The Rod and Greg Show: Human Cost off Minnesota Fraud Scandal; Hawaii 2nd Amendment SCOTUS case; Left's Theater of the Absurd

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Ah, the things that are being said that are just true,
A true and b not really being argued by, argued
against by the people in the crowd. And there seems
to be a lot of people joining in with the
President and his sentiment that I'm happy to hear. Yeah,
it's a great time.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
On wing Man Wednesday, we like to talk about Maverick
and Goose. You know, it takes a lot of guts
to fly the way they do, you know, to be
real honest, the training these guys go through. I mean,
what do they do? They fly f thirty fives out
of Hill Air Force Base. I mean it takes a
lot of guts to fly one of those things. Right.
So here in a second, I'm going to tell you
about a guy I think has a lot of guts.
We'll get to that in just a minute. Well, we've

(00:39):
got a great show lined up for you today. You know,
finally today in a House committee hearing the human face
was put on on the fraud in Minnesota. A human
face because all we do is hear about the treatment
of ice and what they're doing to protesters about the
poor some mollies and all they were trying to do.
But nobody has told the other side of the story,
and we're going to get into that. An interesting committee

(01:02):
hearing today, Greg, you and I were listening to this
before the show started up on the Hill today about
a Utah version of the Save Act.

Speaker 1 (01:09):
I know, you know, it's so intuitive. We'll get into
the details of it. Representative Corey malloy ran as running
the bill, had a successful hearing today in the House.
You'll hear the details and you'll say, duh, who would
ever vote against it? Well, we had to painfully listen
to a lot of people and people members of the
public speak against it, but it ultimately passed ninety three.

Speaker 2 (01:30):
Yeah, well, are we surprised? The League of Women Voters
and the Mormon Women for Ethical Government were opposed to
the idea.

Speaker 1 (01:36):
They do not want id They do not They think
that democracy is protected when you have no idea who votes? Yeah,
that is their position, So you know, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:45):
We'll talk about that. John Lott will join us. John,
of course, he is the president of the Crime Prevention
Research Center. He listened in on a Supreme Court hearing
yesterday on a challenge to the Second Amendment again, and
our good friend Guy Shiraki will join us. Before we
wrap up the show tonight. So we've got a lot
to get to. Great to be with you. If you
want to be a part of the program eight eight

(02:06):
eight five seven eight zero one zero on your cell
phone dial pound two fifty and say hey Rod, Or
you can leave us a comment on our talkback line
by downloading the iHeart Radio app. All right, Donald Trump.
You can say a lot of things about Donald Trump,
would you agree? People say just about everything about Donald.

Speaker 1 (02:24):
I sense a pattern recognition here. Yes, I have heard
a lot of things about Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (02:28):
But let me tell you what. This guy has more
guts greg, in my opinion, than any leader I've ever
seen in this country before. It's I mean, paint this
picture for you. Okay. He's been talking about Greenland for
months now, right, the importance of Greenland. Yes, you know,
Word has mentioned as part of his negotiating tool that
he'd be willing to even invade invade Greenland and that

(02:52):
and because Europe does not understand Donald Trump, neither do
a lot of Americans understand Donald Trump, they all freaked out,
you know, they all freaked out. Well, here's Trump showing
up today at Dovos in Switzerland, this World Economic Forum
that they have every year. Years ago, they were talking
about climate change and hear that come up to me.

Speaker 1 (03:12):
Actually the opposite of climate change came up this year.

Speaker 2 (03:15):
Yeah. So Donald Trump shows up in front of between
sixty and eighty worldwide leaders, many of them from Europe,
and just tells them this, you wouldn't be here without
the United States of America. You'd be talking German or Japanese.
And that's what he said, if it wasn't for the
United States of America, and you are not pulling your

(03:37):
weight when it comes to global security. So because of that,
all we do is want Greenland to protect not only
the United States, but Europe as well. And he laid
it out perfectly for him today. That took, in my opinion,
a lot of guns.

Speaker 1 (03:54):
Yes, And what you're seeing, folks, And why that is
so I think brave and it's it's it's so different
than what we've seen before. Is there's this term called
shuttle diplomacy. Usually there's just layers upon layers upon layers
of state department bureaucracy, diplomats, people that communicate, that communicate
to the people that will then ultimately communicate to a

(04:15):
head of state. And you have this shuttle diplomacy, and
one wonders if Water ever gets the end of the
row with Donald Trump. He just puts it out on
social media. Well, he would say, this is the one president,
and I honestly don't think they'll ever be another one
like him. What he says in private sounds probably with
just that without the swears, probably exactly what he says publicly.

