that I see out there in the
landscape that could unify the Democrat Party would be Pennsylvania's
Governor Josh Shapiro. But when I listened to Josh Shapiro
or even see him and listen to the things he says,
and then I listened to AOC, is this does this party?
Is this party big enough for both AOC and Josh
(16:51):
Shapiro to be under the same tent anymore?
Speaker 10 (16:54):
Or is that?
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Or are those days gone?
Speaker 12 (16:58):
They're going to try to get along to they absolutely can't.
And I would thrown another Pennsylvania Democrat into the mix too,
with John Fatterman.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Amazing hard to believe, but yeah, you're right. He didn't
start out so good, but he's getting better, isn't he.
Speaker 12 (17:12):
I put up an article today where I quoted George Carlin.
George Carlin had a quote that said, sometimes a little
brain damage can help. And John Fetterman it's been he's been.
It's been shocking. I'll admit that I didn't see it coming,
but he's been a wonderful counterweight for the AOC wing
of the Democratic Party and kind of with the Bill
(17:33):
Maher group where you see him on the out. You
don't need a crystal ball to foretell what will happen.
John Fatterman might be a very large man, but he
has a very very small block of people, said the
Democratic Party. He's completely outnumbered by the by the Bernie Sanders,
by the AOC, by the squad, by the people on
the far left, and when they battle within the party,
(17:53):
he will not win. The question, man, is what will
he do say in the party or will he leave?
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Interesting to see what happens. As always, got great chatting
with you, a great article today, and we'll see what
happens in the future. Thanks Scott, gentleman, appreciate it all
right you. Scott Pinsker here on the Roden greg Show,
talking about the efforts to destroy the Democratic Party in
four easy steps. More coming up on the Roden Gregg Show.
All Right, we're talking a big, big announcement by the
(18:21):
President yesterday signing an Executive Order on Election integrity. Greg,
you have expressed concern about this for a long long time. Yes,
you know this system very very well. You know, just
see some results. Sometimes the American people are shaking their head.
But this is a You know, the guy who stands
next to the president is always handing him the executive orders. Yes,
who is that guy? We No, I think they're called
(18:44):
the Executive Secretary. Is that what he is? Well, he
outlined what this EO did before the President signed it yesterday.
Speaker 14 (18:50):
We believe that this executive order is the farthest reaching
executive action taken in the history of the Republic to
secure our elections. Among numerous other aspects of this executive order,
this is going to cut down on illegal immigrants on
the voter rolls, ensure that the Department of Homeland Security
and the data that they have available is being fully
(19:12):
weaponized to ensure that illegal immigrants aren't voting. This will
include a citizenship question on the federal voting form for
the first time. This executive order instructs the EAC to
cut federal funding to states that don't take reasonable steps
to secure their election. This calls on the Department of
Justice to vigorously prosecute election crimes, particularly in states that
(19:34):
we don't believe are in compliance with federal law around
election integrity.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
Greg, let me ask you this, who would be against
in this country, who would be against requiring someone to
show ID to be able to vote?
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Well, I hate to break it to you.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
We do here in Utah what you're about to deal.
Speaker 3 (19:52):
Yes, there are.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
We still could not in this last legislative session pass
an elections bill that would require them voter to present
their government issued ID to be able to vote. Now,
what they did do is you need a government issued
ID to register to vote, and you need to be
able to put the last four digits of your government
issued ID on your ballot that you'd like to mail in.
(20:15):
But it would have been much easier just to simply
require it, and you could have had people scan it
like you do at a barrow at a club, scan
the back and if the name comes up the same
as the name on the ballot with the address, you
know it's good. They could have done it even in
the drop boxes. You could have had an elections person
there to man it. They didn't do that. They're doing this.
What we do in this state mostly is a signature verification,
which is software which can be sensitive. You know, can
(20:38):
look at it, scrutinize it loosely or strictly. That's up
to the clerk you have. It's just so innocuous, this
whole signature verification process. And once you see that, Biden,
can you know, auto dial audit it?
Speaker 3 (20:52):
What do you know?
Speaker 10 (20:53):
So?
Speaker 2 (20:54):
I wish it was as intuitive as it sounds, but
for some reason it hasn't been everywhere. But I do
plauded the President for this executive or that requires proof
of citizenship to vote. He also would like to stop
collecting ballots or receiving ballots after election day. That's another
thing that you thought was doing that we will know.
I do not believe is going to happen. I think
the new law does say by eight pm at the
(21:16):
close of the of the polls on the election day,
there are no received ballots that will be accepted, and
that's the.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
Way it should be. Well, the Republican National Committee is
also working on a voter integrity and election integrity. As
a matter of fact, they have a brand new unit
that is now working to keep voter rolls clean. Joining
us on our Newsmaker line to talk about that is
Reagan Reach's White House correspondent at the Daily Caller. Exactly
what is this our NC election unit up to Reagan?
Speaker 9 (21:42):
Yeah, So, just to give you an overview of how
this department came to be, the RNC was under a
consent to create in nineteen eighty and that essentially let
them we're not able to pursue election integrity efforts until
about twenty eighteen when that was linked and overturned by
(22:04):
a judge. So twenty twenty two was the first time
that the rn C really dove into the election integrity sphere.
That was what was previously described to me as proof
of concept for the election Integrity Department. In twenty twenty four,
former rn C Chairwoman Roni McDaniel moved to make the
r and C Election Integrity Unit an actual department, So
(22:29):
that gave them all these resources, funding, a full staff,
and allowed them to fully dive into the election integrity sphere.
So this is really the first time that we've seen
them pursue this adamantly, and so now we are going
into an off election year. The midterms are in a
little less than two years, but the Election Integrity Department
(22:51):
is not slowing down. They're building up their staff as
they previously told us, and they're working on things that
are going to take a little bit more time. So
what we were able to break was that they.
Speaker 15 (23:02):
Were launching it.
Speaker 9 (23:03):
They're requesting records from all from forty eight states for
their voter roles, registrations and try to figure out if
they have a clear and concise way to maintain these
voter roles to make sure that people.
Speaker 15 (23:17):
Who have moved, died, who.
Speaker 9 (23:19):
Aren't citizens, uh you know, et cetera, are off those
voter roles if they're not supposed to be there.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
So ringan some states like Virginia, you know, that can
be a swing state, that's not a that's not a
rock rib red state. But the governor he did a
phenomenal job of cleaning up their voter roles as I understand,
and and they I think they did a number of
ways where if you wanted to if you wanted to
register for vote by mail or something that that you
would have to update that every election cycle or every
(23:50):
so many election cycles. But they were they were updating
their election their voter roles so frequently, and they were
finding a lot of discrepancies in those voter rules once
they began doing that. Are you is the R and
C when it talks about election integrity? Are they looking
for states election offices to have best practices like states
(24:10):
that are doing it well or is this a party
effort that would do it in addition to whatever the
states are doing on their own to make sure that
the voter voter registration records are clean.
Speaker 9 (24:22):
Yeah, so this is something that they are asking the
you know, elected officials in each state to provide and
to work with them on. In Virginia, for example, you
brought up Virginia. Leading up until the to the twenty
twenty four election, Governor Youngkin made a move to pull
(24:44):
you know, maybe a couple thousand people who were not
supposed to be on the voter rolls Virginia's voter rolls off,
and the Biden Department of Justice actually jumped in and
tried to stop that effort and said this, there's not
enough time for you to do this. It's too close
to the election now. Mind you, these are people that
(25:05):
Virginia is you know, seeing as are identifying as non
citizens or people who are not supposed to be on
these voter rules, but the Biden Department of Justice wanted
them still on voter roles, wanted them to still receive
the ballot or be able to vote in Virginia, and
the same exact thing happened in Alabama. And so, you know,
(25:25):
by launching this effort now, the R and C has
given themselves plenty of time to make sure that these
voter rules are cleaned up. And it might not be
as easy as just requesting all the documents from these
forty eight states. I do think that they anticipate some
tension and some legal battles, and so that's something they're
(25:46):
going to be diving into, you know, as they try
to work with these state officials.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
Regan. The midterms are a little bit more than eighteen
months away. Critical for the Republicans to keep the House
and we keep the Senate. Don't have to worry about
the presidential election right now. But how aggressive is this
unit being and making sure they're ready to go to
do whatever they can in preparation for the midterm elections.
Speaker 16 (26:11):
Yeah, so you know, I heard for initially after the
election that the department was probably going to be pairing
down a little bit in the off year, And what
I've heard now from officials is no, no, no, we
are scaling up.
Speaker 15 (26:26):
Well.
Speaker 16 (26:27):
They still have staff on the ground in Wisconsin for
the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. They still have staff on
the ground in Pennsylvania's They're still sorting sort of stuff out,
and I know that they're still working on staffing up
their teams. They're on the ground teams in the coming
months in different states across the country, really starting to
(26:49):
train the poll watchers, the poll workers that were so
crucial to the twenty twenty four election. Former r and
C chairwoman Laura Trump told me that they got just
twenty thousand tips from these poll watchers and poll workers
in the toy twenty four cycle, and with all of
those tips, they were able to send a team that
(27:10):
was on the ground, whether it be lawyers or someone
from the rn C ground team, to that location that
had been flagged and addressed that issue right there and
niit a lot of things in the bud And so
what the rn C is looking to do is not
to scale that back, but to take that foundation that
they laid in the twenty twenty four election and continue
(27:31):
to build on it.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
The final question Reagan. President Trump assigned an executive order
yesterday calling for certain provisions in election integrity, whether it
be the you need a photo ID to be able
to and be a legal resident to be able to
vote same day voting or counting to election or votes
up just on election day. There's a number of things.
(27:55):
How coordinate is that with the rn C or how
much of that compliments what the rn C is trying
to do.
Speaker 9 (28:02):
Oh, it definitely compliments what the rn C is trying
to do. You know, they filed I think close to
one hundred lawsuits over this past twenty twenty four election cycle.
Speaker 16 (28:12):
That is very similar to, you know, making.
Speaker 9 (28:16):
Sure that there are election integrty laws in place that
very similarly near the executive order that President Trump signed
into law yesterday. One thing I have heard from the
rn C they do seem very hopeful that the presidents
in executive order will be codified by Congress and that
there is definitely hunger within the House and the Senate
(28:41):
to pass a law, an election integrity law that in
some way, you know, helps codify that executive order, and
you know won't be able to be as easily undone
in the future.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
We can only hope Reagan reachs from the Daily Color
talking about this R and C election integrity unit that
is now working toward the midterms in twenty twenty six.
Can you believe that they're just about eighteen months away.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
I'm glad they're working hard. I'll tell you there's there
is there's a ton of election fraud that's been allowed.
And people, you can say, election deniers, say whatever you want.
I don't know no one anyone that's fighting against more transparency,
verification of a voter's eligibility to vote. If they hate
those topics, then they're doing something wrong.
Speaker 1 (29:28):
Yeah, okay, there all right, more coming up. On the
Rod and Greg show, someone said the I told my
wife yesterday that I say arquit instead of Arquette. You
don't say ark with well that My family says it
that Keiths. They identify Arquitt. It's our Kett, it's our cat.
I mean, you don't call it Marquitt universe. Marquette universe.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Someone said, I need to say, if your name is
Rod Arquette, I should be Greg R.
Speaker 3 (29:52):
Hughes. Why Arquette R Hughes? Oh, see Rod Arquette.
Speaker 17 (29:57):
Greg R.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
Hughes, Greg R. Hughes, Yeah, well your meddle name isn't.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
R No, it's h. It doesn't Wage, but it is,
you know, Greg kind of kind of flows.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Uh huh. Isn't it interesting, Greg, that now that Joe
Biden is no longer president of the United States and
I think basically banished from the Democratic Party, more more
information is coming out about this guy, and leading up
to the election last year, there's a guy out there
who confirmed he worked for the Biden team, confirmed that
Joe Biden was given press questions in advance.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
I think we didn't we know this because we saw
the cheat sheets, We saw that the picture of the reporter,
we saw the question and in his answer he was
supposed to give.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
But I think we know we knew this.
Speaker 1 (30:43):
Well, this staff for his name is Michael L. Lo
Rosa said use this term quote approval. Okay, there was
this thing. This what he said, There was this thing
in Biden world about quote approval. Everything had to be
on quote approval. One person aside what the reporter can
use and what quotes they can say.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
And they played ball and this this you know these journalists, Yeah,
use the term loosely played ball with this and now
now I love it as they're all doing. Wow, you
know he was so much more compromised than we understood.
And why did the Democrats let him stay in so long?
They are they are colluding, They are co conspirators for
the Biden presence.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
Well, this one shows you the the intestinal fortitude of
the press during this time the media. It's amazing to
me that no one in the press complained about this.
A good journalist, I'm not. I'm not following these rules.
Journalists aren't supposed to follow those rules.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
Well, can we just honestly admit that if Trump's White House?
I can't even say it with a straight face. If
Caroline Lovett said, Okay, we're doing a quote approval process here,
Oh what what kind of reaction do you think that would?
Speaker 1 (31:55):
Would?
Speaker 3 (31:55):
Garner?
Speaker 1 (31:56):
All right? Coming up the head of n PR and
PBS go before Congress today. It did not go well.
Speaker 3 (32:04):
I think big birds in trouble.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
We'll talk about it coming down, stay with us.
Speaker 3 (32:08):
Pass me the copperhead. I'm ready to go.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
I wonder if they're passing around any copperheads today at
the Corporation for Public.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
Broadcasting I think that might be a bit of a
gloomy place. I think everybody's Oscar the Grouch over there
at PBS and NPR today because I don't think the
CEO of NPR, although very articulate in her her comments,
I was gonna say wordsmithing, it wasn't accurate. Do you
(32:37):
do you think white people are superior to people of color?
Speaker 9 (32:41):
I do not.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Okay, here's your tweet that says I am white. I
used to think I was superior. I was privileged. Okay,
do you believe in you support reparations?
Speaker 18 (32:49):
I do not.
Speaker 2 (32:51):
Here's a tweet everybody. We should be out all playing reparations.
I think I just meant to generations earlier, not to
anyone of color. Well that's actually not what are So
that's a bad answer every single question.
Speaker 3 (33:03):
Rod. And then the one, the big victory lap.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
That I felt Jim Jim Jordan did this.
Speaker 3 (33:08):
No, that's good, but this one.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
I want to say that the New York Post which
got deplatformed when they when they investigated and broke the
Hunter laptop story, Hunter Biden laptop story, and were punished
brutally for it didn't exist, you know, at least on
the Internet. Because of that, we're deplatformed before the night
the twenty twenty election. She miss Mayor, the CEO of
(33:32):
NPR admits today that in hindsight, they absolutely should have
covered that story and covered it much sooner. And the
Washington the New York Post gets to publish that saying, yeah,
we were right like they were. They were materially harmed
over that investigation in that reporting which was which was
really important reporting, and NPR now is saying that they
(33:54):
should have been right there with them.
Speaker 1 (33:55):
And she even admitted today on the whole Russia Gate
hopes thing that they covered it. Shiff was on there
twenty five times on NPR going after President Trump. Muller
comes out and said, nothing there. They dropped the story completely.
They paid no attention to it. But the killer of
this and you you brought this up, Greg was She
(34:16):
was asked by Jim Jordan, well, I just think he's
great congressman. He there was a former business center who
worked for NPR. Remember this was several months ago, and
he decided to go out on the limb and talk
about what life is like at NPR. And what he
found out was that of all the editorial positions the writers,
(34:37):
the reporters, the anchors, you name it, right, eighty seven
of them were registered Democrats. Know how many registered Republicans
are on that staff? One zipple, zero, none, zero, none, whatsoever.
So how can they present a right down the middle
position when you know all of more Democrats and the
(35:00):
American people see this.
Speaker 2 (35:01):
So let's let me let me just rephrase what you
said so that I understand it right. So there are
eighty seven, which is quite a big editorial. That's not
your reporters, those are your editorial positions, your writers. Eighty
seven of them were all not They weren't independents, they
weren't Republicans. They were all registered Democrats living in the
(35:22):
DC area. Zero Republicans. Well, that's not very that's not
a national public radio. That's a Democrat Radio Public Radio.
So NPRRPPR Democrat Public Radio. It is Democrat public Radio.
And you know, we've always known this with their whispery
voice and all their leftists news reports and their editorial comments.
(35:43):
We've always known this. However, in an era where we're
looking at two trillion dollars of deficit spending every single year,
thirty six trillion dollars in debt, going bankrupt. I mean,
I'm sorry. Every time someone tells you that they don't
like where the cuts are coming, then what because we
can't keep going this way? We are going off of
fiscal cliff if something doesn't happen. When you find out
that NPR and Public and also PBS are getting a
(36:07):
half a billion dollar more than half a billion dollars
a year for those two for radio and television, do
we really need it anymore?
Speaker 13 (36:15):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (36:15):
It is left journalistic integrity or neutrality. I don't know
if they ever had it, but they certainly don't have
it now. Now that's coming from a child, a guy
who like learned my ABC's from Big Bird, from Grover,
from from Burton Ernie, mister Rogers neighborhood.
Speaker 3 (36:31):
He taught me how to be nice to people.
Speaker 2 (36:33):
I mean, I loved Public, you know, I loveds Yes,
kue d that was I mean, I loved, I loved
and mister Rogers was from Pittsburgh and I saw I
got to meet mister mcphey When I was in they
called it nursery school. Yeah, I was a nursery school.
I got to meet mister mcfiely. Big highlight of my life.
So there there was a role, There was a role
(36:54):
for like kids to really you know, learn some things.
I think that the way we receive information now, and
I think the way that kids have opportunity to see
instructional programming like this uh pbs P and PR especially
that we just we don't need it. It's a let
me just say it this way. It would at the best,
(37:15):
at very best, it would be a nice to have,
not a have to.
Speaker 1 (37:18):
Well, times have changed, it, Greg, And like you were saying,
you grew up with big Burg.
Speaker 3 (37:21):
I sure did, right, but then the grouch.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
That was the only option you had back then. Basically
look at today at four channels, yeah, four, Look at
today there are so many options out there, not only
for you know, children's education and helping them learn. There
are things about cultural events people well, and PR carries
this symphony. Well, you can probably find it anywhere anymore.
Speaker 3 (37:42):
Yeah, I mean go stream it, stream it.
Speaker 1 (37:45):
They do this documentary. I bet you could find it
somewhere else as well. So the question is times have changed.
I'm with you, you know, if they want to go
on their own, if the Corporation for Public Broadcasting wants
to go on and own without taxpayer funding. They go
to major contributors and ask them, would you contribute to
keep it going? That's that's their business. I just don't
(38:05):
like my taxpayer going to it. And I'll watch it occasionally,
and when they get into these fund raising things, I go,
come on, folks, you're groveling for dollars.
Speaker 10 (38:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:14):
No, And it's fundamentally unfair. It's it's again, it's a
Democrat propaganda channel. Everything's left of center and and and
so I just don't think that if you're a taxpayer
and you don't subscribe wholly and solely to the left
of center philosophy or worldview, why should your taxpayer dollars
be used for that versus the other things that we
(38:36):
can't afford that we should actually fund, or you know,
making sure entitlement spending is pretty scary.
Speaker 3 (38:41):
Nobody wants to talk about it.
Speaker 2 (38:42):
But at least we can't even talk about how to
cut the wist in Social Security or Medicare or medicaid.
You know, Democrats don't even want to talk about the waste.
We've got to get to that. But NPR and and
public and PBS see you later. I think it is
a it should be gone. And here's my challenge. Okay, well,
we just heard today in this hearing what I'm looking
at by way of the quotes, and and I've watched
(39:04):
some of the video of her answers the CEO of NPR.
If this isn't an indictment, because not one answer clarified
any misunderstanding of what we're saying right now, there's nothing
that we're saying that that is not true. There's no
justification to keep this budget line item. If it continues.
That is a failure of the Republicans to leave this
on as a budgeted line. They've better cut this. If
(39:26):
they don't, they're part of the performance of performance politics
and pageantry does.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
Well?
Speaker 2 (39:33):
I think yeah, I think I think k e R.
So there's a KCPW. I believe that's not that public
graded that we that the state doesn't contribute to.
Speaker 3 (39:42):
I do not believe.
Speaker 2 (39:43):
But I do believe through the University of Utah, which
is a state institution of higher learning, they do fund uh.
They do have a funding UH stream for public ra KU,
which I think should done too. I mean they've cut
higher ed, I mean I think they should. They should.
I think your point's great. Make it a fundraiser. I mean,
if you want to stay alive, you want to stay viable,
if you don't have advertisers, go to donors.
Speaker 1 (40:05):
You know, compete with the rest of us in broadcasting.
Speaker 3 (40:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (40:07):
See, if you can compete and people like what you're offering, great,
you know, but just compete. Sell advertising time, yeah, you know,
or sell sponsorships, whatever you want to do, but get
off the tax dollars. I think that you know that.
That's what we're saying. I have nothing against them. Do
what you want to do, but don't do it on
my time.
Speaker 2 (40:26):
I just think we're in an error nowhere. When you
listen to that testimony in Congress rate there, you think
to yourself, how did we let this go unchecked this long?
I mean, if there's really no justification for it any longer?
Eighty seven editorial positions, which by the way, is bloated
by itself. Hey, that's that's more than any any free
market station has. I guarantee it. But you have that
many and now, and they're all registered, you know, unapologetic democrats,
(40:51):
not independents, not unaffiliated, they're registered democrats. That is not
that is there's nothing objective, If there's nothing that is
a Democrat public radio station, and that's not what taxpayers
signed up for.
Speaker 1 (41:05):
I go back to what you just said. Conservatives have
been talking about this for a number of years now, right, yep,
now is the time to act. It is if nothing
is done here and they continue the public funding of this.
You are spot on with this, because I'm going you're
right on. I mean, you are spot on. You do
not have the guts to say we're done with this.
Speaker 2 (41:27):
Yes, this is my second line in the sand. My
first is EPA can be no longer be EPA until
they make Mexico stop using the Pacific Ocean as a toilet.
That's my first line. Second line in the sand is
if PBS and NPR continue, you're not serious, because neither
are defensible in any way, shape or form for taxpayers
to be paying for this or not protecting the environment
(41:47):
over there. Those are two absolute you know, of the
list of things to do, those are one and one A.
Speaker 1 (41:54):
So you know, and I want to hear from our
listeners because you know, when you were a little taught,
I bet you were funny when you were a little
to little kid.
Speaker 3 (42:02):
Yeah, I lived for these shows.
Speaker 1 (42:04):
Yeah, but you live for these shows, and I imagine
there are a lot of people in our audience who
do did grow up with them. But I'm asking how
many of your children are now watching these shows? If
you have little children, do they watch Sesame Street? Do
they watch any of these shows? Because there are a
variety of other very entertaining, very educational shows out there
on the internet, on cable, whatever you watch, it's streaming
(42:27):
out there. Do you do you even bother looking at
this anymore?
Speaker 2 (42:30):
Well, my kids are in their twenties now and they
didn't watch it. They watch it, they didn't. There's this
horrible show called Kyu, Oh so bad. It's this bald
kid and he just whined for the entire show. I
remember that and Teletubbies. I could not let I as
a good father, I could not let my kids be
exposed to those two so called kids shows. Teletubbies Kyu.
(42:52):
They were both just just terrible, terrible shows. I don't
know who, what, what demon created either one of those shows,
but they were not They couldn't be on Hughes Home.
But no, my kids didn't watch the same you know,
public television.
Speaker 3 (43:03):
I watched.
Speaker 2 (43:04):
The times have changed, yeah, and that now those are
my kids aren't kids, So I don't think it's necessary anymore,
and I think it's time to go.
Speaker 1 (43:11):
Eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero eight
eight eight five seven o eight zero one zero, or
on your cell phone, Dal pound two fifty and say hey, Rod,
we'd like to get your thoughts on this. It's been
talked about for a number of years, especially among the
conservative circles. Let's stop funding. What's going on with with
UH Corporation for Public Broadcasting?
Speaker 2 (43:31):
Yeah, yeah, it's because some people like to listen to
it to see what the other side's saying, because that's
kind of what you're doing. You're you're intercepting their their communicating.
But i'd love to hear from our listening audience. They
know they know the score. Is this something that time
has passed? And if you're serious about cutting this deficit,
this is a This isn't low hanging fruit. This might
be the rotted fruit on the ground under the tree
(43:53):
that you got to clean up off the ground because
it's so it's it's so past its time.
Speaker 1 (43:57):
Eight eight eight five seven o eight zero one zero
eight eight eight five seven o eight zero one zero.
Should we continue funding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which
is PBS and NPR. Your calls and comments coming up
right here on the Rotting Greg Show in Utah's Talk
radio one oh five nine k n RS if you're
just joining us now. We're talking about the future funding
of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which overseas NPR and PBS.
(44:21):
The head of the corporation went before members of the
House today and they had a field day with this woman,
and it raises the questions again, Conservatives have talked about
this forever. It seems to me to no more funding,
no more tax dollars going to NPR and PBS because
of their very liberal leanings. And the head of the
(44:43):
corporation basically admitted today, Yeah, there are eighty seven registered
Democrats in our company and only one registered No, not
even one registered Republicans zero zero, it's eight. Yeah. So
what did you say? How much tax money do they
get every year?
Speaker 2 (44:58):
Over five hundred and thirty five million dollar, which is
really over a half a billion, really.
Speaker 1 (45:02):
A drop in the bucket on the overall scheme of things,
but every little bit.
Speaker 2 (45:05):
How you get in the two trillion, you're paying a
trillion in interest, So that's one trillion, so you know
you got to get there somehow that would help.
Speaker 1 (45:11):
We want to get your opinion on this eight eight
eight five seven o eight zero one zero or on
your cell phone donal pound two to fifty and say hey,
Rod we begin in draper with Bob tonight here on
the Rod In Greg Show. How are you, Bob?
Speaker 4 (45:23):
I guys, hope you're having a good day.
Speaker 1 (45:25):
We are.
Speaker 6 (45:26):
I know I happen to like NPR. I'll be honest
with you. In fact, I don't mind if they cut
the funding. I actually called today and bumped up how
much I donate because I'm like, okay, well, if they're
going to take away the tax funding, I'd like to
at least keep it going. It is a you know,
it is left leaning, but you know, I listen to
you guys, and I listened to NPR, and I listen
(45:47):
to Fox News and I listen to CNN. I don't
want to be as sick of that. I don't want
to just listen to the same perspective all the time.
So I like hearing a variety of perspectives. And as
far as PBS goes Nova is a fantastic show. The
American Experience, which is a great history show. There are
(46:07):
some fantastic shows. Nature is another one. There are so
many great shows on PBS, educational shows. So you know,
if they take away the tax funding that, you know,
I'm fine with that, but I think that people like
myself who do listen to it or watch it should
step up. It also, though, is something that is very
(46:27):
valuable in small communities. I lived in a very small,
remote town in New Mexico that was ninety miles from anywhere,
and we used to have a small CBS station in
Silver City that I could pick up so I could
get my news in a very remote place. So there
are some benefits to it.
Speaker 1 (46:45):
You know, Bob, I don't disagree with anything you said.
In the fact, like they do some very good programs,
I agree with you. I don't have an issue. My
issue is, again, my tax dollar is going to support them,
and you've realized then said I'll just up my donation
to them, and I think that's perfectly fine. So I
appreciate your thoughts on that. Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 2 (47:03):
Okay, let's go to Kathy and Tuilla. Kathy, thank you
for holding on in Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.
Speaker 3 (47:09):
What say you.
Speaker 15 (47:12):
Well, thank you, but I sort of agree with the lady. Also,
I listen to NPR. I also watch Fox News. I
do a very thing so that I can make equal decisions.
But as far as the funding goes, no way, no way.
I'm okay with diversity as far as various cultures and
colors and ethnic groups, but definitely not trends or whatever.
(47:38):
You know, people learn about that in their environment. They
don't have to be taught it. And my grandkids. I
have to regulate YouTube because that's where they go for programming.
But you still have to regulate that because a lot
of it is violent. But PBS, yes, has good things.
(48:00):
NPR has a different view that I do appreciate. But again,
not to fund them. They need to get their own funding.
Speaker 1 (48:09):
You're right, Kathy, you don't I admire about our audience.
Two people. They look at various sources. Well, fortunately they
don't listen to just us. You know, we wish they would,
but but they.
Speaker 3 (48:18):
They are the smartest audience saw the world.
Speaker 1 (48:20):
Because they vary their opinions. They're looking for various opinions
on issues of the day.
Speaker 2 (48:27):
So I said before, because I have actual friends that
are conservative that do listen to NPR to kind of
and so I knew, I know that there are people
that really do want to get a broader view or
even the left of center view worldview and understand what
they're saying. But here's my issue, and I think it
actually tethers well with the two callers we've just heard
from Battle in the free market of ideas. Okay, this play,
(48:47):
This station only exists by its it's its advertisers, by
its economic case it can make to be a station.
I think that these programs to compete need to do
the same thing. They need to be in that in
the battle of the free market and see what the
people say. If the demand is there the end, these
(49:08):
these stations will will live on, won't they.
Speaker 1 (49:10):
I'm with you all the way on that. All right,
more of your calls coming up. We're asking you this
question as you drive home tonight. Should American taxpayers continue
to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting NPR or PBS.
More your calls and comments coming up right here on
the Rod and Greg Show and Talk Radio one oh
five nine can arrest. We're talking the way they do
at NPR in PBS, soft mellow tones.
Speaker 2 (49:36):
If the taxpayer dollars cease to be provided. We want
to have an alternative to the listening. Yes, we do alternatives.
Speaker 3 (49:46):
Listeners so that we can be like NPR. No, I
can't do that. I can't. I can't.
Speaker 2 (49:50):
I'm not even coming from my skin doing that. Let's
get to our callers. Let's get to the radio. I
got to hear from some the smartest listening audience and.
Speaker 3 (49:57):
All the land. Let's go to Earl and West Valley. Earl,
thank you for holding what say you, sir?
Speaker 8 (50:04):
Hey, So I'm totally against all of that. We've already
lost trust in the government a long time ago. And
without trust, uh, we're going to have ten thousand of
these little like you guys were saying earlier. Well it's
not a lot, but we got ten thousand or a
million of these, Well, it's not a lot, you know.
(50:24):
I think we need to just dismantle, dismantle all of
them and the ones that are remaining. Put the whole
government on the blockchain. You know what I'm saying. Because
I'm a small business owner in Utah. I own a
smoke shop and Governor Cox is acting like a dictator.
Bannon our vapes out here and we're you know, I'm
a grown man and pay taxes, and you know I
(50:45):
got people walking in saying we're just have we got
to drive two hours across the border to get disposables now,
and Cox is an idiot he thinks that, you know. Yeah,
it's all about the They used the kids to push
the agenda, and they want to put rfi D chips
in bapes so if the kid gets it, they can
see who the store sold the disposable to. So if
I sold one to you, you give it to your nephew.
(51:07):
He gets popped at school, you know they're gonna they're
gonna do something to you. But but the thing is,
they cannot be taken away our liberties. I don't pay
my taxes. So Cox can sit up there and just
brought all these laws taking away our freedoms.
Speaker 2 (51:24):
Yeah, I'm telling you it happens more than we understand.
I mean, that is that is a crazy long I
tell you what. I hear what he's saying. Let's go
to Uh, let's go to Joe in Star Valley, Wyoming,
listening on the iHeartRadio app Joe, Welcome to the Running
Gregg Show.
Speaker 4 (51:43):
Hey, thank you, I say cut them got NPR. If
it can't survive on its own, we don't need it.
And I say, cut all government subsidies to everybody, farm subsidies,
green energy subsidies, green electory car subsidy, all of it.
You got it.
Speaker 1 (52:02):
Yeah, we don't need it.
Speaker 4 (52:03):
That's not the proper rola government. It's the steps that
I businesses that can't run on their own.
Speaker 1 (52:08):
You know what, Joe, And Uh, it's going to hurt.
But let me tell you what. Donald Trump put it
so succinctly the other day when he was talking about
what is going on with DOJE. He says, look, if
we don't know something, we're not going to be able
to save this country. No, and people, you know, and
he said, all I'm trying to do right now with
my administration is save this country because if we don't
(52:31):
stop this ridiculous spending, we aren't going to have a
country much longer. And I think that's the honest truth.
Speaker 3 (52:37):
It is the honest truth.
Speaker 2 (52:38):
And it's and so when sometimes when I hear people
try to frame some of these cuts, it's like, well
we like that, well what we like versus not having
a government because our dollar has collapsed and we have
nothing of you know. I mean, there's a lot worse
than losing Big Bird and PBS in terms of the
grand scheme of things. And so how are we going
to try and rein in this out of control spending
(52:59):
to brillion? As I said, deficit spending. But a trillion
of that is just to pay off the interest on
the thirty six trillion dollar debt.
Speaker 3 (53:06):
That's more than we.
Speaker 2 (53:07):
Pay for our whole national our whole defense, all the
branches of the military.
Speaker 1 (53:12):
It is.
Speaker 2 (53:13):
So I agree with Joe wholeheartedly. Let's go to Joseph
and Sandy. Joseph, welcome to the Ron and Greg Show.
Thank you for holding Let's say.
Speaker 12 (53:20):
You hey, it's a go on.
Speaker 17 (53:23):
So I listened to KrCl just as much as this station,
and uh so we're talking about the donations KrCl thride.
That's how they stay afloat.
Speaker 1 (53:34):
Yes with donations.
Speaker 17 (53:35):
Yes, And I don't agree with their political views at all.
I like their bluegrass show, so I donate there. I
think if NPR weld to do the same thing, they'd
realize what shows work and what shows don't. And I
think their listeners would keep them a float. We don't
need to keep putting the bill for him.
Speaker 1 (53:51):
I'm with you, Joseph. You know what if in a
corporation for public broadcasting came out to their audience, came
to the general public, ran some sort of campaign and
said we need your money to stay afloat, they'd probably
have more money they know what to do with.
Speaker 3 (54:03):
I think you're right.
Speaker 1 (54:04):
I really think that would happen.
Speaker 2 (54:05):
I really like what Joseph said because I think it
would also inform what programming they would put on more
than others. So he has programming he's willing to contribute
to because he enjoys that programming. If you told me
that that PBS was going to show Big Sesame Street
and mister Rogers everything all the time, maybe I want
my kids to see it, and i'd want I know,
I know that's coming on, and I would I would contribute.
Speaker 1 (54:26):
Well, that's very nice of you.
Speaker 2 (54:27):
The battle of the free free the free market is
the place where this should be decided and people should
be able to decide on their own.
Speaker 1 (54:34):
All right, Kelly and John, thanks for calling in. We
ask you if you can hold on for a second.
We'll get to your comments coming up right here on
the Right Great Show and Utah's Talk Radio One O
five to nine k nrs. We're talking about continued taxpayer
funding of public broadcasting. Should it stay or should it go?
Let's go back to the phones. We want to thank
Jay for waiting. Jay, thanks for joining us tonight on
(54:55):
the rod On Great show. What say you?
Speaker 19 (54:59):
Thanks? Guys. Hey, I don't want to throw out the
sweetish chef with his popcorn man. That guy's a classic.
But the point I would would like to make is, uh,
I believe if they just fund it through a strategy
of having a balanced debate for him with the red,
(55:20):
the white, and the blue, the independence, the the Democrats
or Republicans, everybody likes a good debate and that's that's
good government, and that's good, that's good discussions. And they
can put that on a rotation where you know, one
comes around and is the moderator. You know, they rotate
(55:40):
the moderator's pro con and and I just wonder what
you think about that?
Speaker 1 (55:45):
Well, they they used to do that, didn't they? As
I recalled, didn't they have shows where you'd have back
and forth the right of the.
Speaker 2 (55:51):
Left on PBS and even shows like CNN used to
have crossfire, and it was it was you I felt
like it was much more even handed.
Speaker 1 (56:00):
Jay.
Speaker 2 (56:00):
Here's here's to your point. Though I've actually participated on
it was a public radio station on a on a
program called Both Sides of the Aisle, and that was
a show where I was representing the right. We would
have someone like Jim Tobaccus and and some others that
were well known Democrats that were on the left, and
Natalie Gagner was the centrist who was the moderator. And
(56:21):
all I know is that when we would go to callers, boy,
everybody hated me. Okay, I was always the foil and
then nobody ever and on public radio, no one ever
liked me, no one. I had never had any any
any friends. So I like you what you're saying, Jay,
I've actually given it the college try. On public radio,
(56:42):
they were all drinking hater aid when it came to me.
Speaker 1 (56:44):
Nobody liked you. They have a complex something. No, we
do that. But my guess is you loved it.
Speaker 3 (56:51):
I did, of course I did.
Speaker 13 (56:53):
Well.
Speaker 2 (56:53):
I loved arguing with Jim Tobaccus. I love not argue,
but actually probably argued. It was it was a debate.
But but we do that so that you know how
they raise funds. So we would go there and we
would try to help raise funds, and hey, raise funds
for Greg Hughes zero raise funds and say that that
Jim Debacchus was the one they we'd raise a fortune
be Yeah, I was I was losing in that audience.
Speaker 1 (57:14):
Huh, John and Murray. Let's see what John has to
say tonight. You're on the Roddin Greg Show. John, thanks
for joining us.
Speaker 20 (57:22):
Hi, good afternoon. I had a couple of bullet points. One,
I just want to say that, No, I do not
want my hard paid taxes to pay for any public media.
I think it's a conflict of interest.
Speaker 12 (57:39):
Yes, I agree with.
Speaker 20 (57:40):
I agree with another gentleman that said we should explore
getting rid of all federal subsidies. In this day and age,
I'm not sure we actually need subsidies subsidiaries to survive.
Speaker 1 (57:57):
I amazed that.
Speaker 20 (58:00):
The last idea I wanted to throw out there is
it instead of voting for people or instead of voting
for parties, what if taxpayers voted for what they wanted
their money spent on. And if you're not a taxpayer,
you could do like ten thousand hours of community service
each year, and then that would get you a vote too.
Speaker 1 (58:20):
They're hurting an idea like that. That's kind of interesting idea.
Speaker 2 (58:23):
I saw a movie once where you were a civilian
by mere birth and you were a citizen, which meant
that you had the right to vote if you had
been served in the military or served your community, and
then you rose to the level of a voting citizen.
You were a civilian, but there were ways, equal ways
for people to become citizens and then and I found
(58:45):
that movie to be intriguing in that where we don't
have as high of a voter turnout for people when
they're eighteen years old. There if it was something that
you don't automatically get but you had to, you know,
give your part to your your country or to be
able to be able to vote, it would be taken
a lot more seriously.
Speaker 1 (59:03):
Yeah, you know, I'm wondering about this because our last
caller brought this up. Elon Musk has gone after agencies
and personnel. Nobody's talking about subsidies.
Speaker 3 (59:12):
Yet, Greig and I don't know they need to.