(04:36):
This is one of the most transparent presidents we will
ever have leading this country. He sat in front of
a media audience, a media, a presspool yesterday for two hours,
would answer anything, and they still wanted more. He will
speak directly to heads of state over a text or
through social media instead of going through all these shuttle
diplomacy and all the bureaucracy that's been created over these things.

(04:58):
His in what what we see is we see the response.
We see a positive response. We even saw we said
yesterday that how does NATO given this national security issues
related to Greenland which we didn't know about. I don't
think before he was elected recently, Panama Canal being one
second being Greenland, I didn't know that. I didn't understand
these things as well.

Speaker 3 (05:17):
Well.

Speaker 2 (05:18):
We do now.

Speaker 1 (05:18):
But everything we see would ultimately and also protect Europe.
So the question yesterday was why a simple thank you
would be nice? Where's NATO? Well, where was NATO today?

Speaker 2 (05:28):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (05:29):
Secretary Jerald came up and say, hey, we're with him Trump.
He's actually got it right. I don't hate to tell
you folks, you're gonna like what you're going to hear
from me, But NATO actually agrees with what the presidents say.
I mean, come on, that is an amazing moment.

Speaker 2 (05:43):
And how many Americans over the years, Greg, You've heard
people say, I've heard people say, why are we sending
millions of dollars to Europe? And what are we getting
out of it?

Speaker 3 (05:51):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (05:52):
And he hit it right on the head today. All right,
let's let's do a few of the comments from him.
First of all, this lengthy comment where he's talking about
Trump or talking about Greenland and the US using force.

Speaker 4 (06:02):
We never asked for anything and we never got anything.
We probably won't get anything unless I decided to use
excessive strength and force where we would be frankly unstoppable.

Speaker 3 (06:16):
But I won't do that. Okay.

Speaker 4 (06:20):
Now everyone's saying, oh good, that's probably the biggest statement
I made because people thought I would use force.

Speaker 3 (06:27):
I don't have to use force. I don't want to
use force. I won't use force.

Speaker 4 (06:31):
All the United States is asking for is a place.

Speaker 3 (06:34):
Called Greenland, where we already had it.

Speaker 4 (06:38):
As a trustee, but respectfully returned it back to Denmark
not long ago. After we defeated the Germans, the Japanese,
the Italians and others in World War Two.

Speaker 3 (06:49):
We gave it back to them.

Speaker 4 (06:51):
We were a powerful force then, but we are much
more powerful force now after I rebuilt the military in
my first term and continue to do so today.

Speaker 2 (07:00):
There's another reminder to the European leaders that hey, you know,
without the US, where would you be today? Just another reminder.
Then he talked about Greenland specifically and really why he
wants it.

Speaker 3 (07:12):
All we want from Denmark.

Speaker 4 (07:15):
For national and international security and to keep our very
energetic and dangerous potential enemies at bay. Is this land
on which we're going to build the greatest golden dome
ever built.

Speaker 3 (07:28):
We're building a golden dome.

Speaker 2 (07:29):
Now, remember the Golden Dome. America helped Israel build this
whole golden dome, and how effective that's been. And he
sees a threat because Greenland is kind of right, is
a direct from Russia to the United States. That's correct,
And he does not trust Putin. He says he's his friend,
he gets along with him, but he doesn't trust him
at all, and he wants to make sure America is secure.

Speaker 1 (07:52):
And what that means is intercontinental ballistic missiles. Yeah, are
always looking if it's from one country, one one continent
to another, you're looking for the shorter Well, there is
no shorter route than from Moscow from Russia to the
United States then over the top of Greenland. So if
you're going to have a dome, if you're going to
have a protection of star wars, that Reagan pursues something
that would shoot those in orbit after they've left the

(08:15):
atmosphere because they have to go you know, they have
to go intercontinental. You destroy them there so they don't land.
This is the place where it protects both Europe, it
protects the United States North America. And it makes perfect sense.
And again I go back to NATO. This should be
part of the charter, should be part of the mission
that they are protected. When you look at where those
bases are, we aren't. And now that we learned that

(08:38):
Russia has these ice crusher nuclear powered ice crushers. They
can go through ice, go into routes that we once
were not navigable, and we know they can do that.
Now in America does not even have that technology or
that ability, that Arctic region becomes more vulnerable. Therefore it
becomes more important that we have protection. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (08:58):
Yeah, And he said during the speech, state says, I
don't want a lease. Leases don't work. No, I want control.
And that's what he said today, and a point was made.
I was listening to some of the commentary after his
remarks today. At the end of his first term, Greg
Denmark pledged two hundred and twenty million dollars for security
for Denmark in the region and for Greenland as well.

(09:20):
He leaves office, they've committed one percent of that to security.
Do you see why he wants it back? And he understands.
So a lot of people have asked me, probably you.
They've come up me and said, what's his deal with Greenland? Well,
understand the importance of this for the security of the
United States. I think you'll understand why he wants Greenland.

Speaker 1 (09:38):
It's essential, and I think he feels this pressure that
if it doesn't happen on his watch, the chances that
it will happen, even if a Republican JD Vance or
someone else were to win. There's not very many people
with the strength of will of this president, and I
think he has a lot of confidence in himself to
get some things done. I don't think he wants to
leave something as dangerous as this to someone else to

(09:59):
have to know. He's ready to take the arrows, he's
ready to take the criticism, but he knows it has
to happen, and he goes right into the belly of
the beast, right in front of every single one of
them and says, hey, you wouldn't be here without us,
and you know you never pay your fair share, we
never get help for doing it, but this we need
to do. Well, he'll be a beneficiary as well.

Speaker 2 (10:17):
Apparently, Greg, you got what he wanted because he's leaving.
He says he has a framework pretty close to a
deal that's being done. So whatever he tried to do,
he may have succeeded. Again. All right, we've got a
lot to get to today. Thanks for joining us on the
wing Man Wednesday edition of The Rotting Greg Show and
Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine. Kay An arrest
you know, Greg, with all the discussion we're having about Minnesota,

(10:38):
I think one of the issues that certainly the regime
media is not covering is the human factor in this
Minnesota fraud tile. I mean, this was more than just
a bunch of scammers stealing money. I think it was
really money meant for vulnerable Minnesotas and kids. And you
heard that during the hearing today where this mom with
an autistic child said, he's the one being hurt. He

(11:01):
is he is, So they put a human face on
him finally today.

Speaker 1 (11:05):
Yes, and we want to delve into that a little
deeper because I think this part of the story we
just hear as the word fraud and we don't really
put as much context in it. And I think that
Bethany Mandel joining us. She's a journalist and author. Her
column is Human The Human Cost of Minnesota of the
Minnesota fraud scandal. Bethany, thank you for joining us. Now
I got to tell you, I got to confess the look.

(11:26):
I'm a recovering public servant. Okay, I'm coming out of
it the other side. But I know this about about
state government. If you have a federally administered program, if
you have a federal program like Medicaid or Medicare, there
is a state match. There is money that the state
cannot print that must match whatever amount you're going to
bring in for a federal program. So when we talk

(11:47):
about federal programs and all the fraud, it's not just
Washington printing money. There's an amount because the state like Minnesota,
has to match real taxpayer dollars that have to pay
for these services. Well, my question is, if that's the case,
and we know that money's finite, then it is a
reality that children, the elderly, the disabled, people that these

(12:07):
programs were designed for are going without. And my question
to you is, is anyone tracking that part of this story.

Speaker 5 (12:14):
We're never going to get rid of Medicaid. We're never
going to get rid of all of these programs, some
of which you know, do serve an important vital societal need.
But no one seems no one, no one is capable
of sort of seeing it very pragmatically, because everyone kind
of has to look through a lens that's political, either

(12:34):
on one side or the other, but especially you know
with these programs that I live in Maryland. You know,
this is just an example. There's a working Parent's Assistance
Fund for childcare. And it's the same kind of program
that they use in Minnesota and in my county, it's
out of money. They've been on a wait list since
September and once you're out, you're out. That's it. And

(12:56):
it's the same on the state level here in Maryland.
And I mean the result I know it's for a
fact because I know people are committing fraud with this program.
The reason that there is no money is because people
are committing fraud. So here we are, and you know,
working parents who are making, you know, just above the
poverty line don't get the assistance that they need to

(13:17):
keep on working to work their way up to be
able to afford the astronomical cost of childcare in this county,
in this country.