Speaker 1 (59:15):
They need to. I don't know what the dollar figure
is on the amount of subsidies that we pass out
to the American people to farmers to you know, ranchers
to industry. Is that something that the American people are
willing to say, yeah, we can live without it, Well
we should, I imagine they could if the competition with
foreign countries was even maybe that solved the pros.
Speaker 2 (59:36):
Yeah, and look, I just think that we're in a
situation where again, you know, some people are telling me,
look that there's nothing about I think when we see
this big bill that's going to get passed, hopefully at
the beginning of April, it's going to have a lot
of depths that spending in it. And and so we're
going to say, well, I thought we were cutting. There
is cutting going on, and there's a lot that needs
to be doing done to reset this economy.
Speaker 3 (59:56):
So hang on, folks.
Speaker 2 (59:57):
But I do think we're in an era of what
we have to have, not what we you'd like to
have by way of the federal government, and it is
so overdue. To pair it back, I can't Department of
Education gone, PBS gone.
Speaker 1 (01:00:08):
Well, let's go to run Ron. You've got about a minute.
Let's say you on this topic. Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 21 (01:00:14):
Well, I think com federal funding is good for one
particular reason. I worked in emergency management for twenty one
years and in the state of Utili is funded KSL OR.
I think it's call radio as the state entry point
station in case the president has to talk to the
public and national emergency.
Speaker 22 (01:00:31):
Yes, And I think that those fundings for emergency stuff
like that is justifiable. And I know they paid I
believe it was call at one time, they paid for
a five hundred gallon tank to hold diesel fuel so
we can keep running in an emergency and some things
(01:00:52):
like that, and I think those are justified. The rest
of it, No, yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:00:56):
You know, those are justified. Means he's talking about the
emergency alert system. You have a primary station in each
city around the country that is designated and if there
is a national emergency, they kind of take over all stations.
And that's perfectly Lejonah, I don't have a problem with
that at all.
Speaker 2 (01:01:12):
I'm just saying it couldn't be a qualified for licensure
that you have to have some of that as part
of your license to broadcast.
Speaker 1 (01:01:17):
Probably, So yeah, yeah, all right. Our number three The
Wingman Wednesday edition, Roden Greg coming up, stay with us.
The best day we've had so far this year as
far as the weather is concerned.
Speaker 3 (01:01:29):
Well, I thought you mean because it's wing Man Wednesday.
Speaker 1 (01:01:30):
Well that could be too, But I'm just as far
as I think I heard Wenday say earlier. We haven't
been into the seventies for like one hundred and ten days.
Speaker 2 (01:01:39):
I know, it's glorious. I'm in a short sleeve shirt
and I didn't even wear a jacket. Yeah, but you
know then it's going to get colder again. Just it's
kind of cruel.
Speaker 1 (01:01:47):
It's spring.
Speaker 17 (01:01:49):
I know.
Speaker 2 (01:01:49):
By the way, one of our great listeners I wasn't
able to call in but says they've been a slave.
I'm assuming this is tax burden they're describing. But I've
been a slave to government for six months of every
year year for the last forty years at work, only
to find out that the money was spent on DNC
slush accounts and circumcisions for Africans slash and burn wood
(01:02:10):
shippers for all those guilty of fraud. Gallows are too humane.
It's far worse than bad. I'm infuriated at all of this. Okay,
there's there's there's a take, okay, and that's you know,
and I think it's a I think it's a deserved
one when you see what Doge is discovering by and
it was never meant to be discovered. I think it's
a combination of Doge, the genius of Elon Musk, but
(01:02:32):
also AI and coding data Republican.
Speaker 3 (01:02:35):
All of that.
Speaker 2 (01:02:36):
We are finding money and flows of funds that were
really never meant to be understood. We were never so
supposed to understand this. And it's in the hundreds of billions,
up to trillions of dollars accumulatively. And and I'm done
listening to well it's only a half a billion, that's
not enough.
Speaker 3 (01:02:53):
Yeah, Well guess what it.
Speaker 1 (01:02:54):
All will add up? Yeah? Will Speaking of lucy money,
we were talking about PBS and this they get from taxpayers.
How about the postal service? Well, here's the other subject
that we've been talking about forever, about the postal service
losing money. Yeah, they go to Congress ask for more money,
and guess what they get it.
Speaker 2 (01:03:12):
I know this is I'm telling your Republicans got to
step up on this stuf. They can't just be talking
about this and not actually see budgets that reflect what's
what we're finding out.
Speaker 1 (01:03:20):
Well, let's talk more about this right now. With our
next guest. His name is Ross March and he is
a senior fellow with the Taxpayer's Protection Alliance. He's joining
us on our Newsmaker line to talk about this. A
great article today in The Blaze about the Postal Service
losing money. How bad is it Ross? When it comes
to the Postal.
Speaker 12 (01:03:37):
Service, It is really really bad.
Speaker 10 (01:03:40):
The Postal Services loss nine point five billion a billion
with a B dollars last year and they've walked more
than one hundred billion dollars over the past fifteen years. Now,
if the Postal Service was a private business, would long
be out of business. And yeah, that is definitely something
(01:04:00):
to be alarmed about.
Speaker 2 (01:04:02):
So I read that there was an initial uh court
case where the Postal Services the employees of the US
Postal Service, we're suing because of cuts and things like that.
And initially there was a labor board or something that
needed to negotiate how that would roll out. And the
judges recently said no, you can sue like everybody else.
Seems issuing judges have become it seems to me like
(01:04:26):
all these new presidents of the United States. So what's
the relationship between the Postal Workers Union and the hemorrhaging
of money that the postal Service is going through and
the expected taxpayer support of all of it.
Speaker 3 (01:04:41):
Is there any is there? Does?
Speaker 2 (01:04:43):
In other words, as the postal service, are they at
odds or are they in conflict with their the union
who's probably demanding more or how does that what's that
environment even look like?
Speaker 12 (01:04:53):
Yeah?
Speaker 10 (01:04:53):
Yeah, there is a really big connetch there. The unions
are way too powerful. And if you could just total
expenses totally, you SPS expenses, labor costs are eighty percent
right of the total bill of operating the postal service,
and the need to extract more and more. And a
big part of that problem is that the postal service
has lots and lots of career employees and they have
(01:05:16):
very very expensive benefits. But the postal services private contendors
think ups and FedEx. They rely a lot on temporary employees,
and they can ramp up hiring of these temporary employees
for holiday seasons and Christmas time, right, so you can
hire a bunch of people, it doesn't cost too much money,
(01:05:38):
and then at the end of the season you could say, Okay,
we'll see you back here next season. The Postal Service
doesn't do enough of that, and they need to do more.
It would save them and taxpayers a lot of money.
Speaker 1 (01:05:50):
Wells, So it seems like the postal Service has been
losing money almost since day one. That's not true, but
it sure does seem like that. Has anybody before Doge
tried to get in there and fix it? And why
haven't they been able to do so? Is it the unions?
Is it the structure, what's going on here? Their inability
or their unwillingness to adopt maybe some strategies that you
(01:06:10):
just explained, or technology. Has anybody tried to do anything
about it up to this point?
Speaker 23 (01:06:16):
Oh?
Speaker 10 (01:06:16):
Man, Well, it's a little bit of everything. So the
Postmaster General Louis de Joy right like top brass. He
actually just resigned a couple of days ago, and he
made a really good point when he came in in
twenty twenty of trying to cut costs and tries to
make the whole operation more accountable and more transparent. But
the problem was that Postmaster General de Joy realized early
(01:06:40):
on that he could use taxpayers as a penny bank.
So he went in front of Congress shortly after becoming
Postmaster General and he begged for taxpayer money, and he
saw that it worked and he got more than thirteen
billion dollars, and he realized, oh wait, so I could
go to lawmakers and I could get all of this money.
And that's a huge dis incentive to actually reform operations
(01:07:03):
and reduce costs.
Speaker 2 (01:07:05):
So we talk about the postal service as in this
I think, in the static way where we talk about
the US Postal Service like we would ten years ago,
twenty years ago, but with emails and with ups and
FedEx and everything else. It doesn't It just isn't There
shouldn't there be a deeper conversation about the role of
the United States government and a mail service. Do we
(01:07:27):
actually need it? It feels like it's just a conduit
for junk mail for me at this point. But tell me,
are we looking at enough maybe we don't need it anymore,
or beyond how we would save money or be smarter
with that money. Does Is the postal services integral to
our society or our country as it used to be?
Speaker 10 (01:07:49):
It's a great question, and the postal services means a
lot of different things to a lot of different people.
So for some it's a great way to communicate with
loved ones, and for other people. It's a great way
to get medications really quickly if it's a hassle to
go out to the pharmacy on a regular basis, for example,
and to a lot of other people, especially over the
past five or six years, it's a really great way
(01:08:10):
to get convenient packages from e commerce giants. So it
can be done in a way that is more affordable
and does not cost taxpayers and customers so much money.
I think that's what we really need to focus on.
A lot of people see a very compelling need for
the postal Service, but it does not need to break
(01:08:31):
the bank Ross.
Speaker 1 (01:08:33):
You know, Greg just mentioned the mission of the Postal
Service and what it should be, but you point out
the Postal Service has been trying to produce movies. What
is that hold about?
Speaker 17 (01:08:42):
Ross?
Speaker 1 (01:08:43):
Are you kidding me?
Speaker 10 (01:08:46):
Unfortunately, no, I know there is so much mission creup.
So this is actually the second TV show that the
Postal Service is put on. Now it's Dear Santa, But
before Dear Santa, it was The Inspectors. And these things
never get good rating. Maybe if you go on the
on the ratings website, they're always paanned by critics, so
they're not except for all of the millions of dollars
(01:09:07):
they spend on producing these TV shows. I mean, you
know they're not even opening to rave reviews. And you
know that when a mail service is trying to produce
television shows, it is time for reform.
Speaker 1 (01:09:20):
Sure is.
Speaker 2 (01:09:21):
So if you had a crystal ball and you can
look in the future, how does this play out? I mean,
I you got me over here going I'm going you know,
Amazon doesn't use the postal service. I think there's free
market that get step in here and deliver what people need.
Maybe I'm too extreme, but how you know? You got
judges now saying that the you know, the federal the
postal service union consume. Where does this go? Where do
(01:09:43):
you where do you predict things go from here? With
this president? But with all the pushback we're seeing, all.
Speaker 10 (01:09:49):
Right, well, I'm going to try to be cautiously optimistic here,
and I have one word for competition. So other foreign posts,
like think that the UK, think about Germany, they've been
opening up their mail services to competition. Not saying hey,
they don't exist anymore, but saying, hey, by the competition,
if you want to get in on this, we'll give
you a run. And that usually does is that provides
(01:10:13):
them with motivation to keep costs under control and take
better care of customers and their workers for that matter.
So I think hopefully it goes in that direction.
Speaker 1 (01:10:22):
We can only hope.
Speaker 10 (01:10:23):
Ross.
Speaker 1 (01:10:24):
Thank you very much, Ross March. And he is a
senior fellow at the tax Payers Protection Alliance talking about
the postal service. It is bleeding cash and no one
seems to want to do anything about it. All right, Mary,
coming up, It is the Rodden Greg Show right here
on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine.
Speaker 3 (01:10:40):
Hey, nrs, this is wing Man Wednesday.
Speaker 1 (01:10:43):
Yes it is.
Speaker 3 (01:10:43):
It's the Rotten Greg Show.
Speaker 1 (01:10:44):
Yes it is.
Speaker 3 (01:10:45):
It's Talk Radio one oh five nine. Can or s.
Speaker 1 (01:10:47):
You are so spot on today and I'm goose you're
really on top of it.
Speaker 20 (01:10:51):
You are.
Speaker 1 (01:10:51):
Maverick rod Arkettich is like the more formal introduction as
you work your way home tonight. All right, I want
to take you back, mister Hughes, because there's a you know,
the media is trying to create this narrative, Greg that
the people who voted for Donald Trump are now having regrets.
You've heard that narrative before. They're having regrets. They wish
(01:11:14):
they wouldn't have done it. Done what voted for Donald Trump?
Speaker 13 (01:11:17):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (01:11:17):
Please, yeah, that's what I said. Well, to start it off,
I want to take you back to thirty one days ago,
and this is what a certain individual had to say
about what's going to happen to the Trump administration.
Speaker 18 (01:11:30):
So, Dan, this is what I believe. I believe that
this administration in less than thirty days, in the midst
of a massive collapse, and particularly a collapse.
Speaker 1 (01:11:43):
In public opinion.
Speaker 18 (01:11:44):
Yea del Vopey at Harvard, who's very good. I used
to think once I saw Harvard youth poll, I've discounted it.
I've come to say it's pret damn good Pope, pretty
good guy. He's gone from fifty three approval to under
thirty to thirty nine.
Speaker 3 (01:12:00):
That's a collapse.
Speaker 18 (01:12:02):
And all we need to do. The analogy I use
is Pickett is five five hundred yards from the stone wall.
Oh you farna, it's gonna be easy pickings here in
a six weeks now.
Speaker 1 (01:12:18):
That's James Carve. Remember he said the Trump administration would
collapse in popular popular support. Right, Yes, that was thirty
one days ago. And he's so smart, Oh, he's very smart. Well,
along comes Henry Enton. He is the pollster for CNN. Yes,
new polls out. Listen to what Henry found out about
voters on CNN. Just on CNN. That's what Henry had
(01:12:40):
to say.
Speaker 23 (01:12:41):
I think sometimes it's important to do a little bit
of reality check and take a little different spin at
the numbers.
Speaker 1 (01:12:46):
I'm gonna do that right here, because all we talk
about is.
Speaker 23 (01:12:48):
How unpopular Donald Trump is, But in reality, he's basically
more popular than he was at any point in term
number one, and more popular than he was when he
won election back in November of twenty twenty four. What
are we talking about it is that fabull rating right
now comes in at minus four points. Compare that to
where he was when he won in November twenty twenty four,
when he was at minus seven points, or March of
(01:13:09):
twenty seventeen, when he was at minus ten points.
Speaker 20 (01:13:12):
So when you compare Trump.
Speaker 23 (01:13:13):
Against himself, he's actually closer to the apex than he
is to the bottom of the trough. And of course
that's so important because Donald Trump, historically speaking, is how
his numbers underestimated. So I think it's very important to
compare him to himself to understand he's actually more popular
now than he was when he won, or certainly where
he was at this point back in his first term.
(01:13:34):
The bottom line, as Trump is more towards the ceiling
than he is towards the floor.
Speaker 1 (01:13:38):
Wait a mine. James Carvel just predicted thirty one days
a collapse that was going to be a.
Speaker 3 (01:13:43):
Be a collapse.
Speaker 1 (01:13:44):
Yeah yeah, now that's a very bad Louisiana. Yeah, that
was very very bad. So here's what throws me. Greg
report came out today consumer confidence, Yes, showing conservative consumer
confidence has hit a four year low. Really, yeah, that's
what they're saying, right. Well, if that's the case, let's
(01:14:04):
do another thing that end and found out this.
Speaker 23 (01:14:07):
I think is rather important because again, if the polls
have historically underestimated Donald Trump, what is a metric that
might get it understanding and how popular he may actually be.
Speaker 1 (01:14:16):
So let's take a look.
Speaker 23 (01:14:17):
At the percentage of the country who say that.
Speaker 3 (01:14:19):
We're on the right track.
Speaker 1 (01:14:20):
It's actually a.
Speaker 23 (01:14:20):
Very high percentage when you compare it to some historical numbers.
Speaker 1 (01:14:23):
What are you talking about?
Speaker 23 (01:14:24):
According to Maris, forty five percent say that we're on
the right track. That's the second highest that Maris has
measured since two thousand and nine. How about NBC News
forty four percent, that's the highest since two thousand and four.
The bottom line is, the percentage of Americans who say
we're on the right track is through the roof. And
if you were to compare it to when presidents have
historically been re elected. Of course, Trump is not constitutionally
(01:14:44):
eligible to run for election, but I think it sort
of puts into perspective. Forty two percent of the country
says the country is on the right truck when the
incumbent party is reelected. And also keep in mind, back
when Kamala Harris lost on the Democrats or turned out
of power, only about twenty seven to twenty eight percent
of the country said the country is on the right track.
The bottom line is, right now, a much higher percentage
of the country says we're on the right track.
Speaker 1 (01:15:04):
Forty five percent of Americans say we're on the right track.
Speaker 3 (01:15:07):
So you said that the Consumer Conference Company.
Speaker 1 (01:15:09):
Was a four year lows that the country's on the
right track. That's that's what That's what CNN is reported.
Speaker 2 (01:15:15):
Well, I'll tell you this, I think it continues to
be the case that Donald Trump under polls. I don't
think that the people that support this president. I don't
think Americans in general are participating a whole lot in polls.
I don't know how pollsters are still, how they're reaching people,
or how they're waiting. You know, how they wait, you
know the the numbers, because it's not just call six
(01:15:37):
hundred people in the first six hundred answer that's your poll.
They take a certain number of unaffiliated Democrats Republicans and
they create some formula for it all. I don't know
how they're doing that, because I just think that most
people with the distrust of the media are not interested
in participating in anyone's poll.
Speaker 1 (01:15:55):
I wouldn't be people just hang up on them because
you get a called hi, this and so and so
from so and so group, and we'd like to click.
Speaker 3 (01:16:03):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (01:16:04):
A lot of people that they don't trust them.
Speaker 2 (01:16:06):
They probably use some online polls, but then you know,
online is a different demoo.
Speaker 1 (01:16:10):
Or I think online polling is just not very trustworthy
at all.
Speaker 2 (01:16:14):
No, Now, I just I just so, I think that
whatever you're seeing by way, first off, Carvel couldn't be
more wrong. I mean, everything he said was going to happen.
Just hold your fi Well, I guess what there's my
bad Louisiana accent. That's a raging Cajun accent. Hold your
FI five hundred aws from the wall. I just think, yeah,
go ahead, just keep doing well. But they're not holding
(01:16:35):
their fire. They're actually just they're imploding. They're continuing to
distance themselves from everyday American. So I just think that
I think one of Donald Trump's greatest assets and being
a president again, really is the Democrats and their behavior,
their behavior leading up to that election with the law fair.
I think there are people that would have considered a
(01:16:57):
different Republican candidate or nominee had the Democrats not so horrifically,
shamelessly and illegally attacked him through the FBI, through courts
in Georgia and New York. And I just think people
were just so offended by this and didn't want to
see them get away with it, and it actually helped
Trump in an incredible way.
Speaker 1 (01:17:17):
I wonder how many Americans are offended by all these
judges who are stopping Donald Trump. They're all saying, look,
we voted for the guy, we voted for the guy
to get things done. Yet you keep on telling them no, Yeah,
the American people are just sick of these judges.
Speaker 2 (01:17:32):
We from last yesterday's show to today's show, we have
yet another two federal judge ruling yes we do that
are again throwing up roadblocks in front of this president.
And so I have to believe that the American people
are tracking it. We're certainly going to keep you know,
there's news that you can that gets reported and we
explain why. I'm going to tell you that that the
Democrats don't have a policy, they don't have a vision,
(01:17:54):
they don't have a coalition, they don't have it.
Speaker 3 (01:17:56):
They're not a party.
Speaker 2 (01:17:57):
Of addition, the only thing the Democrats have right now
is the judicial branch and those that were appointed by
Democrat Biden and Obama. And you know, as as judges,
they judge, they shop jurisdictions. They only go to the
jurisdictions where they know they're going to run into a
Democrat appointed judge. And those judges are all they have
(01:18:18):
to try and slow down this administration, and they're doing
it blatantly, and obviously I'll give you an example, Rod quickly.
I just read this morning there was a so during
the Trump's first presidency in twenty twenty, in the last
year of his presidency, he had oil and gas.