Speaker 2 (13:24):
Real human face on that story, Bethany. From the numbers
I've seen, they're about seventy to eighty thousand simonions in
Minnesota with a population of nearly six million people. Why
were state officials do you think so reluctant to investigate
this fraud? What was going on here?

Speaker 5 (13:41):
Do you think that's one of those questions that you
knew the answer to, wasn't it? Nobody wants to be
called racist. Nobody wants to even open the door to
be yawlled racist. And you know that when you ask
that question, you are opening a door wide open in

(14:02):
a Minnesota winter, and that is not a pleasant feeling,
especially as a lawmaker on the other end, no matter
what your political affiliation. And so everyone kind of looks
the other way, especially in a state that's as blue
as Minnesota, because the alternative is so unappealing and there's
no incentive structure to open that door. There's no good
reason to uncover fraud if you're a Democrat in Minnesota,

(14:24):
so you just look the other way.

Speaker 1 (14:26):
So, Bethany, I have a question, and that is I
think we had a moment we did. You said that
you're recovering liberal. I said, I'm a recovering public servant.
I think this is this is great. So my question, though,
is tell me from the from the perspective of someone
left of center, who I would think empathy and wanting
to help the vulnerable and the social safety net is
has been the leading charge for generations. How is it

(14:47):
that this fraud where it does deprive the needy people
that need that social safety net, how are they how
are they okay with it? Where did the leap happen?
Where we're okay and we're callous to the circle cumstances
and the conditions of our fellow being.

Speaker 2 (15:02):
How can that?

Speaker 1 (15:02):
Where did that happen?

Speaker 2 (15:04):
Or how?

Speaker 5 (15:05):
I am formerly of the left because this cognitive dissidence
that you have to have to be a progressive in
America is something I'm not capable of. And honestly, like,
maybe I should take gymnastics classes and I would be
more flexible and I'd be able to support myself in
ways that like Minnesota Democrats are apparently able to do.
But as a as a you know, bleeding heart conservative,

(15:27):
I guess I I it's horrifying and infuriating to me
that all of these people who really need these services.
And it's by the way, and I mentioned this, it's
the column is in the Washington Examiner, by the way.
But the another unintended consequence is it brings a lot
of spotlight onto the Somali community in general, both domestically

(15:49):
and internationally. And this spotlight uncovered fraud in international programs
with a development that was happening in Somalia, and so
those programs were cut as well. So this Malli community
really should have an incentive at this point to cut
the fraud both domestically and internationally, because it's really affecting
their community. But progressives should be helping them do that.

(16:11):
They should be saying, you know, we got to clean
up because we want to help you guys, but you
help us help you, and that's not something that progressive.

Speaker 2 (16:18):
You're saying to that, Bethanie, thanks for joining us on
the show this afternoon. You know, Greg, she makes such
a good point here just a second ago. Why aren't
the Democrats helping the Somalis become part of America and
having success here instead of allowing them to just rip
off the country what they've been doing. Why aren't the
Democrats stepping up and say you've come to this country,
you're looking for opportunity, let us help you. And they

(16:41):
aren't doing that.

Speaker 1 (16:41):
They're not. I've met people that have legally immigrated this
country and English is a second language for them, and
their comment to me, and I've heard this before, is
I would want I want my children to learn English
because I don't want them to be just relegated to
housekeepers or job or landscapers or just jobs that where
they can't do anything they want. If they want to

(17:02):
do something in America, you have to be able to
immerse yourself in all the opportunities of the country, which
includes speaking the language, you know, being part of America,
not excluding yourself. So why do the Democrats not want
the American opportunity, the freedom of self determination to be
anything you want, no matter what wherever that may be.
Why don't they want that for these Somali refugees. They

(17:23):
need victims, they need victims they want. I think they
want to back I think they want the feudal system
back to. I think they like the caste system. They're
really saying, you know, good old days, back when you
had it monarchies and feudal systems. I mean, these people
need to learn their place. I really think they don't
look with compassion. They look with arrogance at the everyday people.

Speaker 2 (17:43):
Go back to the founding of this country, people in
this country wanted to be citizens. They didn't want to
be subjects. They wanted to be citizens. Correct, And that's
what the Democrats need to be reminded of. People want
to be citizens, not subjects to their way of ruling.
All right, we've got a lot to get to today.
Hey morning, come right here on Utah's Talk Radio one
O five nine kayn R s.

Speaker 1 (18:04):
Well, folks, joining us. We mentioned this at the beginning
of the program that an important committee was held and
an important bill introduced and passed out of the House committee.
It is a bill that requires imagine this photo legal
photo ID to vote. There's some complications on how you
how you maneuver this with the federal law. Senator Michael
has been working on that. Joining us on the program.

(18:24):
Representative Corey Malloy, Uh, Corey, thank you for joining us
on the program.

Speaker 3 (18:30):
Thank you.

Speaker 6 (18:31):
It's awesome to be here, especially with you.

Speaker 1 (18:34):
Speaker Hughes Well, I'll tell you you know what. We
were listening to the hearing right before the show started,
listening to how it was going, and you had some
you had some you know, negative knee bobs in there
kind of complain about what you're doing. But would you
explain to our audience the bill that you're pursuing, why
it is the way it is, and how it would work.

Speaker 6 (18:53):
Okay, great. It's basically what it does is it enforces
allows you how to enforce the constitutional situations where US
citizens vote in our elections, both federally and state And
so what it does is basically allows our election officials

(19:18):
to require and ask those that they may think that
are not US citizens to show that they are. And
if they're not, they can still vote in federal elections
like our congressman, senators and so on, but they would
not be able to vote in a statewide election unless

(19:39):
they can show that they are a US citizens. So
that's it in a real quick brief nutshell. But there's
the bigg I think that what people worry about, and
rightfully so as well, how do we know that they're
US citizens or not? And it was very important to
me that as we put this bill together that the

(20:02):
responsibility to show if you're a US citizen or not
it does not follow on citizens, if it should fall
on those who are non citizens. And so if tried
to structure it in.

Speaker 7 (20:13):
A way that that.

Speaker 6 (20:14):
Would be the responsibility that non citizens have to show
that they're a citizen or not. And like I said,
if they are non citizens, they can vote in a
federal election, the federal election, but not the statewide But
even then if they feel like they can show that

(20:34):
they're a citizen. But there is a little bit of
doubt there. They can still go ahead and do a
provisional vote on a full Utah election. They just have
to be able to show that they are a US
citizen before the first before the one day before the
canvassing of an election, or their state portion of the

(20:58):
ballot will not count the federal still.

Speaker 2 (21:00):
Would Representative molloy great to be with you. I think
you just blew me off because you said it's not
or just speak to mister, not.

Speaker 3 (21:07):
To make.

Speaker 1 (21:09):
This is my brother in arms we're talking.

Speaker 2 (21:10):
I'm at all. Is it fair to say, Representative this
is kind of a Utah version of what Mike Lee
is trying to do on the federal level.

Speaker 7 (21:19):
I think so.

Speaker 6 (21:20):
And you know, Washington and the White House specifically, they're
watching this. They're watching this bill. They're very supportive of it,
and I think it just brings more credibility to what
we would like to see at a federal level. So
most definitely, represent malloy. Let me ask you this question.
I've been told.

Speaker 1 (21:36):
I mean, one of the arguments against Senator Lee's bill
that would require US citizenship to vote is Democrats say, well, there,
it's already the law. You can't you're not allowed to
vote in elections if you're not a citizen. So it's
an unnecessary bill. But the way you just described it,
you just kept saying, if you're not a citizen, you
can still vote in a federal election. Help clarify for me,

(21:57):
is it does Mike Lee Senator Lee's bill just make
sure that that's the case or currently today, can people
that are not citizens of the United States vote in
elections federal elections?

Speaker 6 (22:08):
Yeah, well, so technically everyone has to be a US
citizen to vote, even in a federal election, but the
Feds that lined it up over the years where all
you have to do is say I'm a citizen, whether
you are or not, and then you can vote. And
that's kind of that's kind of where we're at here
in Utah. That's why you see kind of the two
ballot approach. And so if I were like a non citizen,

(22:33):
but I would wanted to vote in the election, I
could say I'm a non citizen and that I want
to vote, but that I want to vote, and no,
you're right, I would say I am a citizen, and
that's all that needs to be said to vote in
the federal portion of the election, and so what I

(22:54):
think Mike Lee's doing, what the White House would like
to do, is to do the same thing. It's like,
if you're not US citizen, you don't get the vote, period.
And that's what I think what happened there.