Speaker 3 (01:18:32):
Leases up in the last little Yes.
Speaker 2 (01:18:34):
So there was a company that bought that did the auction,
got their oil and gas lease.
Speaker 1 (01:18:37):
And as soon as was on the North Slope.
Speaker 2 (01:18:39):
Yes, And when the Biden administration came in, Joe Biden wrote,
did an executive order that that rescinded those gas leases,
those oil and gas leases. Well, this company sued litigated
that was in twenty twenty one. The judge to day
it was today or yesterday March twenty fifth or twenty
sixth of twenty twenty five, you saw a ruling that
(01:19:02):
Biden did not have the authority to rescind that oil
and gas leak lease. That's five years. That's almost five
years it took to litigate that. Now, let's fast forward
to now. Every time a Democrat's mat at whatever he's doing,
they can get a federal judge in thirty eight seconds
to make a final ruling, to make a ruling, to
stop something, to reverse something. They get it inside of
an afternoon. It took this company five years to go
(01:19:26):
through the process. So these judges, these federal judges, not
only do they want to be president, they only want
to be president when there's a Republican that's president. Not
when there's a Democrat that they'll let that go. But
if there's a Republican that's a president, they have decided
they are going to take that role and they're going
to make the decisions of the executive branch. And it's
(01:19:47):
got to come to an end. It's got to be stopped.
But I'm not going to stop talking about it.
Speaker 1 (01:19:51):
And you wonder why the American people don't trust the
judicial branch. Yeah, it's pretty obvious. Boy, coming up here
on the Rod and Greg Show and Talk Radio one
oh five nine k NRS. Great to be with you
this evening. I brought our cat.
Speaker 3 (01:20:03):
I'm citizen Hughes.
Speaker 1 (01:20:04):
All right, let's talk about the We've talked a lot
about this, Greg, the Department of Education, Linda McMahon's charge
from president to get rid of it. So why such
an outcry, Remember that old line, just follow the money. Well,
that's what our next guest has done and has kind
of dug into what's going on with the panic over
the Department of Education. His name is Tyler O'Nell, Managing
(01:20:25):
editor of The Daily Signal. Tyler, how are you?
Speaker 3 (01:20:28):
Thanks for joining us, Hey, glad to be here.
Speaker 13 (01:20:31):
Thanks again for having me Ron.
Speaker 1 (01:20:32):
So Tyler, you decided to follow the money. What did
you find out when it comes to Doe.
Speaker 13 (01:20:39):
Yeah, well what I found was very interesting, so you So,
for those who don't know, the Department of Education effectively
doesn't have to exist. You know, everybody on the left
is acting as though getting rid of the Department means
we're going to be getting rid of education as a whole,
as if all the schools across the United States, which
(01:20:59):
is close tomorrow, if we close to the Department, that
I mean, for those of us who know, it's laughable,
but it's also like it's it's kind of you know,
the deceptive name. The Department of Education is really just
a hodgepodge of all sorts of you know, different education
related functions that the federal government does, but that arguably
(01:21:22):
other parts of the federal government could probably do more effectively,
and especially the states and local governments already make the
real concrete decisions when it comes to how education works
in this country. So getting rid of the Department of
Education would not have that big of an impact on
everyday students, especially if you have the aspects that the
(01:21:46):
federal government does like enforced Title nin you can put
that over to the Department of Justice handle you know,
all the all the tax pair grants and things that
go out for education. Maybe we should take a closer
look at the federal money that's being spent on education.
I mean, some of it maybe is good, but you know,
(01:22:06):
some of that needs to you know, can can easily
be handled by the Department of the Treasury, Department of Commerce,
other places. This small business administration is one that President
Trump has mentioned on this The real problem with getting
rid of the Department of Education, is the left sees
it is that it would take away the central hub
(01:22:30):
for the teachers unions that have these really close relationships with.
Speaker 1 (01:22:35):
The Department of Education.
Speaker 13 (01:22:37):
And the real weakness here is that these teachers unions,
like education for most intents and purposes in the states,
are their power bases in the states and in the
cities and the localities, and they have to justify having
their national offices in DC, the NEA, and the AFT.
(01:23:00):
If suddenly the Department of Education were to close tomorrow,
it would be really hard to convince, you know that,
to convince the teachers in provo that they need to
be sending part of their dollars to uphold an office
in Washington, d C. And so, you know, this is
the real and when it comes to following the money.
(01:23:22):
And sorry, this is a long answer to your quick question,
but I found that the two biggest teachers unions in
the US, the American Federation of Teachers in the National
Education Association, have been bankrolling democrats and democratic leaning causes.
You know, so many of these organizations I call them
(01:23:42):
woke to pus. There are these woke NGOs that seed
their staff and ideas in the federal government. And we
saw this really ramped up to eleven in the Biden administration,
when essentially you had these woke elites using the administrative
state to force their agenda on the American people. And
(01:24:03):
now Trump is dismantling it. But this is one of
the things. You know, all these organizations were receiving some
money from the deep from these teachers unions, and suddenly,
if the teachers' unions are struggling to have an impact
in Washington, that funding stream is also going to dry up.
Speaker 2 (01:24:22):
So you mentioned it, and this is where I want
to kind of close the loop. They have political power,
they have political influence, but when you talk about woke NGOs.
I've learned since President Trump has become president through Doge
and even through an X page called Data Republican where
she's been using the DOGE information and she does the
(01:24:44):
she does programming, but AI the amount of money going
to nonprofits NGOs that start out as federal money and
then really get washed through universities, through different entities, and
then come back to some of the most liberal causes.
Do you know is the Department of Education funding through
NGOs and ultimately to our unions? Is In other words,
(01:25:07):
if the Department of Education didn't exist, is that a
revenue stream for the unions that they will no longer have?
Speaker 3 (01:25:14):
It's what one thing to have influenced.
Speaker 2 (01:25:16):
But are they going to lose real dollars through these
NGOs if the Department of Education is dismantled.
Speaker 13 (01:25:24):
So I don't have the I mean, the short answer
is yes. How do you get to that Yes? Is
a little bit complicated because when I don't think it's
as simple as the Department of Education funnels a lot
of money directly to these unions, but the unions. The
(01:25:46):
way it all works is, you know, most of the
teachers in these unions are public, public employees, and so
the money, you know, the money that's changing hands, does
end up like it does go from and especially you know,
the way that these teachers' unions advocate for more spending
(01:26:11):
and more, you know, because one of the reasons we
have an overhead, you know, really crisis when it comes
to education in this country, where one of the reasons
education is increasingly expensive is because you have more and
more of these administrators.
Speaker 8 (01:26:27):
And part of the.
Speaker 13 (01:26:28):
Reason for that is the unions want there to be
as many people in the industry as possible, and so
they keep they keep demanding more of these positions, and
there's this great you know, DEI has been a really
horrible way for people to try to justify extra jobs
and extra funding funding streams, and so essentially you just
(01:26:52):
add more staff and you call them DEI and then
you have more people who are making more money. And
I'm not sure if these people are actually adding any value.
Speaker 22 (01:27:02):
Most of the time it seems.
Speaker 1 (01:27:03):
Like they're.
Speaker 2 (01:27:05):
I know, I know the answer to that one, Tyler,
one final question for you on this.
Speaker 1 (01:27:11):
Do you think we'll see the day when the doe
just goes away? I mean, how much of a reality
are we looking at here.
Speaker 13 (01:27:18):
It really depends, so ultimately, I think there's a good
chance we'll see that day. But you know, and I
don't I don't want to pour too much cold water
on our discussion, but I really do think that unless
Congress acts, something called the Department of Education is going
to remain even if Linda McMahon is successful in getting
(01:27:42):
pretty much all of its functions reassigned.
Speaker 1 (01:27:45):
Tyler, great, great story, great work on that. Thank you
very much for your time.
Speaker 13 (01:27:51):
Yeah, thanks again for having me.
Speaker 1 (01:27:52):
All right, that's Tyler O'Neil, Managing editor of The Daily Signal.
More coming up on the Robin Greig Show and you
Ta's Talk Radio one oh five nine K and are as.
Speaker 2 (01:28:01):
We appreciate you being part of this audience. It's a
growing audience.
Speaker 1 (01:28:05):
Yes, Yes, Jesse Kelly by the way, coming your way
at the top of the hour after we wrap things up. Boy, Greg,
have times have changed?
Speaker 3 (01:28:13):
Times are changing?
Speaker 10 (01:28:14):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (01:28:14):
Yes, remember the first dream Donald Trump, first term of
Donald Trump, and sports teams wouldn't go within a thousand
miles of the White House to be recognized for their achievements,
including the LA Dodgers. Yes, times have changed. The Dodgers
have now accepted an invitation to be honored at the
White House for winning the World Series.
Speaker 2 (01:28:33):
It just must kill the left, the media. It just
must make them so sad. It just do you think
they they they've realized that they they just overplayed their hand.
Is there any self reflection that happens, any self awareness
amongst them?
Speaker 3 (01:28:49):
I just honestly, I wonder.
Speaker 2 (01:28:50):
I wonder if they look at what the MPR CEO
did today and said, Wow, she did a great job,
because she didn't. It was a it was a pretty
bad performance. And I wonder if they are like, oh,
she really crushed it. She did so well, not really well.
Now that you're a part time California resident, don't say
that now I listen, don't see you're pressing my buttons again.
Speaker 3 (01:29:14):
Toilet, don't gonna get me on that again. Just don't
even mention it. Don't even mention it.
Speaker 1 (01:29:18):
Well, California finally may have had enough. I'll believe it
when I see it. But apparently. A survey by polster
David Wolfson found that nearly half of likely California voters
are now considering voting for a Republican to be next
their next Covenant.
Speaker 3 (01:29:37):
Well it's about time.
Speaker 2 (01:29:39):
I mean, how much do they have to be abused
and and and the hypocrisy just run rampant in that
state and then finally get a clue.
Speaker 1 (01:29:46):
Yeah. So here's what's interesting about this. This polster points
out that more than one point five million, mostly Republican
voters have fled the Golden State in recent years. Yet
this poll shows that forty six percent left for you left,
and some Democrats are saying, we need a Republican governor.
Speaker 19 (01:30:06):
They do.
Speaker 2 (01:30:06):
And look, it wasn't that long ago when they had
Republicans in there. Remember be one Bob Dornan, Remember how
great he was. B One Bob got, he got totally.
They tried to do to this whole country what they
did to his congressional district by just bringing in all
the undocumented immigrants to vote against him. They tried to
do that to this whole whole country.
Speaker 1 (01:30:26):
Anyway, one other story you will love. I don't know
how they're going to do this right, but apparently now
in San Francisco they're putting up speed cameras. Okay, if
you're caused speeding, you could get a ticket. Gavin Newsom's idea,
which Apparently the San Francisco City Council is considering adopting
will the amount of money you pay for that speeding
ticket will be based on your income.
Speaker 2 (01:30:48):
Oh my goodness, that is the worst thing I've ever heard.
That makes me so mad.
Speaker 3 (01:30:51):
How about a poop camera?
Speaker 2 (01:30:53):
They had to do that because have you ever seen
how they had the apps where they tried to show
it and then all a sudden the whole city was brown.
Speaker 3 (01:30:58):
They couldn't There was poopiles.
Speaker 2 (01:30:59):
Yeah, it was just so much they couldn't even make
an app out of it anymore. They ought to be
putting cameras out for that and leave us our drivers alone.
Speaker 1 (01:31:07):
How will you determine that? What they're gonna look at
your fanancial records?
Speaker 2 (01:31:13):
I just can't even believe that's an idea. But it's
so bad. Of course he does speeding tickets based on
your income. And they wonder why some people in California
would like to have a Republican governor. Yeah, no republic
Indian is right, mind would think about doing anything like that.
Speaker 3 (01:31:34):
Oh, I would just never be a resident, a true resident.
Speaker 2 (01:31:37):
There will never be a government issued ID with my
name on it or my picture that has California on
the ID.
Speaker 3 (01:31:44):
It will never happen in my life, all.
Speaker 1 (01:31:46):
Right, that does for us tonight, Head up, shoulders back,
Make God bless you and your family and this great,
great country of ours. Enjoy your Wednesday, Wingman Wednesday. We're
back tomorrow
It was so nice, beautiful weather. It was so nice
to get inside a hot car.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
I know I have that feeling too, when the car
has been warm, get in it's kind of hot. Having
not felt that quite some time, I kind of.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Felt that that was kind of fun. Well, how are
you everybody? Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show on
this Wingman Wednesday. And if we got another jam pack
show for you today, I.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
Brought our cat citizen, Greg Hughes.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
All right, if you want to stay on top of
what's going on, we invite you to download the iHeart
Radio app so you can listen to the show anywhere anytime.
Make sure we're on the presets.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
And the reality is I challenge anyone to find this
show along the Wahsatch Front and Utah anywhere. You are
only hearing this commentary nationally, but also locally right here
on the show program.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
There's no other conservative talk show host in town.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
You know why? Why Because they're scared.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
I think so.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
They're afraid.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
They don't want to take it. They don't want to
have a take because someone because it'll bother someone. We don't,
we don't care, no, we don't. We give no consideration
to that we don't.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
Care at all. Now, Greg and I, Well, let me
tell you what we'll talk about today. We're on to
talk about how a plan to destroy the Democratic Party.
That's kind of interesting. Election integrity. The RNC has a
new unit out there. We'll talk about that. We'll talk
about the postal Service bleeding cash like you wouldn't believe.
And why is the left freaking out over d Oe
Department of Education. We'll get to that. But the story Greg,
(01:22):
you and I are wrestled with today. Do we talk
about this? Do we let it go? We're talking about
signal Gate?
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Yes, yeah, I I I I I have sympathies for
this is this is all the Democrats have, and they're
making a mountain out of a mole hill. And we
should we should just let this this new cycle run
its course. We should be done moving on. There's so
many important things the president's looking to do in Congress
is doing. Let's get to the work at hand. But
there's another side that says there's some buffoonery going on here,
(01:48):
folks that we need to keep calling out because you
need to know that they're not intellectually honest, They're not there.
There's outrages absolutely selective, and it's it's there's a it
is the further know subtraction of this party where they
just can't get it right, and it's hard to ignore
it and not at least bring it to your attentions.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
So I feel both.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Well, we you know, and we have seen three examples,
one today and two others in the past two days
as to how low the Democrats are willing to go.
Right now, you had, you know, you had Jasmine Crockett
calling the governor of Texas, you know, governor governor on
hot wheels. You had mad Max Maxine Water yesterday calling
for Trump to deport Millennia. First that made a lot
(02:30):
of sense, and then today it happens yet again. Greg.
So the intelligence community, the leaders go before the House,
this time to explain what happened with you know, the
the uh A text message and how it got out right,
listen to the question. I don't think they could get
any lower, but this goes pretty close. A question from
Representative Jimmy Gomez is from California. As the intelligence leaders
(02:54):
appeared before that committee today, to.
Speaker 5 (02:56):
Your knowledge, do you know whether Pete Hexa had been
drinking before or he lead classified information?
Speaker 6 (03:03):
I don't have any knowledge of Secretary Hegseth's personal habits.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
Director Radcliffe, same question, yes or no?
Speaker 7 (03:14):
You know no, I'm going to answer that. I think
that's an offensive line of question. The answer is no.
I find it interesting that you want to you as
you want to answer no. Listen, you don't want to
focus on the good work that the CIA is doing,
that the intelligence community.
Speaker 5 (03:31):
Director, I want to reclaim my time. Director, I reclaimed
my time here. I have huge respect for the CIA,
huge respect for men and women in uniform. But this
was a question that's on the top of minds of
every American.
Speaker 8 (03:47):
Huh.
Speaker 5 (03:48):
He stood in front of a podium and Europe holding
a drink, So of course we want to know if
his performance is compromised. If you were people were asking
if the General Austin was compromised because of a heart issue.
Speaker 7 (04:06):
Was his performance compromised because.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Of a successful strike?
Speaker 7 (04:10):
Mister, I bring my you want to know. You want
to talk about accepting response time. Do you think my
time responsibility for a successful strike to make Americans safer?
Speaker 9 (04:20):
I want to.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
That's John Ratliff. Can you believe that question?
Speaker 10 (04:24):
Greg?
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Was he drunk before these texts were sent? Out. I mean, how,
I mean, what are they trying to do here?
Speaker 2 (04:32):
So it's performative, it's the it's political theater, it's not real.
And here's here's an interesting twist this this uh, even
this issue. I think these these uh, these congressional hearings
had already been scheduled.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
These the people that Telsey.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Gabbert, uh CIA Director Ratcliffe, they were already scheduled to
appear before Congress. But the topics were going to be
the successes of the Trump administration, the things they were doing,
as well as their OBJECTI going forward. Then this signal,
this text message story comes up, and they just wedge
it right in there and make the whole thing about
(05:07):
that why it's meant to demean Secretary of Defense hag Seth,
but also the president and his administration. But it is
also to get the Republicans and Trump's administration off topic
and not be able to talk about the things that
the Americans would immediately say, Wow, that sounds like process. Wow,
that sounds like America is safer today than it was
(05:29):
prior to Trump coming into office. They wanted to stop
any of that discussion, and that's why you're getting these
He's being argumentative on purpose. He knows he's not a child.
He knows what he's saying is so out of left
field and wrong to say, but he wants the argument.
That's what he wants, and he does not want to
get to the substance of what they're doing that is good,
(05:52):
that is protecting this country. They don't want to talk
about that.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
My thought on this, greg was how many people ask
Kamala Harris how many glasses a one?
Speaker 3 (06:00):
And oh my gosh, not enough. Not enough people. There
need to be an intervention with her A long time ago.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
Did anybody ask her those questions? No, but they're gonna
ask John Ratliffe, Tulsea Gabbert, They're gonna attack Pete Haig
Seth because of his quote drinking problem that they think
he has. It's just egregious. It's so low.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
And all I can say is that the important part
that I the role that we need to play here
is one to bring this to your attention because we're
not glued to the TV during the day, we're not
watching c spam, we're not certainly not going to watch
the talking heads, and and the real I think news
coverage won't get into this performative politics that you're seeing.
But we're reporting it because you need to see. This
is all they've got. They don't have anything else but this.
(06:40):
They only know how to attack, destroyed demean They've got
nothing to build on, nothing to agree upon. That's who
they are.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Yeah. Well, and Secretarry Pete haig Seth, he was in
Hawaii today. Of course, The Atlantic put out a new
article today basically saying, well, here are the war plans,
and haig Seth responds this way in Hawaii.
Speaker 7 (06:57):
Nobody's texting war plans.
Speaker 11 (07:00):
Well, I noticed this morning out came something that doesn't
look like war plans. And as a matter of fact,
they even change the title to attack plans because they
know it's not war plans. There's no units, no locations,
no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no
(07:22):
classified information.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
You know who sees war plans.
Speaker 11 (07:25):
I see them every single day. I looked at them
this morning. I looked at attack plans this morning. You
know who does attack plans and warplans. Men like that
Admiral right there, Paparo for the Indo Pacific or Eric
Carilla are general in Sentcom. They do attack plans.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
You know, Greg. I was wondering if Jeffrey Goldberg over
the Atlantic knows the difference between war plans and attack plans.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
He does.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
I don't, but I wonder if he does it.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Look, no, any Pejora, any words that they can put
together consecutively that sound like something that they can say,
this was so something that sounds super super serious that
they can then use to say, Look, how how you
know cavalier and irresponsible they are? He doesn't know any
difference between were plans, attack plans, or any plans at all.
(08:12):
He doesn't know any of it. And what I've heard
already is that a lot of this is what would
be communicated with leaders those that they would interact with.
These are leaders that are on this text thread together,
which is, by the way, was an approved government communication
in the Biden administration and the Trump administration coming in.
This is an approved condovitive communication. So it's not something
that they're using cavalierly or wrongly, but it's things that
(08:35):
they're going to be able to explain as people as
the people that they interact with. I want to know
more information, and so it's look, I don't know how
this this of all the members of the media, one
of your biggest critics, just nothing but an attack dog
towards Trump gets on that thread. It's a clear mistake.
It should be framed as much as a mistake. But
(08:57):
I will tell you that you got Bill Crystal out
there saying Seth gone by Friday. He's going to be
gone by Friday. That guy is so deranged. And what
DOJE and Data Republican have shown in terms of you know,
looking at following the money, Bill Crystal makes a king's ransom,
having sold out from the nineties to the guy he
is today. He even promotes transgender philosophies now or you know,
(09:21):
vision or whatever culture now where he used to be.
You know, we'd call it out in the nineties. The
guy is just such a sellout. But I read him so,
you know, ladies and gentlemen, I read his stupid ex posts.
Why in fact, they come up first on my feet.
I look at him so much. You know why why
Because he is really like the poster child for this side,
(09:43):
for their narrative, for their voice, for whatever they're thinking.
Bill Crystal post will tell me exactly what they're thinking
or how they're trying to frame it. And it's always
laughable or and I can't help it. I chirped sometimes
back at that guy. I know he doesn't read him,
but it just makes me feel better. But no, he's
crystal is like just he is the example of all
of these on the left, the Party of subtraction, party
(10:05):
of you know, just trying to attack. They don't know
how to do anything positive.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
Well, what they're trying to do greg keep it alive
until the Sunday morning talk shows, and you know this
will be the number one topic this Sunday. That's all
they're trying to do.
Speaker 10 (10:17):
Well.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Trump just announced new tariffs, He's you have so many
things that you have a cease fire between Russian and Ukraine.
They can try, but what's really killing them, and we
know this is that they used to be able to
take an issue like this, and they used to be
able to have congressional hearings, and they used to be
able to have the news and the editorial and then
the Sunday shows. Things are moving too fast. They can
(10:39):
come back to this if they want, but they'll be
skipping over a bunch of very worthy current events news comings.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
That's for sure. All Right, We've got a lot to
get to so we invite you to stay with us.
Great to have you with us on this Wingman Wednesday
edition of The Rod and Gregg Show and Talk Radio
one o five to nine k NRS.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
The Wingman Wednesday edition of The Rod and Gregg Show,
here on Talk Radio one oh five nine Canterres, and
everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Well, this is something that both Greg and I wish
the Democrats would continue to do.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Destroy themselves operation let them speak. Let's Senator Kennedy as.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Called that's all we need to do. Joining us on
our Newsmaker line to talk more about that right now
is Scott Pinsker. Scott its public relations and crisis communications
expert Wroughte a terrific article about how to destroy the
Democratic Party in four easy steps. Scott, Great to have
you on the show. I think they're kind of already
doing this, aren't they, Scott. Do they need any help
in destroying themselves?
Speaker 12 (11:35):
Well, they're teetering awfully close to that ledge, but they
might need a little nudge. Yeah. I mean, you've got
the Angel of adage. When your enemies making mistakes, don't
interrupt them when they're damaging themselves, don't give them a
band aid to a large degree, you kind of have
to wind them up and let them go. But through
the subtle art of public relations, media manipulation, and some
(12:00):
che canery here and there, we might be able to
get them a little bit nearer to the edge and
give the Trump administration a tactical advantage because if they're
divided with each other, then can't attack us, and Trump
could effectively run the country with the forties forty five
percent majority.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
So my question is, and I think that your article
is great because I agree that this is they are
a party of subtraction right now. They are really dividing
and really alienating people. And I think some of this
I would point to the strength of President Trump's election
people that in probably January of twenty four were considered
themselves Democrats. Tulca Gabbard, RFK Junior, Elon Musk, Joe Rogan.
(12:41):
I don't think that that Trump did anything spectacular to
draw them in. I think the Democrats kicked them right
out of their party. So how do we keep that
momentum going? What's your what are your swing thoughts for
us to allow them to keep being the party of subtraction?
Speaker 12 (12:58):
Well, you're right with your take on it. They've been
losing key demographics of their voting base for quite a while.
There's been getting a lot of tension how they've been
hemorrhaging the use vote. Young Americans are in the hell
more conservative than boomers, and young people have been a
go to part of the Democratic coalition. I remember there's
(13:19):
an old Goldie Hawn movie where she had a line
where like, I wanted to join the young Republicans that
I found out that they weren't any. For a while,
it was funny, but now it's just not true. And
particularly if you're a man, and if you're under the
age of thirty, you're more likely to be a Republican
than a Democrat. And that's a big change. And the
Democrats hold on minorities has really changed too. One of
(13:41):
the big shockers from the twenty twenty four elections was
that white people were not the number one demographic that
voted for Donald Trump. From from an ethnic point of view,
it's actually Native American, which makes a lot sense because
you're talking about people that tend not to be you know,
you're talking about world voters. You're talking about people who
have probably probably have a bad taste in their mouths
(14:02):
about government overreach and uh, and for a whole lot
of reasons, Trump was able to pluck away keep people
from the Democratic base. And I think the next big
group the fall will be the left leaning libertarians. These
are people who they they don't less and think about
Bill Maher like that.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Would be the post time of it.
Speaker 12 (14:22):
Okay, they don't like, they don't like religion. Uh, they
think it's kind of dopey. They're gonna they're gonna kind
of look up, you know, they look down on you.
But at the end of the day, they want to
be left alone. They want to you know, have their
their recreational activities and and and not be interfered with that.
And they don't want the government to get in their way.
(14:42):
And they cringe at the pronoun insanity.
Speaker 13 (14:45):
Uh.
Speaker 12 (14:45):
They don't like, uh, you know, the far left over
each but they've still have been a loyal member of
the Democratic coalition to the point where Bill Moore actually
donated over a million dollars. And just a week ago,
Bill Maher announced that he is going to meet Donald
Trump in the White House. And you know, we're entering
a world where Bill Maher could be a Republican RFK
(15:07):
Junior's Republican and Liz Cheney's campaigning with a Democrat.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Scott, what is the base of the Democratic Party right now?
Could you could you define it or is there a
base anymore?
Speaker 12 (15:19):
Yeah, I mean it's been a little tricky because the
Democratic Party is really more of a coalition party. It's
really not unified by by an overreaching ideology where you know,
if you're a Democrat, you believe a B, C and
D because if you're a union worker up north or
if you're a left coast liberal, you probably don't have
a lot in common other than that you kind of
agree that the Democratic Party would be the number one
(15:41):
way to promote change and to get a better, bigger
piece of the pie for you. The key people to
Democratic base now are primarily women. They are primarily unmarried women,
and a lot of that. They're still heavily with the
minority vote too, but it's a it's more of a
gender divide than ever before. The gender divide has really
(16:02):
been exploding, particularly among the young people. And you know,
every every decade or so, the people who were you know,
their seventies are at the top of the line and
the people that were eighteen are now, you know, approaching
their prime earning period of their thirties to forties. It's
not voting well for the Democratic Party. That the trajectory
is deeply problematic. They're dying off. They are literally dying off,
(16:25):
and they're not replenishing the people that they're losing.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
So here's here's my question.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
One of the most dangerous Democrats, at least for as
a future leader that I see out there in the
landscape that could unify the Democrat Party would be Pennsylvania's
Governor Josh Shapiro. But when I listened to Josh Shapiro
or even see him and listen to the things he says,
and then I listened to AOC, is this does this party?
Is this party big enough for both AOC and Josh
(16:51):
Shapiro to be under the same tent anymore?
Speaker 10 (16:54):
Or is that?
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Or are those days gone?
Speaker 12 (16:58):
They're going to try to get along to they absolutely can't.
And I would thrown another Pennsylvania Democrat into the mix too,
with John Fatterman.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Amazing hard to believe, but yeah, you're right. He didn't
start out so good, but he's getting better, isn't he.
Speaker 12 (17:12):
I put up an article today where I quoted George Carlin.
George Carlin had a quote that said, sometimes a little
brain damage can help. And John Fetterman it's been he's been.
It's been shocking. I'll admit that I didn't see it coming,
but he's been a wonderful counterweight for the AOC wing
of the Democratic Party and kind of with the Bill
(17:33):
Maher group where you see him on the out. You
don't need a crystal ball to foretell what will happen.
John Fatterman might be a very large man, but he
has a very very small block of people, said the
Democratic Party. He's completely outnumbered by the by the Bernie Sanders,
by the AOC, by the squad, by the people on
the far left, and when they battle within the party,
(17:53):
he will not win. The question, man, is what will
he do say in the party or will he leave?
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Interesting to see what happens. As always, got great chatting
with you, a great article today, and we'll see what
happens in the future. Thanks Scott, gentleman, appreciate it all
right you. Scott Pinsker here on the Roden greg Show,
talking about the efforts to destroy the Democratic Party in
four easy steps. More coming up on the Roden Gregg Show.
All Right, we're talking a big, big announcement by the
(18:21):
President yesterday signing an Executive Order on Election integrity. Greg,
you have expressed concern about this for a long long time. Yes,
you know this system very very well. You know, just
see some results. Sometimes the American people are shaking their head.
But this is a You know, the guy who stands
next to the president is always handing him the executive orders. Yes,
who is that guy? We No, I think they're called
(18:44):
the Executive Secretary. Is that what he is? Well, he
outlined what this EO did before the President signed it yesterday.
Speaker 14 (18:50):
We believe that this executive order is the farthest reaching
executive action taken in the history of the Republic to
secure our elections. Among numerous other aspects of this executive order,
this is going to cut down on illegal immigrants on
the voter rolls, ensure that the Department of Homeland Security
and the data that they have available is being fully
(19:12):
weaponized to ensure that illegal immigrants aren't voting. This will
include a citizenship question on the federal voting form for
the first time. This executive order instructs the EAC to
cut federal funding to states that don't take reasonable steps
to secure their election. This calls on the Department of
Justice to vigorously prosecute election crimes, particularly in states that
(19:34):
we don't believe are in compliance with federal law around
election integrity.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
Greg, let me ask you this, who would be against
in this country, who would be against requiring someone to
show ID to be able to vote?
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Well, I hate to break it to you.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
We do here in Utah what you're about to deal.
Speaker 3 (19:52):
Yes, there are.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
We still could not in this last legislative session pass
an elections bill that would require them voter to present
their government issued ID to be able to vote. Now,
what they did do is you need a government issued
ID to register to vote, and you need to be
able to put the last four digits of your government
issued ID on your ballot that you'd like to mail in.
(20:15):
But it would have been much easier just to simply
require it, and you could have had people scan it
like you do at a barrow at a club, scan
the back and if the name comes up the same
as the name on the ballot with the address, you
know it's good. They could have done it even in
the drop boxes. You could have had an elections person
there to man it. They didn't do that. They're doing this.
What we do in this state mostly is a signature verification,
which is software which can be sensitive. You know, can
(20:38):
look at it, scrutinize it loosely or strictly. That's up
to the clerk you have. It's just so innocuous, this
whole signature verification process. And once you see that, Biden,
can you know, auto dial audit it?
Speaker 3 (20:52):
What do you know?
Speaker 10 (20:53):
So?
Speaker 2 (20:54):
I wish it was as intuitive as it sounds, but
for some reason it hasn't been everywhere. But I do
plauded the President for this executive or that requires proof
of citizenship to vote. He also would like to stop
collecting ballots or receiving ballots after election day. That's another
thing that you thought was doing that we will know.
I do not believe is going to happen. I think
the new law does say by eight pm at the
(21:16):
close of the of the polls on the election day,
there are no received ballots that will be accepted, and
that's the.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
Way it should be. Well, the Republican National Committee is
also working on a voter integrity and election integrity. As
a matter of fact, they have a brand new unit
that is now working to keep voter rolls clean. Joining
us on our Newsmaker line to talk about that is
Reagan Reach's White House correspondent at the Daily Caller. Exactly
what is this our NC election unit up to Reagan?
Speaker 9 (21:42):
Yeah, So, just to give you an overview of how
this department came to be, the RNC was under a
consent to create in nineteen eighty and that essentially let
them we're not able to pursue election integrity efforts until
about twenty eighteen when that was linked and overturned by
(22:04):
a judge. So twenty twenty two was the first time
that the rn C really dove into the election integrity sphere.
That was what was previously described to me as proof
of concept for the election Integrity Department. In twenty twenty four,
former rn C Chairwoman Roni McDaniel moved to make the
r and C Election Integrity Unit an actual department, So
(22:29):
that gave them all these resources, funding, a full staff,
and allowed them to fully dive into the election integrity sphere.
So this is really the first time that we've seen
them pursue this adamantly, and so now we are going
into an off election year. The midterms are in a
little less than two years, but the Election Integrity Department
(22:51):
is not slowing down. They're building up their staff as
they previously told us, and they're working on things that
are going to take a little bit more time. So
what we were able to break was that they.
Speaker 15 (23:02):
Were launching it.
Speaker 9 (23:03):
They're requesting records from all from forty eight states for
their voter roles, registrations and try to figure out if
they have a clear and concise way to maintain these
voter roles to make sure that people.
Speaker 15 (23:17):
Who have moved, died, who.
Speaker 9 (23:19):
Aren't citizens, uh you know, et cetera, are off those
voter roles if they're not supposed to be there.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
So ringan some states like Virginia, you know, that can
be a swing state, that's not a that's not a
rock rib red state. But the governor he did a
phenomenal job of cleaning up their voter roles as I understand,
and and they I think they did a number of
ways where if you wanted to if you wanted to
register for vote by mail or something that that you
would have to update that every election cycle or every
(23:50):
so many election cycles. But they were they were updating
their election their voter roles so frequently, and they were
finding a lot of discrepancies in those voter rules once
they began doing that. Are you is the R and
C when it talks about election integrity? Are they looking
for states election offices to have best practices like states
(24:10):
that are doing it well or is this a party
effort that would do it in addition to whatever the
states are doing on their own to make sure that
the voter voter registration records are clean.
Speaker 9 (24:22):
Yeah, so this is something that they are asking the
you know, elected officials in each state to provide and
to work with them on. In Virginia, for example, you
brought up Virginia. Leading up until the to the twenty
twenty four election, Governor Youngkin made a move to pull
(24:44):
you know, maybe a couple thousand people who were not
supposed to be on the voter rolls Virginia's voter rolls off,
and the Biden Department of Justice actually jumped in and
tried to stop that effort and said this, there's not
enough time for you to do this. It's too close
to the election now. Mind you, these are people that
(25:05):
Virginia is you know, seeing as are identifying as non
citizens or people who are not supposed to be on
these voter rules, but the Biden Department of Justice wanted
them still on voter roles, wanted them to still receive
the ballot or be able to vote in Virginia, and
the same exact thing happened in Alabama. And so, you know,
(25:25):
by launching this effort now, the R and C has
given themselves plenty of time to make sure that these
voter rules are cleaned up. And it might not be
as easy as just requesting all the documents from these
forty eight states. I do think that they anticipate some
tension and some legal battles, and so that's something they're
(25:46):
going to be diving into, you know, as they try
to work with these state officials.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
Regan. The midterms are a little bit more than eighteen
months away. Critical for the Republicans to keep the House
and we keep the Senate. Don't have to worry about
the presidential election right now. But how aggressive is this
unit being and making sure they're ready to go to
do whatever they can in preparation for the midterm elections.
Speaker 16 (26:11):
Yeah, so you know, I heard for initially after the
election that the department was probably going to be pairing
down a little bit in the off year, And what
I've heard now from officials is no, no, no, we
are scaling up.
Speaker 15 (26:26):
Well.
Speaker 16 (26:27):
They still have staff on the ground in Wisconsin for
the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. They still have staff on
the ground in Pennsylvania's They're still sorting sort of stuff out,
and I know that they're still working on staffing up
their teams. They're on the ground teams in the coming
months in different states across the country, really starting to
(26:49):
train the poll watchers, the poll workers that were so
crucial to the twenty twenty four election. Former r and
C chairwoman Laura Trump told me that they got just
twenty thousand tips from these poll watchers and poll workers
in the toy twenty four cycle, and with all of
those tips, they were able to send a team that
(27:10):
was on the ground, whether it be lawyers or someone
from the rn C ground team, to that location that
had been flagged and addressed that issue right there and
niit a lot of things in the bud And so
what the rn C is looking to do is not
to scale that back, but to take that foundation that
they laid in the twenty twenty four election and continue
(27:31):
to build on it.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
The final question Reagan. President Trump assigned an executive order
yesterday calling for certain provisions in election integrity, whether it
be the you need a photo ID to be able
to and be a legal resident to be able to
vote same day voting or counting to election or votes
up just on election day. There's a number of things.
(27:55):
How coordinate is that with the rn C or how
much of that compliments what the rn C is trying
to do.
Speaker 9 (28:02):
Oh, it definitely compliments what the rn C is trying
to do. You know, they filed I think close to
one hundred lawsuits over this past twenty twenty four election cycle.
Speaker 16 (28:12):
That is very similar to, you know, making.
Speaker 9 (28:16):
Sure that there are election integrty laws in place that
very similarly near the executive order that President Trump signed
into law yesterday. One thing I have heard from the
rn C they do seem very hopeful that the presidents
in executive order will be codified by Congress and that
there is definitely hunger within the House and the Senate
(28:41):
to pass a law, an election integrity law that in
some way, you know, helps codify that executive order, and
you know won't be able to be as easily undone
in the future.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
We can only hope Reagan reachs from the Daily Color
talking about this R and C election integrity unit that
is now working toward the midterms in twenty twenty six.
Can you believe that they're just about eighteen months away.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
I'm glad they're working hard. I'll tell you there's there
is there's a ton of election fraud that's been allowed.
And people, you can say, election deniers, say whatever you want.
I don't know no one anyone that's fighting against more transparency,
verification of a voter's eligibility to vote. If they hate
those topics, then they're doing something wrong.
Speaker 1 (29:28):
Yeah, okay, there all right, more coming up. On the
Rod and Greg show, someone said the I told my
wife yesterday that I say arquit instead of Arquette. You
don't say ark with well that My family says it
that Keiths. They identify Arquitt. It's our Kett, it's our cat.
I mean, you don't call it Marquitt universe. Marquette universe.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Someone said, I need to say, if your name is
Rod Arquette, I should be Greg R.
Speaker 3 (29:52):
Hughes. Why Arquette R Hughes? Oh, see Rod Arquette.
Speaker 17 (29:57):
Greg R.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
Hughes, Greg R. Hughes, Yeah, well your meddle name isn't.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
R No, it's h. It doesn't Wage, but it is,
you know, Greg kind of kind of flows.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Uh huh. Isn't it interesting, Greg, that now that Joe
Biden is no longer president of the United States and
I think basically banished from the Democratic Party, more more
information is coming out about this guy, and leading up
to the election last year, there's a guy out there
who confirmed he worked for the Biden team, confirmed that
Joe Biden was given press questions in advance.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
I think we didn't we know this because we saw
the cheat sheets, We saw that the picture of the reporter,
we saw the question and in his answer he was
supposed to give.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
But I think we know we knew this.
Speaker 1 (30:43):
Well, this staff for his name is Michael L. Lo
Rosa said use this term quote approval. Okay, there was
this thing. This what he said, There was this thing
in Biden world about quote approval. Everything had to be
on quote approval. One person aside what the reporter can
use and what quotes they can say.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
And they played ball and this this you know these journalists, Yeah,
use the term loosely played ball with this and now
now I love it as they're all doing. Wow, you
know he was so much more compromised than we understood.
And why did the Democrats let him stay in so long?
They are they are colluding, They are co conspirators for
the Biden presence.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
Well, this one shows you the the intestinal fortitude of
the press during this time the media. It's amazing to
me that no one in the press complained about this.
A good journalist, I'm not. I'm not following these rules.
Journalists aren't supposed to follow those rules.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
Well, can we just honestly admit that if Trump's White House?
I can't even say it with a straight face. If
Caroline Lovett said, Okay, we're doing a quote approval process here,
Oh what what kind of reaction do you think that would?
Speaker 1 (31:55):
Would?
Speaker 3 (31:55):
Garner?
Speaker 1 (31:56):
All right? Coming up the head of n PR and
PBS go before Congress today. It did not go well.
Speaker 3 (32:04):
I think big birds in trouble.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
We'll talk about it coming down, stay with us.
Speaker 3 (32:08):
Pass me the copperhead. I'm ready to go.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
I wonder if they're passing around any copperheads today at
the Corporation for Public.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
Broadcasting I think that might be a bit of a
gloomy place. I think everybody's Oscar the Grouch over there
at PBS and NPR today because I don't think the
CEO of NPR, although very articulate in her her comments,
I was gonna say wordsmithing, it wasn't accurate. Do you
(32:37):
do you think white people are superior to people of color?
Speaker 9 (32:41):
I do not.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Okay, here's your tweet that says I am white. I
used to think I was superior. I was privileged. Okay,
do you believe in you support reparations?
Speaker 18 (32:49):
I do not.
Speaker 2 (32:51):
Here's a tweet everybody. We should be out all playing reparations.
I think I just meant to generations earlier, not to
anyone of color. Well that's actually not what are So
that's a bad answer every single question.
Speaker 3 (33:03):
Rod. And then the one, the big victory lap.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
That I felt Jim Jim Jordan did this.
Speaker 3 (33:08):
No, that's good, but this one.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
I want to say that the New York Post which
got deplatformed when they when they investigated and broke the
Hunter laptop story, Hunter Biden laptop story, and were punished
brutally for it didn't exist, you know, at least on
the Internet. Because of that, we're deplatformed before the night
the twenty twenty election. She miss Mayor, the CEO of
(33:32):
NPR admits today that in hindsight, they absolutely should have
covered that story and covered it much sooner. And the
Washington the New York Post gets to publish that saying, yeah,
we were right like they were. They were materially harmed
over that investigation in that reporting which was which was
really important reporting, and NPR now is saying that they
(33:54):
should have been right there with them.
Speaker 1 (33:55):
And she even admitted today on the whole Russia Gate
hopes thing that they covered it. Shiff was on there
twenty five times on NPR going after President Trump. Muller
comes out and said, nothing there. They dropped the story completely.
They paid no attention to it. But the killer of
this and you you brought this up, Greg was She
(34:16):
was asked by Jim Jordan, well, I just think he's
great congressman. He there was a former business center who
worked for NPR. Remember this was several months ago, and
he decided to go out on the limb and talk
about what life is like at NPR. And what he
found out was that of all the editorial positions the writers,
(34:37):
the reporters, the anchors, you name it, right, eighty seven
of them were registered Democrats. Know how many registered Republicans
are on that staff? One zipple, zero, none, zero, none, whatsoever.
So how can they present a right down the middle
position when you know all of more Democrats and the
(35:00):
American people see this.
Speaker 2 (35:01):
So let's let me let me just rephrase what you
said so that I understand it right. So there are
eighty seven, which is quite a big editorial. That's not
your reporters, those are your editorial positions, your writers. Eighty
seven of them were all not They weren't independents, they
weren't Republicans. They were all registered Democrats living in the
(35:22):
DC area. Zero Republicans. Well, that's not very that's not
a national public radio. That's a Democrat Radio Public Radio.
So NPRRPPR Democrat Public Radio. It is Democrat public Radio.
And you know, we've always known this with their whispery
voice and all their leftists news reports and their editorial comments.
(35:43):
We've always known this. However, in an era where we're
looking at two trillion dollars of deficit spending every single year,
thirty six trillion dollars in debt, going bankrupt. I mean,
I'm sorry. Every time someone tells you that they don't
like where the cuts are coming, then what because we
can't keep going this way? We are going off of
fiscal cliff if something doesn't happen. When you find out
that NPR and Public and also PBS are getting a
(36:07):
half a billion dollar more than half a billion dollars
a year for those two for radio and television, do
we really need it anymore?
Speaker 13 (36:15):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (36:15):
It is left journalistic integrity or neutrality. I don't know
if they ever had it, but they certainly don't have
it now. Now that's coming from a child, a guy
who like learned my ABC's from Big Bird, from Grover,
from from Burton Ernie, mister Rogers neighborhood.
Speaker 3 (36:31):
He taught me how to be nice to people.
Speaker 2 (36:33):
I mean, I loved Public, you know, I loveds Yes,
kue d that was I mean, I loved, I loved
and mister Rogers was from Pittsburgh and I saw I
got to meet mister mcphey When I was in they
called it nursery school. Yeah, I was a nursery school.
I got to meet mister mcfiely. Big highlight of my life.
So there there was a role, There was a role
(36:54):
for like kids to really you know, learn some things.
I think that the way we receive information now, and
I think the way that kids have opportunity to see
instructional programming like this uh pbs P and PR especially
that we just we don't need it. It's a let
me just say it this way. It would at the best,
(37:15):
at very best, it would be a nice to have,
not a have to.
Speaker 1 (37:18):
Well, times have changed, it, Greg, And like you were saying,
you grew up with big Burg.
Speaker 3 (37:21):
I sure did, right, but then the grouch.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
That was the only option you had back then. Basically
look at today at four channels, yeah, four, Look at
today there are so many options out there, not only
for you know, children's education and helping them learn. There
are things about cultural events people well, and PR carries
this symphony. Well, you can probably find it anywhere anymore.
Speaker 3 (37:42):
Yeah, I mean go stream it, stream it.
Speaker 1 (37:45):
They do this documentary. I bet you could find it
somewhere else as well. So the question is times have changed.
I'm with you, you know, if they want to go
on their own, if the Corporation for Public Broadcasting wants
to go on and own without taxpayer funding. They go
to major contributors and ask them, would you contribute to
keep it going? That's that's their business. I just don't
(38:05):
like my taxpayer going to it. And I'll watch it occasionally,
and when they get into these fund raising things, I go,
come on, folks, you're groveling for dollars.
Speaker 10 (38:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:14):
No, And it's fundamentally unfair. It's it's again, it's a
Democrat propaganda channel. Everything's left of center and and and
so I just don't think that if you're a taxpayer
and you don't subscribe wholly and solely to the left
of center philosophy or worldview, why should your taxpayer dollars
be used for that versus the other things that we
(38:36):
can't afford that we should actually fund, or you know,
making sure entitlement spending is pretty scary.
Speaker 3 (38:41):
Nobody wants to talk about it.
Speaker 2 (38:42):
But at least we can't even talk about how to
cut the wist in Social Security or Medicare or medicaid.
You know, Democrats don't even want to talk about the waste.
We've got to get to that. But NPR and and
public and PBS see you later. I think it is
a it should be gone. And here's my challenge. Okay, well,
we just heard today in this hearing what I'm looking
at by way of the quotes, and and I've watched
(39:04):
some of the video of her answers the CEO of NPR.
If this isn't an indictment, because not one answer clarified
any misunderstanding of what we're saying right now, there's nothing
that we're saying that that is not true. There's no
justification to keep this budget line item. If it continues.
That is a failure of the Republicans to leave this
on as a budgeted line. They've better cut this. If
(39:26):
they don't, they're part of the performance of performance politics
and pageantry does.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
Well?
Speaker 2 (39:33):
I think yeah, I think I think k e R.
So there's a KCPW. I believe that's not that public
graded that we that the state doesn't contribute to.
Speaker 3 (39:42):
I do not believe.
Speaker 2 (39:43):
But I do believe through the University of Utah, which
is a state institution of higher learning, they do fund uh.
They do have a funding UH stream for public ra KU,
which I think should done too. I mean they've cut
higher ed, I mean I think they should. They should.
I think your point's great. Make it a fundraiser. I mean,
if you want to stay alive, you want to stay viable,
if you don't have advertisers, go to donors.
Speaker 1 (40:05):
You know, compete with the rest of us in broadcasting.
Speaker 3 (40:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (40:07):
See, if you can compete and people like what you're offering, great,
you know, but just compete. Sell advertising time, yeah, you know,
or sell sponsorships, whatever you want to do, but get
off the tax dollars. I think that you know that.
That's what we're saying. I have nothing against them. Do
what you want to do, but don't do it on
my time.
Speaker 2 (40:26):
I just think we're in an error nowhere. When you
listen to that testimony in Congress rate there, you think
to yourself, how did we let this go unchecked this long?
I mean, if there's really no justification for it any longer?
Eighty seven editorial positions, which by the way, is bloated
by itself. Hey, that's that's more than any any free
market station has. I guarantee it. But you have that
many and now, and they're all registered, you know, unapologetic democrats,
(40:51):
not independents, not unaffiliated, they're registered democrats. That is not
that is there's nothing objective, If there's nothing that is
a Democrat public radio station, and that's not what taxpayers
signed up for.
Speaker 1 (41:05):
I go back to what you just said. Conservatives have
been talking about this for a number of years now, right, yep,
now is the time to act. It is if nothing
is done here and they continue the public funding of this.
You are spot on with this, because I'm going you're
right on. I mean, you are spot on. You do
not have the guts to say we're done with this.
Speaker 2 (41:27):
Yes, this is my second line in the sand. My
first is EPA can be no longer be EPA until
they make Mexico stop using the Pacific Ocean as a toilet.
That's my first line. Second line in the sand is
if PBS and NPR continue, you're not serious, because neither
are defensible in any way, shape or form for taxpayers
to be paying for this or not protecting the environment
(41:47):
over there. Those are two absolute you know, of the
list of things to do, those are one and one A.
Speaker 1 (41:54):
So you know, and I want to hear from our
listeners because you know, when you were a little taught,
I bet you were funny when you were a little
to little kid.
Speaker 3 (42:02):
Yeah, I lived for these shows.
Speaker 1 (42:04):
Yeah, but you live for these shows, and I imagine
there are a lot of people in our audience who
do did grow up with them. But I'm asking how
many of your children are now watching these shows? If
you have little children, do they watch Sesame Street? Do
they watch any of these shows? Because there are a
variety of other very entertaining, very educational shows out there
on the internet, on cable, whatever you watch, it's streaming
(42:27):
out there. Do you do you even bother looking at
this anymore?
Speaker 2 (42:30):
Well, my kids are in their twenties now and they
didn't watch it. They watch it, they didn't. There's this
horrible show called Kyu, Oh so bad. It's this bald
kid and he just whined for the entire show. I
remember that and Teletubbies. I could not let I as
a good father, I could not let my kids be
exposed to those two so called kids shows. Teletubbies Kyu.
(42:52):
They were both just just terrible, terrible shows. I don't
know who, what, what demon created either one of those shows,
but they were not They couldn't be on Hughes Home.
But no, my kids didn't watch the same you know,
public television.
Speaker 3 (43:03):
I watched.
Speaker 2 (43:04):
The times have changed, yeah, and that now those are
my kids aren't kids, So I don't think it's necessary anymore,
and I think it's time to go.
Speaker 1 (43:11):
Eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero eight
eight eight five seven o eight zero one zero, or
on your cell phone, Dal pound two fifty and say hey, Rod,
we'd like to get your thoughts on this. It's been
talked about for a number of years, especially among the
conservative circles. Let's stop funding. What's going on with with
UH Corporation for Public Broadcasting?
Speaker 2 (43:31):
Yeah, yeah, it's because some people like to listen to
it to see what the other side's saying, because that's
kind of what you're doing. You're you're intercepting their their communicating.
But i'd love to hear from our listening audience. They
know they know the score. Is this something that time
has passed? And if you're serious about cutting this deficit,
this is a This isn't low hanging fruit. This might
be the rotted fruit on the ground under the tree
(43:53):
that you got to clean up off the ground because
it's so it's it's so past its time.
Speaker 1 (43:57):
Eight eight eight five seven o eight zero one zero
eight eight eight five seven o eight zero one zero.
Should we continue funding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which
is PBS and NPR. Your calls and comments coming up
right here on the Rotting Greg Show in Utah's Talk
radio one oh five nine k n RS if you're
just joining us now. We're talking about the future funding
of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which overseas NPR and PBS.
(44:21):
The head of the corporation went before members of the
House today and they had a field day with this woman,
and it raises the questions again, Conservatives have talked about
this forever. It seems to me to no more funding,
no more tax dollars going to NPR and PBS because
of their very liberal leanings. And the head of the
(44:43):
corporation basically admitted today, Yeah, there are eighty seven registered
Democrats in our company and only one registered No, not
even one registered Republicans zero zero, it's eight. Yeah. So
what did you say? How much tax money do they
get every year?
Speaker 2 (44:58):
Over five hundred and thirty five million dollar, which is
really over a half a billion, really.
Speaker 1 (45:02):
A drop in the bucket on the overall scheme of things,
but every little bit.
Speaker 2 (45:05):
How you get in the two trillion, you're paying a
trillion in interest, So that's one trillion, so you know
you got to get there somehow that would help.
Speaker 1 (45:11):
We want to get your opinion on this eight eight
eight five seven o eight zero one zero or on
your cell phone donal pound two to fifty and say hey,
Rod we begin in draper with Bob tonight here on
the Rod In Greg Show. How are you, Bob?
Speaker 4 (45:23):
I guys, hope you're having a good day.
Speaker 1 (45:25):
We are.
Speaker 6 (45:26):
I know I happen to like NPR. I'll be honest
with you. In fact, I don't mind if they cut
the funding. I actually called today and bumped up how
much I donate because I'm like, okay, well, if they're
going to take away the tax funding, I'd like to
at least keep it going. It is a you know,
it is left leaning, but you know, I listen to
you guys, and I listened to NPR, and I listen
(45:47):
to Fox News and I listen to CNN. I don't
want to be as sick of that. I don't want
to just listen to the same perspective all the time.
So I like hearing a variety of perspectives. And as
far as PBS goes Nova is a fantastic show. The
American Experience, which is a great history show. There are
(46:07):
some fantastic shows. Nature is another one. There are so
many great shows on PBS, educational shows. So you know,
if they take away the tax funding that, you know,
I'm fine with that, but I think that people like
myself who do listen to it or watch it should
step up. It also, though, is something that is very
(46:27):
valuable in small communities. I lived in a very small,
remote town in New Mexico that was ninety miles from anywhere,
and we used to have a small CBS station in
Silver City that I could pick up so I could
get my news in a very remote place. So there
are some benefits to it.
Speaker 1 (46:45):
You know, Bob, I don't disagree with anything you said.
In the fact, like they do some very good programs,
I agree with you. I don't have an issue. My
issue is, again, my tax dollar is going to support them,
and you've realized then said I'll just up my donation
to them, and I think that's perfectly fine. So I
appreciate your thoughts on that. Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 2 (47:03):
Okay, let's go to Kathy and Tuilla. Kathy, thank you
for holding on in Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.
Speaker 3 (47:09):
What say you.
Speaker 15 (47:12):
Well, thank you, but I sort of agree with the lady. Also,
I listen to NPR. I also watch Fox News. I
do a very thing so that I can make equal decisions.
But as far as the funding goes, no way, no way.
I'm okay with diversity as far as various cultures and
colors and ethnic groups, but definitely not trends or whatever.
(47:38):
You know, people learn about that in their environment. They
don't have to be taught it. And my grandkids. I
have to regulate YouTube because that's where they go for programming.
But you still have to regulate that because a lot
of it is violent. But PBS, yes, has good things.
(48:00):
NPR has a different view that I do appreciate. But again,
not to fund them. They need to get their own funding.
Speaker 1 (48:09):
You're right, Kathy, you don't I admire about our audience.
Two people. They look at various sources. Well, fortunately they
don't listen to just us. You know, we wish they would,
but but they.
Speaker 3 (48:18):
They are the smartest audience saw the world.
Speaker 1 (48:20):
Because they vary their opinions. They're looking for various opinions
on issues of the day.
Speaker 2 (48:27):
So I said before, because I have actual friends that
are conservative that do listen to NPR to kind of
and so I knew, I know that there are people
that really do want to get a broader view or
even the left of center view worldview and understand what
they're saying. But here's my issue, and I think it
actually tethers well with the two callers we've just heard
from Battle in the free market of ideas. Okay, this play,
(48:47):
This station only exists by its it's its advertisers, by
its economic case it can make to be a station.
I think that these programs to compete need to do
the same thing. They need to be in that in
the battle of the free market and see what the
people say. If the demand is there the end, these
(49:08):
these stations will will live on, won't they.
Speaker 1 (49:10):
I'm with you all the way on that. All right,
more of your calls coming up. We're asking you this
question as you drive home tonight. Should American taxpayers continue
to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting NPR or PBS.
More your calls and comments coming up right here on
the Rod and Greg Show and Talk Radio one oh
five nine can arrest. We're talking the way they do
at NPR in PBS, soft mellow tones.
Speaker 2 (49:36):
If the taxpayer dollars cease to be provided. We want
to have an alternative to the listening. Yes, we do alternatives.
Speaker 3 (49:46):
Listeners so that we can be like NPR. No, I
can't do that. I can't. I can't.
Speaker 2 (49:50):
I'm not even coming from my skin doing that. Let's
get to our callers. Let's get to the radio. I
got to hear from some the smartest listening audience and.
Speaker 3 (49:57):
All the land. Let's go to Earl and West Valley. Earl,
thank you for holding what say you, sir?
Speaker 8 (50:04):
Hey, So I'm totally against all of that. We've already
lost trust in the government a long time ago. And
without trust, uh, we're going to have ten thousand of
these little like you guys were saying earlier. Well it's
not a lot, but we got ten thousand or a
million of these, Well, it's not a lot, you know.
(50:24):
I think we need to just dismantle, dismantle all of
them and the ones that are remaining. Put the whole
government on the blockchain. You know what I'm saying. Because
I'm a small business owner in Utah. I own a
smoke shop and Governor Cox is acting like a dictator.
Bannon our vapes out here and we're you know, I'm
a grown man and pay taxes, and you know I
(50:45):
got people walking in saying we're just have we got
to drive two hours across the border to get disposables now,
and Cox is an idiot he thinks that, you know. Yeah,
it's all about the They used the kids to push
the agenda, and they want to put rfi D chips
in bapes so if the kid gets it, they can
see who the store sold the disposable to. So if
I sold one to you, you give it to your nephew.
(51:07):
He gets popped at school, you know they're gonna they're
gonna do something to you. But but the thing is,
they cannot be taken away our liberties. I don't pay
my taxes. So Cox can sit up there and just
brought all these laws taking away our freedoms.
Speaker 2 (51:24):
Yeah, I'm telling you it happens more than we understand.
I mean, that is that is a crazy long I
tell you what. I hear what he's saying. Let's go
to Uh, let's go to Joe in Star Valley, Wyoming,
listening on the iHeartRadio app Joe, Welcome to the Running
Gregg Show.
Speaker 4 (51:43):
Hey, thank you, I say cut them got NPR. If
it can't survive on its own, we don't need it.
And I say, cut all government subsidies to everybody, farm subsidies,
green energy subsidies, green electory car subsidy, all of it.
You got it.
Speaker 1 (52:02):
Yeah, we don't need it.
Speaker 4 (52:03):
That's not the proper rola government. It's the steps that
I businesses that can't run on their own.
Speaker 1 (52:08):
You know what, Joe, And Uh, it's going to hurt.
But let me tell you what. Donald Trump put it
so succinctly the other day when he was talking about
what is going on with DOJE. He says, look, if
we don't know something, we're not going to be able
to save this country. No, and people, you know, and
he said, all I'm trying to do right now with
my administration is save this country because if we don't
(52:31):
stop this ridiculous spending, we aren't going to have a
country much longer. And I think that's the honest truth.
Speaker 3 (52:37):
It is the honest truth.
Speaker 2 (52:38):
And it's and so when sometimes when I hear people
try to frame some of these cuts, it's like, well
we like that, well what we like versus not having
a government because our dollar has collapsed and we have
nothing of you know. I mean, there's a lot worse
than losing Big Bird and PBS in terms of the
grand scheme of things. And so how are we going
to try and rein in this out of control spending
(52:59):
to brillion? As I said, deficit spending. But a trillion
of that is just to pay off the interest on
the thirty six trillion dollar debt.
Speaker 3 (53:06):
That's more than we.
Speaker 2 (53:07):
Pay for our whole national our whole defense, all the
branches of the military.
Speaker 1 (53:12):
It is.
Speaker 2 (53:13):
So I agree with Joe wholeheartedly. Let's go to Joseph
and Sandy. Joseph, welcome to the Ron and Greg Show.
Thank you for holding Let's say.
Speaker 12 (53:20):
You hey, it's a go on.
Speaker 17 (53:23):
So I listened to KrCl just as much as this station,
and uh so we're talking about the donations KrCl thride.
That's how they stay afloat.
Speaker 1 (53:34):
Yes with donations.
Speaker 17 (53:35):
Yes, And I don't agree with their political views at all.
I like their bluegrass show, so I donate there. I
think if NPR weld to do the same thing, they'd
realize what shows work and what shows don't. And I
think their listeners would keep them a float. We don't
need to keep putting the bill for him.
Speaker 1 (53:51):
I'm with you, Joseph. You know what if in a
corporation for public broadcasting came out to their audience, came
to the general public, ran some sort of campaign and
said we need your money to stay afloat, they'd probably
have more money they know what to do with.
Speaker 3 (54:03):
I think you're right.
Speaker 1 (54:04):
I really think that would happen.
Speaker 2 (54:05):
I really like what Joseph said because I think it
would also inform what programming they would put on more
than others. So he has programming he's willing to contribute
to because he enjoys that programming. If you told me
that that PBS was going to show Big Sesame Street
and mister Rogers everything all the time, maybe I want
my kids to see it, and i'd want I know,
I know that's coming on, and I would I would contribute.
Speaker 1 (54:26):
Well, that's very nice of you.
Speaker 2 (54:27):
The battle of the free free the free market is
the place where this should be decided and people should
be able to decide on their own.
Speaker 1 (54:34):
All right, Kelly and John, thanks for calling in. We
ask you if you can hold on for a second.
We'll get to your comments coming up right here on
the Right Great Show and Utah's Talk Radio One O
five to nine k nrs. We're talking about continued taxpayer
funding of public broadcasting. Should it stay or should it go?
Let's go back to the phones. We want to thank
Jay for waiting. Jay, thanks for joining us tonight on
(54:55):
the rod On Great show. What say you?
Speaker 19 (54:59):
Thanks? Guys. Hey, I don't want to throw out the
sweetish chef with his popcorn man. That guy's a classic.
But the point I would would like to make is, uh,
I believe if they just fund it through a strategy
of having a balanced debate for him with the red,
(55:20):
the white, and the blue, the independence, the the Democrats
or Republicans, everybody likes a good debate and that's that's
good government, and that's good, that's good discussions. And they
can put that on a rotation where you know, one
comes around and is the moderator. You know, they rotate
(55:40):
the moderator's pro con and and I just wonder what
you think about that?
Speaker 1 (55:45):
Well, they they used to do that, didn't they? As
I recalled, didn't they have shows where you'd have back
and forth the right of the.
Speaker 2 (55:51):
Left on PBS and even shows like CNN used to
have crossfire, and it was it was you I felt
like it was much more even handed.
Speaker 1 (56:00):
Jay.
Speaker 2 (56:00):
Here's here's to your point. Though I've actually participated on
it was a public radio station on a on a
program called Both Sides of the Aisle, and that was
a show where I was representing the right. We would
have someone like Jim Tobaccus and and some others that
were well known Democrats that were on the left, and
Natalie Gagner was the centrist who was the moderator. And
(56:21):
all I know is that when we would go to callers, boy,
everybody hated me. Okay, I was always the foil and
then nobody ever and on public radio, no one ever
liked me, no one. I had never had any any
any friends. So I like you what you're saying, Jay,
I've actually given it the college try. On public radio,
(56:42):
they were all drinking hater aid when it came to me.
Speaker 1 (56:44):
Nobody liked you. They have a complex something. No, we
do that. But my guess is you loved it.
Speaker 3 (56:51):
I did, of course I did.
Speaker 13 (56:53):
Well.
Speaker 2 (56:53):
I loved arguing with Jim Tobaccus. I love not argue,
but actually probably argued. It was it was a debate.
But but we do that so that you know how
they raise funds. So we would go there and we
would try to help raise funds, and hey, raise funds
for Greg Hughes zero raise funds and say that that
Jim Debacchus was the one they we'd raise a fortune
be Yeah, I was I was losing in that audience.
Speaker 1 (57:14):
Huh, John and Murray. Let's see what John has to
say tonight. You're on the Roddin Greg Show. John, thanks
for joining us.
Speaker 20 (57:22):
Hi, good afternoon. I had a couple of bullet points. One,
I just want to say that, No, I do not
want my hard paid taxes to pay for any public media.
I think it's a conflict of interest.
Speaker 12 (57:39):
Yes, I agree with.
Speaker 20 (57:40):
I agree with another gentleman that said we should explore
getting rid of all federal subsidies. In this day and age,
I'm not sure we actually need subsidies subsidiaries to survive.
Speaker 1 (57:57):
I amazed that.
Speaker 20 (58:00):
The last idea I wanted to throw out there is
it instead of voting for people or instead of voting
for parties, what if taxpayers voted for what they wanted
their money spent on. And if you're not a taxpayer,
you could do like ten thousand hours of community service
each year, and then that would get you a vote too.
Speaker 1 (58:20):
They're hurting an idea like that. That's kind of interesting idea.
Speaker 2 (58:23):
I saw a movie once where you were a civilian
by mere birth and you were a citizen, which meant
that you had the right to vote if you had
been served in the military or served your community, and
then you rose to the level of a voting citizen.
You were a civilian, but there were ways, equal ways
for people to become citizens and then and I found
(58:45):
that movie to be intriguing in that where we don't
have as high of a voter turnout for people when
they're eighteen years old. There if it was something that
you don't automatically get but you had to, you know,
give your part to your your country or to be
able to be able to vote, it would be taken
a lot more seriously.
Speaker 1 (59:03):
Yeah, you know, I'm wondering about this because our last
caller brought this up. Elon Musk has gone after agencies
and personnel. Nobody's talking about subsidies.
Speaker 3 (59:12):
Yet, Greig and I don't know they need to.
Speaker 1 (59:15):
They need to. I don't know what the dollar figure
is on the amount of subsidies that we pass out
to the American people to farmers to you know, ranchers
to industry. Is that something that the American people are
willing to say, yeah, we can live without it, Well
we should, I imagine they could if the competition with
foreign countries was even maybe that solved the pros.
Speaker 2 (59:36):
Yeah, and look, I just think that we're in a
situation where again, you know, some people are telling me,
look that there's nothing about I think when we see
this big bill that's going to get passed, hopefully at
the beginning of April, it's going to have a lot
of depths that spending in it. And and so we're
going to say, well, I thought we were cutting. There
is cutting going on, and there's a lot that needs
to be doing done to reset this economy.
Speaker 3 (59:56):
So hang on, folks.
Speaker 2 (59:57):
But I do think we're in an era of what
we have to have, not what we you'd like to
have by way of the federal government, and it is
so overdue. To pair it back, I can't Department of
Education gone, PBS gone.
Speaker 1 (01:00:08):
Well, let's go to run Ron. You've got about a minute.
Let's say you on this topic. Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 21 (01:00:14):
Well, I think com federal funding is good for one
particular reason. I worked in emergency management for twenty one
years and in the state of Utili is funded KSL OR.
I think it's call radio as the state entry point
station in case the president has to talk to the
public and national emergency.
Speaker 22 (01:00:31):
Yes, And I think that those fundings for emergency stuff
like that is justifiable. And I know they paid I
believe it was call at one time, they paid for
a five hundred gallon tank to hold diesel fuel so
we can keep running in an emergency and some things
(01:00:52):
like that, and I think those are justified. The rest
of it, No, yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:00:56):
You know, those are justified. Means he's talking about the
emergency alert system. You have a primary station in each
city around the country that is designated and if there
is a national emergency, they kind of take over all stations.
And that's perfectly Lejonah, I don't have a problem with
that at all.
Speaker 2 (01:01:12):
I'm just saying it couldn't be a qualified for licensure
that you have to have some of that as part
of your license to broadcast.
Speaker 1 (01:01:17):
Probably, So yeah, yeah, all right. Our number three The
Wingman Wednesday edition, Roden Greg coming up, stay with us.
The best day we've had so far this year as
far as the weather is concerned.
Speaker 3 (01:01:29):
Well, I thought you mean because it's wing Man Wednesday.
Speaker 1 (01:01:30):
Well that could be too, But I'm just as far
as I think I heard Wenday say earlier. We haven't
been into the seventies for like one hundred and ten days.
Speaker 2 (01:01:39):
I know, it's glorious. I'm in a short sleeve shirt
and I didn't even wear a jacket. Yeah, but you
know then it's going to get colder again. Just it's
kind of cruel.
Speaker 1 (01:01:47):
It's spring.
Speaker 17 (01:01:49):
I know.
Speaker 2 (01:01:49):
By the way, one of our great listeners I wasn't
able to call in but says they've been a slave.
I'm assuming this is tax burden they're describing. But I've
been a slave to government for six months of every
year year for the last forty years at work, only
to find out that the money was spent on DNC
slush accounts and circumcisions for Africans slash and burn wood
(01:02:10):
shippers for all those guilty of fraud. Gallows are too humane.
It's far worse than bad. I'm infuriated at all of this. Okay,
there's there's there's a take, okay, and that's you know,
and I think it's a I think it's a deserved
one when you see what Doge is discovering by and
it was never meant to be discovered. I think it's
a combination of Doge, the genius of Elon Musk, but
(01:02:32):
also AI and coding data Republican.
Speaker 3 (01:02:35):
All of that.
Speaker 2 (01:02:36):
We are finding money and flows of funds that were
really never meant to be understood. We were never so
supposed to understand this. And it's in the hundreds of billions,
up to trillions of dollars accumulatively. And and I'm done
listening to well it's only a half a billion, that's
not enough.
Speaker 3 (01:02:53):
Yeah, Well guess what it.
Speaker 1 (01:02:54):
All will add up? Yeah? Will Speaking of lucy money,
we were talking about PBS and this they get from taxpayers.
How about the postal service? Well, here's the other subject
that we've been talking about forever, about the postal service
losing money. Yeah, they go to Congress ask for more money,
and guess what they get it.
Speaker 2 (01:03:12):
I know this is I'm telling your Republicans got to
step up on this stuf. They can't just be talking
about this and not actually see budgets that reflect what's
what we're finding out.
Speaker 1 (01:03:20):
Well, let's talk more about this right now. With our
next guest. His name is Ross March and he is
a senior fellow with the Taxpayer's Protection Alliance. He's joining
us on our Newsmaker line to talk about this. A
great article today in The Blaze about the Postal Service
losing money. How bad is it Ross? When it comes
to the Postal.
Speaker 12 (01:03:37):
Service, It is really really bad.
Speaker 10 (01:03:40):
The Postal Services loss nine point five billion a billion
with a B dollars last year and they've walked more
than one hundred billion dollars over the past fifteen years. Now,
if the Postal Service was a private business, would long
be out of business. And yeah, that is definitely something
(01:04:00):
to be alarmed about.
Speaker 2 (01:04:02):
So I read that there was an initial uh court
case where the Postal Services the employees of the US
Postal Service, we're suing because of cuts and things like that.
And initially there was a labor board or something that
needed to negotiate how that would roll out. And the
judges recently said no, you can sue like everybody else.
Seems issuing judges have become it seems to me like
(01:04:26):
all these new presidents of the United States. So what's
the relationship between the Postal Workers Union and the hemorrhaging
of money that the postal Service is going through and
the expected taxpayer support of all of it.
Speaker 3 (01:04:41):
Is there any is there? Does?
Speaker 2 (01:04:43):
In other words, as the postal service, are they at
odds or are they in conflict with their the union
who's probably demanding more or how does that what's that
environment even look like?
Speaker 12 (01:04:53):
Yeah?
Speaker 10 (01:04:53):
Yeah, there is a really big connetch there. The unions
are way too powerful. And if you could just total
expenses totally, you SPS expenses, labor costs are eighty percent
right of the total bill of operating the postal service,
and the need to extract more and more. And a
big part of that problem is that the postal service
has lots and lots of career employees and they have
(01:05:16):
very very expensive benefits. But the postal services private contendors
think ups and FedEx. They rely a lot on temporary employees,
and they can ramp up hiring of these temporary employees
for holiday seasons and Christmas time, right, so you can
hire a bunch of people, it doesn't cost too much money,
(01:05:38):
and then at the end of the season you could say, Okay,
we'll see you back here next season. The Postal Service
doesn't do enough of that, and they need to do more.
It would save them and taxpayers a lot of money.
Speaker 1 (01:05:50):
Wells, So it seems like the postal Service has been
losing money almost since day one. That's not true, but
it sure does seem like that. Has anybody before Doge
tried to get in there and fix it? And why
haven't they been able to do so? Is it the unions?
Is it the structure, what's going on here? Their inability
or their unwillingness to adopt maybe some strategies that you
(01:06:10):
just explained, or technology. Has anybody tried to do anything
about it up to this point?
Speaker 23 (01:06:16):
Oh?
Speaker 10 (01:06:16):
Man, Well, it's a little bit of everything. So the
Postmaster General Louis de Joy right like top brass. He
actually just resigned a couple of days ago, and he
made a really good point when he came in in
twenty twenty of trying to cut costs and tries to
make the whole operation more accountable and more transparent. But
the problem was that Postmaster General de Joy realized early
(01:06:40):
on that he could use taxpayers as a penny bank.
So he went in front of Congress shortly after becoming
Postmaster General and he begged for taxpayer money, and he
saw that it worked and he got more than thirteen
billion dollars, and he realized, oh wait, so I could
go to lawmakers and I could get all of this money.
And that's a huge dis incentive to actually reform operations
(01:07:03):
and reduce costs.
Speaker 2 (01:07:05):
So we talk about the postal service as in this
I think, in the static way where we talk about
the US Postal Service like we would ten years ago,
twenty years ago, but with emails and with ups and
FedEx and everything else. It doesn't It just isn't There
shouldn't there be a deeper conversation about the role of
the United States government and a mail service. Do we
(01:07:27):
actually need it? It feels like it's just a conduit
for junk mail for me at this point. But tell me,
are we looking at enough maybe we don't need it anymore,
or beyond how we would save money or be smarter
with that money. Does Is the postal services integral to
our society or our country as it used to be?
Speaker 10 (01:07:49):
It's a great question, and the postal services means a
lot of different things to a lot of different people.
So for some it's a great way to communicate with
loved ones, and for other people. It's a great way
to get medications really quickly if it's a hassle to
go out to the pharmacy on a regular basis, for example,
and to a lot of other people, especially over the
past five or six years, it's a really great way
(01:08:10):
to get convenient packages from e commerce giants. So it
can be done in a way that is more affordable
and does not cost taxpayers and customers so much money.
I think that's what we really need to focus on.
A lot of people see a very compelling need for
the postal Service, but it does not need to break
(01:08:31):
the bank Ross.
Speaker 1 (01:08:33):
You know, Greg just mentioned the mission of the Postal
Service and what it should be, but you point out
the Postal Service has been trying to produce movies. What
is that hold about?
Speaker 17 (01:08:42):
Ross?
Speaker 1 (01:08:43):
Are you kidding me?
Speaker 10 (01:08:46):
Unfortunately, no, I know there is so much mission creup.
So this is actually the second TV show that the
Postal Service is put on. Now it's Dear Santa, But
before Dear Santa, it was The Inspectors. And these things
never get good rating. Maybe if you go on the
on the ratings website, they're always paanned by critics, so
they're not except for all of the millions of dollars
(01:09:07):
they spend on producing these TV shows. I mean, you
know they're not even opening to rave reviews. And you
know that when a mail service is trying to produce
television shows, it is time for reform.
Speaker 1 (01:09:20):
Sure is.
Speaker 2 (01:09:21):
So if you had a crystal ball and you can
look in the future, how does this play out? I mean,
I you got me over here going I'm going you know,
Amazon doesn't use the postal service. I think there's free
market that get step in here and deliver what people need.
Maybe I'm too extreme, but how you know? You got
judges now saying that the you know, the federal the
postal service union consume. Where does this go? Where do
(01:09:43):
you where do you predict things go from here? With
this president? But with all the pushback we're seeing, all.
Speaker 10 (01:09:49):
Right, well, I'm going to try to be cautiously optimistic here,
and I have one word for competition. So other foreign posts,
like think that the UK, think about Germany, they've been
opening up their mail services to competition. Not saying hey,
they don't exist anymore, but saying, hey, by the competition,
if you want to get in on this, we'll give
you a run. And that usually does is that provides
(01:10:13):
them with motivation to keep costs under control and take
better care of customers and their workers for that matter.
So I think hopefully it goes in that direction.
Speaker 1 (01:10:22):
We can only hope.
Speaker 10 (01:10:23):
Ross.
Speaker 1 (01:10:24):
Thank you very much, Ross March. And he is a
senior fellow at the tax Payers Protection Alliance talking about
the postal service. It is bleeding cash and no one
seems to want to do anything about it. All right, Mary,
coming up, It is the Rodden Greg Show right here
on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine.
Speaker 3 (01:10:40):
Hey, nrs, this is wing Man Wednesday.
Speaker 1 (01:10:43):
Yes it is.
Speaker 3 (01:10:43):
It's the Rotten Greg Show.
Speaker 1 (01:10:44):
Yes it is.
Speaker 3 (01:10:45):
It's Talk Radio one oh five nine. Can or s.
Speaker 1 (01:10:47):
You are so spot on today and I'm goose you're
really on top of it.
Speaker 20 (01:10:51):
You are.
Speaker 1 (01:10:51):
Maverick rod Arkettich is like the more formal introduction as
you work your way home tonight. All right, I want
to take you back, mister Hughes, because there's a you know,
the media is trying to create this narrative, Greg that
the people who voted for Donald Trump are now having regrets.
You've heard that narrative before. They're having regrets. They wish
(01:11:14):
they wouldn't have done it. Done what voted for Donald Trump?
Speaker 13 (01:11:17):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (01:11:17):
Please, yeah, that's what I said. Well, to start it off,
I want to take you back to thirty one days ago,
and this is what a certain individual had to say
about what's going to happen to the Trump administration.
Speaker 18 (01:11:30):
So, Dan, this is what I believe. I believe that
this administration in less than thirty days, in the midst
of a massive collapse, and particularly a collapse.
Speaker 1 (01:11:43):
In public opinion.
Speaker 18 (01:11:44):
Yea del Vopey at Harvard, who's very good. I used
to think once I saw Harvard youth poll, I've discounted it.
I've come to say it's pret damn good Pope, pretty
good guy. He's gone from fifty three approval to under
thirty to thirty nine.
Speaker 3 (01:12:00):
That's a collapse.
Speaker 18 (01:12:02):
And all we need to do. The analogy I use
is Pickett is five five hundred yards from the stone wall.
Oh you farna, it's gonna be easy pickings here in
a six weeks now.
Speaker 1 (01:12:18):
That's James Carve. Remember he said the Trump administration would
collapse in popular popular support. Right, Yes, that was thirty
one days ago. And he's so smart, Oh, he's very smart. Well,
along comes Henry Enton. He is the pollster for CNN. Yes,
new polls out. Listen to what Henry found out about
voters on CNN. Just on CNN. That's what Henry had
(01:12:40):
to say.
Speaker 23 (01:12:41):
I think sometimes it's important to do a little bit
of reality check and take a little different spin at
the numbers.
Speaker 1 (01:12:46):
I'm gonna do that right here, because all we talk
about is.
Speaker 23 (01:12:48):
How unpopular Donald Trump is, But in reality, he's basically
more popular than he was at any point in term
number one, and more popular than he was when he
won election back in November of twenty twenty four. What
are we talking about it is that fabull rating right
now comes in at minus four points. Compare that to
where he was when he won in November twenty twenty four,
when he was at minus seven points, or March of
(01:13:09):
twenty seventeen, when he was at minus ten points.
Speaker 20 (01:13:12):
So when you compare Trump.
Speaker 23 (01:13:13):
Against himself, he's actually closer to the apex than he
is to the bottom of the trough. And of course
that's so important because Donald Trump, historically speaking, is how
his numbers underestimated. So I think it's very important to
compare him to himself to understand he's actually more popular
now than he was when he won, or certainly where
he was at this point back in his first term.
(01:13:34):
The bottom line, as Trump is more towards the ceiling
than he is towards the floor.
Speaker 1 (01:13:38):
Wait a mine. James Carvel just predicted thirty one days
a collapse that was going to be a.
Speaker 3 (01:13:43):
Be a collapse.
Speaker 1 (01:13:44):
Yeah yeah, now that's a very bad Louisiana. Yeah, that
was very very bad. So here's what throws me. Greg
report came out today consumer confidence, Yes, showing conservative consumer
confidence has hit a four year low. Really, yeah, that's
what they're saying, right. Well, if that's the case, let's
(01:14:04):
do another thing that end and found out this.
Speaker 23 (01:14:07):
I think is rather important because again, if the polls
have historically underestimated Donald Trump, what is a metric that
might get it understanding and how popular he may actually be.
Speaker 1 (01:14:16):
So let's take a look.
Speaker 23 (01:14:17):
At the percentage of the country who say that.
Speaker 3 (01:14:19):
We're on the right track.
Speaker 1 (01:14:20):
It's actually a.
Speaker 23 (01:14:20):
Very high percentage when you compare it to some historical numbers.
Speaker 1 (01:14:23):
What are you talking about?
Speaker 23 (01:14:24):
According to Maris, forty five percent say that we're on
the right track. That's the second highest that Maris has
measured since two thousand and nine. How about NBC News
forty four percent, that's the highest since two thousand and four.
The bottom line is, the percentage of Americans who say
we're on the right track is through the roof. And
if you were to compare it to when presidents have
historically been re elected. Of course, Trump is not constitutionally
(01:14:44):
eligible to run for election, but I think it sort
of puts into perspective. Forty two percent of the country
says the country is on the right truck when the
incumbent party is reelected. And also keep in mind, back
when Kamala Harris lost on the Democrats or turned out
of power, only about twenty seven to twenty eight percent
of the country said the country is on the right track.
The bottom line is, right now, a much higher percentage
of the country says we're on the right track.
Speaker 1 (01:15:04):
Forty five percent of Americans say we're on the right track.
Speaker 3 (01:15:07):
So you said that the Consumer Conference Company.
Speaker 1 (01:15:09):
Was a four year lows that the country's on the
right track. That's that's what That's what CNN is reported.
Speaker 2 (01:15:15):
Well, I'll tell you this, I think it continues to
be the case that Donald Trump under polls. I don't
think that the people that support this president. I don't
think Americans in general are participating a whole lot in polls.
I don't know how pollsters are still, how they're reaching people,
or how they're waiting. You know, how they wait, you
know the the numbers, because it's not just call six
(01:15:37):
hundred people in the first six hundred answer that's your poll.
They take a certain number of unaffiliated Democrats Republicans and
they create some formula for it all. I don't know
how they're doing that, because I just think that most
people with the distrust of the media are not interested
in participating in anyone's poll.
Speaker 1 (01:15:55):
I wouldn't be people just hang up on them because
you get a called hi, this and so and so
from so and so group, and we'd like to click.
Speaker 3 (01:16:03):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (01:16:04):
A lot of people that they don't trust them.
Speaker 2 (01:16:06):
They probably use some online polls, but then you know,
online is a different demoo.
Speaker 1 (01:16:10):
Or I think online polling is just not very trustworthy
at all.
Speaker 2 (01:16:14):
No, Now, I just I just so, I think that
whatever you're seeing by way, first off, Carvel couldn't be
more wrong. I mean, everything he said was going to happen.
Just hold your fi Well, I guess what there's my
bad Louisiana accent. That's a raging Cajun accent. Hold your
FI five hundred aws from the wall. I just think, yeah,
go ahead, just keep doing well. But they're not holding
(01:16:35):
their fire. They're actually just they're imploding. They're continuing to
distance themselves from everyday American. So I just think that
I think one of Donald Trump's greatest assets and being
a president again, really is the Democrats and their behavior,
their behavior leading up to that election with the law fair.
I think there are people that would have considered a
(01:16:57):
different Republican candidate or nominee had the Democrats not so horrifically,
shamelessly and illegally attacked him through the FBI, through courts
in Georgia and New York. And I just think people
were just so offended by this and didn't want to
see them get away with it, and it actually helped
Trump in an incredible way.
Speaker 1 (01:17:17):
I wonder how many Americans are offended by all these
judges who are stopping Donald Trump. They're all saying, look,
we voted for the guy, we voted for the guy
to get things done. Yet you keep on telling them no, Yeah,
the American people are just sick of these judges.
Speaker 2 (01:17:32):
We from last yesterday's show to today's show, we have
yet another two federal judge ruling yes we do that
are again throwing up roadblocks in front of this president.
And so I have to believe that the American people
are tracking it. We're certainly going to keep you know,
there's news that you can that gets reported and we
explain why. I'm going to tell you that that the
Democrats don't have a policy, they don't have a vision,
(01:17:54):
they don't have a coalition, they don't have it.
Speaker 3 (01:17:56):
They're not a party.
Speaker 2 (01:17:57):
Of addition, the only thing the Democrats have right now
is the judicial branch and those that were appointed by
Democrat Biden and Obama. And you know, as as judges,
they judge, they shop jurisdictions. They only go to the
jurisdictions where they know they're going to run into a
Democrat appointed judge. And those judges are all they have
(01:18:18):
to try and slow down this administration, and they're doing
it blatantly, and obviously I'll give you an example, Rod quickly.
I just read this morning there was a so during
the Trump's first presidency in twenty twenty, in the last
year of his presidency, he had oil and gas.
Speaker 3 (01:18:32):
Leases up in the last little Yes.
Speaker 2 (01:18:34):
So there was a company that bought that did the auction,
got their oil and gas lease.
Speaker 1 (01:18:37):
And as soon as was on the North Slope.
Speaker 2 (01:18:39):
Yes, And when the Biden administration came in, Joe Biden wrote,
did an executive order that that rescinded those gas leases,
those oil and gas leases. Well, this company sued litigated
that was in twenty twenty one. The judge to day
it was today or yesterday March twenty fifth or twenty
sixth of twenty twenty five, you saw a ruling that
(01:19:02):
Biden did not have the authority to rescind that oil
and gas leak lease. That's five years. That's almost five
years it took to litigate that. Now, let's fast forward
to now. Every time a Democrat's mat at whatever he's doing,
they can get a federal judge in thirty eight seconds
to make a final ruling, to make a ruling, to
stop something, to reverse something. They get it inside of
an afternoon. It took this company five years to go
(01:19:26):
through the process. So these judges, these federal judges, not
only do they want to be president, they only want
to be president when there's a Republican that's president. Not
when there's a Democrat that they'll let that go. But
if there's a Republican that's a president, they have decided
they are going to take that role and they're going
to make the decisions of the executive branch. And it's
(01:19:47):
got to come to an end. It's got to be stopped.
But I'm not going to stop talking about it.
Speaker 1 (01:19:51):
And you wonder why the American people don't trust the
judicial branch. Yeah, it's pretty obvious. Boy, coming up here
on the Rod and Greg Show and Talk Radio one
oh five nine k NRS. Great to be with you
this evening. I brought our cat.
Speaker 3 (01:20:03):
I'm citizen Hughes.
Speaker 1 (01:20:04):
All right, let's talk about the We've talked a lot
about this, Greg, the Department of Education, Linda McMahon's charge
from president to get rid of it. So why such
an outcry, Remember that old line, just follow the money. Well,
that's what our next guest has done and has kind
of dug into what's going on with the panic over
the Department of Education. His name is Tyler O'Nell, Managing
(01:20:25):
editor of The Daily Signal. Tyler, how are you?
Speaker 3 (01:20:28):
Thanks for joining us, Hey, glad to be here.
Speaker 13 (01:20:31):
Thanks again for having me Ron.
Speaker 1 (01:20:32):
So Tyler, you decided to follow the money. What did
you find out when it comes to Doe.
Speaker 13 (01:20:39):
Yeah, well what I found was very interesting, so you So,
for those who don't know, the Department of Education effectively
doesn't have to exist. You know, everybody on the left
is acting as though getting rid of the Department means
we're going to be getting rid of education as a whole,
as if all the schools across the United States, which
(01:20:59):
is close tomorrow, if we close to the Department, that
I mean, for those of us who know, it's laughable,
but it's also like it's it's kind of you know,
the deceptive name. The Department of Education is really just
a hodgepodge of all sorts of you know, different education
related functions that the federal government does, but that arguably
(01:21:22):
other parts of the federal government could probably do more effectively,
and especially the states and local governments already make the
real concrete decisions when it comes to how education works
in this country. So getting rid of the Department of
Education would not have that big of an impact on
everyday students, especially if you have the aspects that the
(01:21:46):
federal government does like enforced Title nin you can put
that over to the Department of Justice handle you know,
all the all the tax pair grants and things that
go out for education. Maybe we should take a closer
look at the federal money that's being spent on education.
I mean, some of it maybe is good, but you know,
(01:22:06):
some of that needs to you know, can can easily
be handled by the Department of the Treasury, Department of Commerce,
other places. This small business administration is one that President
Trump has mentioned on this The real problem with getting
rid of the Department of Education, is the left sees
it is that it would take away the central hub
(01:22:30):
for the teachers unions that have these really close relationships with.
Speaker 1 (01:22:35):
The Department of Education.
Speaker 13 (01:22:37):
And the real weakness here is that these teachers unions,
like education for most intents and purposes in the states,
are their power bases in the states and in the
cities and the localities, and they have to justify having
their national offices in DC, the NEA, and the AFT.
(01:23:00):
If suddenly the Department of Education were to close tomorrow,
it would be really hard to convince, you know that,
to convince the teachers in provo that they need to
be sending part of their dollars to uphold an office
in Washington, d C. And so, you know, this is
the real and when it comes to following the money.
(01:23:22):
And sorry, this is a long answer to your quick question,
but I found that the two biggest teachers unions in
the US, the American Federation of Teachers in the National
Education Association, have been bankrolling democrats and democratic leaning causes.
You know, so many of these organizations I call them
(01:23:42):
woke to pus. There are these woke NGOs that seed
their staff and ideas in the federal government. And we
saw this really ramped up to eleven in the Biden administration,
when essentially you had these woke elites using the administrative
state to force their agenda on the American people. And
(01:24:03):
now Trump is dismantling it. But this is one of
the things. You know, all these organizations were receiving some
money from the deep from these teachers unions, and suddenly,
if the teachers' unions are struggling to have an impact
in Washington, that funding stream is also going to dry up.
Speaker 2 (01:24:22):
So you mentioned it, and this is where I want
to kind of close the loop. They have political power,
they have political influence, but when you talk about woke NGOs.
I've learned since President Trump has become president through Doge
and even through an X page called Data Republican where
she's been using the DOGE information and she does the
(01:24:44):
she does programming, but AI the amount of money going
to nonprofits NGOs that start out as federal money and
then really get washed through universities, through different entities, and
then come back to some of the most liberal causes.
Do you know is the Department of Education funding through
NGOs and ultimately to our unions? Is In other words,
(01:25:07):
if the Department of Education didn't exist, is that a
revenue stream for the unions that they will no longer have?
Speaker 3 (01:25:14):
It's what one thing to have influenced.
Speaker 2 (01:25:16):
But are they going to lose real dollars through these
NGOs if the Department of Education is dismantled.
Speaker 13 (01:25:24):
So I don't have the I mean, the short answer
is yes. How do you get to that Yes? Is
a little bit complicated because when I don't think it's
as simple as the Department of Education funnels a lot
of money directly to these unions, but the unions. The
(01:25:46):
way it all works is, you know, most of the
teachers in these unions are public, public employees, and so
the money, you know, the money that's changing hands, does
end up like it does go from and especially you know,
the way that these teachers' unions advocate for more spending
(01:26:11):
and more, you know, because one of the reasons we
have an overhead, you know, really crisis when it comes
to education in this country, where one of the reasons
education is increasingly expensive is because you have more and
more of these administrators.
Speaker 8 (01:26:27):
And part of the.
Speaker 13 (01:26:28):
Reason for that is the unions want there to be
as many people in the industry as possible, and so
they keep they keep demanding more of these positions, and
there's this great you know, DEI has been a really
horrible way for people to try to justify extra jobs
and extra funding funding streams, and so essentially you just
(01:26:52):
add more staff and you call them DEI and then
you have more people who are making more money. And
I'm not sure if these people are actually adding any value.
Speaker 22 (01:27:02):
Most of the time it seems.
Speaker 1 (01:27:03):
Like they're.
Speaker 2 (01:27:05):
I know, I know the answer to that one, Tyler,
one final question for you on this.
Speaker 1 (01:27:11):
Do you think we'll see the day when the doe
just goes away? I mean, how much of a reality
are we looking at here.
Speaker 13 (01:27:18):
It really depends, so ultimately, I think there's a good
chance we'll see that day. But you know, and I
don't I don't want to pour too much cold water
on our discussion, but I really do think that unless
Congress acts, something called the Department of Education is going
to remain even if Linda McMahon is successful in getting
(01:27:42):
pretty much all of its functions reassigned.
Speaker 1 (01:27:45):
Tyler, great, great story, great work on that. Thank you
very much for your time.
Speaker 13 (01:27:51):
Yeah, thanks again for having me.
Speaker 1 (01:27:52):
All right, that's Tyler O'Neil, Managing editor of The Daily Signal.
More coming up on the Robin Greig Show and you
Ta's Talk Radio one oh five nine K and are as.
Speaker 2 (01:28:01):
We appreciate you being part of this audience. It's a
growing audience.
Speaker 1 (01:28:05):
Yes, Yes, Jesse Kelly by the way, coming your way
at the top of the hour after we wrap things up. Boy, Greg,
have times have changed?
Speaker 3 (01:28:13):
Times are changing?
Speaker 10 (01:28:14):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (01:28:14):
Yes, remember the first dream Donald Trump, first term of
Donald Trump, and sports teams wouldn't go within a thousand
miles of the White House to be recognized for their achievements,
including the LA Dodgers. Yes, times have changed. The Dodgers
have now accepted an invitation to be honored at the
White House for winning the World Series.
Speaker 2 (01:28:33):
It just must kill the left, the media. It just
must make them so sad. It just do you think
they they they've realized that they they just overplayed their hand.
Is there any self reflection that happens, any self awareness
amongst them?
Speaker 3 (01:28:49):
I just honestly, I wonder.
Speaker 2 (01:28:50):
I wonder if they look at what the MPR CEO
did today and said, Wow, she did a great job,
because she didn't. It was a it was a pretty
bad performance. And I wonder if they are like, oh,
she really crushed it. She did so well, not really well.
Now that you're a part time California resident, don't say
that now I listen, don't see you're pressing my buttons again.
Speaker 3 (01:29:14):
Toilet, don't gonna get me on that again. Just don't
even mention it. Don't even mention it.
Speaker 1 (01:29:18):
Well, California finally may have had enough. I'll believe it
when I see it. But apparently. A survey by polster
David Wolfson found that nearly half of likely California voters
are now considering voting for a Republican to be next
their next Covenant.
Speaker 3 (01:29:37):
Well it's about time.
Speaker 2 (01:29:39):
I mean, how much do they have to be abused
and and and the hypocrisy just run rampant in that
state and then finally get a clue.
Speaker 1 (01:29:46):
Yeah. So here's what's interesting about this. This polster points
out that more than one point five million, mostly Republican
voters have fled the Golden State in recent years. Yet
this poll shows that forty six percent left for you left,
and some Democrats are saying, we need a Republican governor.
Speaker 19 (01:30:06):
They do.
Speaker 2 (01:30:06):
And look, it wasn't that long ago when they had
Republicans in there. Remember be one Bob Dornan, Remember how
great he was. B One Bob got, he got totally.
They tried to do to this whole country what they
did to his congressional district by just bringing in all
the undocumented immigrants to vote against him. They tried to
do that to this whole whole country.
Speaker 1 (01:30:26):
Anyway, one other story you will love. I don't know
how they're going to do this right, but apparently now
in San Francisco they're putting up speed cameras. Okay, if
you're caused speeding, you could get a ticket. Gavin Newsom's idea,
which Apparently the San Francisco City Council is considering adopting
will the amount of money you pay for that speeding
ticket will be based on your income.
Speaker 2 (01:30:48):
Oh my goodness, that is the worst thing I've ever heard.
That makes me so mad.
Speaker 3 (01:30:51):
How about a poop camera?
Speaker 2 (01:30:53):
They had to do that because have you ever seen
how they had the apps where they tried to show
it and then all a sudden the whole city was brown.
Speaker 3 (01:30:58):
They couldn't There was poopiles.
Speaker 2 (01:30:59):
Yeah, it was just so much they couldn't even make
an app out of it anymore. They ought to be
putting cameras out for that and leave us our drivers alone.
Speaker 1 (01:31:07):
How will you determine that? What they're gonna look at
your fanancial records?
Speaker 2 (01:31:13):
I just can't even believe that's an idea. But it's
so bad. Of course he does speeding tickets based on
your income. And they wonder why some people in California
would like to have a Republican governor. Yeah, no republic
Indian is right, mind would think about doing anything like that.
Speaker 3 (01:31:34):
Oh, I would just never be a resident, a true resident.
Speaker 2 (01:31:37):
There will never be a government issued ID with my
name on it or my picture that has California on
the ID.
Speaker 3 (01:31:44):
It will never happen in my life, all.
Speaker 1 (01:31:46):
Right, that does for us tonight, Head up, shoulders back,
Make God bless you and your family and this great,
great country of ours. Enjoy your Wednesday, Wingman Wednesday. We're
back tomorrow
The Rod & Greg Show News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!