Speaker 2 (23:05):
Yeah, and I noticed the other day House Majority Leader
Steve Scalise on a national level says they plan to
move on this and see if they can get this
done on the federal level. I think it was a
nine to three vote today before the committee. As we
were watching this and you were part of that committee,
do you feel you've got some support in this on
the state level to get this done?

Speaker 7 (23:26):
Oh?

Speaker 6 (23:26):
Yeah, yeah, totally. I think I think the committee vote
was a very clear signal. The three non votes were
our Democrat colleagues. They have issues with this. I don't
know why, but they do, and I.

Speaker 1 (23:40):
Know why, but I won't say it.

Speaker 6 (23:44):
Yeah yeah, yeah, you know better than just send anybody.
But but yeah, so I feel like we have some
really good momentum. We have the Lieutenant governor's support, they
participate in helping this put this bill together. We have
the county clerks support, we have the governor's support, and

(24:04):
we have an increasing number of people at the federal
level who really support us in this bill, and so
I really feel very optimistic that we're going to.

Speaker 2 (24:13):
Get this to do So.

Speaker 1 (24:15):
Finally, does this require is this a proof of citizenship?
Is it? Is it memorialized in your your voter registration
or do you have to show ID to UH to
to vote at a voting location or to drop off
a mail in ballot? Would you have to present your
driver's license or ID or how does that? How does
that what's the what's the logistics of what you're talking about,

(24:35):
assuming that it passes.

Speaker 6 (24:38):
Yeah, the driver's license, as far as showing it as
an identification to cast your ballot, it's completely separate from this. Basically,
the driver's license really only comes into play based on
what's behind that driver's license, because to get one, you
have to show you a citizenship and so we so

(25:00):
they are keeping that record when they get a driver's license,
and then that's dished over to the Lieutenant Governor's office,
which is then you know, given to all of the
election officials throughout the state. So there is a record
of their declaration of being a US citizen, and they
have to do it in a way that's legitimate, like

(25:22):
naturalization records drivers are not. But their certificates, the alien
registration number that legal immigrants have in our country, they
can show that, which would show their progress through becoming
a US citizens as a legal immigrant, and they can

(25:43):
use that number to show that they have reached citizenship status. So,
you know, one of the key points I made, and
I think it's a very important point, is you know,
you know, we'll have our Democrat friends and other people
saying this is a terrible bill for this ree than
that reason, and this reason usually falls down to they
feel like we're still segmenting populations and stuff like that.

(26:08):
There's nothing further from the truth. The bottom line is
everybody that lives in Utah, we want them to be
able to vote. But you have to be able to
vote in a legal manner, and that requires being a
US citizen. So does that mean we want to leave
out US citizens? Not necessarily. We'd love to see all

(26:29):
immigrants in our state work towards becoming citizens of the
United States, and once they do, take part in all
the blessings that that entails, including participating in our elections.
And I shared a story there at the end when
I was summing them the bill of a couple of
some very close friends with me and my wife who

(26:50):
immigrated from Brazil and lived here for a couple of decades,
raising their family, doing everything.

Speaker 8 (26:56):
Legally.

Speaker 6 (26:56):
They were for all intents and purposes citizens, but in
their day for naturalization came and we went to that
event and it was such a sacred event to watch
someone become a US citizen. And then they turned around
and went and registered to vote, and they became became
active voters in our state. And that's what it's all about.

(27:17):
And it's just it's it's everybody should desire to participant
in elections, want to participant in elections, and just work
towards that status if they need to work towards it
to be a legal voter, you know. And so once
that occurs, it's like more power to.

Speaker 2 (27:35):
N Yeah, great story. Thank you for sharing that. Representative.
Thank you. We'll keep our eye on this and good
luck with it. Thank you. Thank you all right, stay
Representative Corey Malloy, you're on the Rod and Great Show
in Utah's Talk Radio one O five to nine. Anners
Scott Bessons, who I think has become a rock star
in the Trump Administration Eagan Davos, as is California Governor

(27:55):
Newsom Newsom called him smug the other day. Here was
his resk. I think it's very, very.

Speaker 9 (28:04):
Ironic that Governor Newsom, who strikes me as Patrick Bateman,
meets Sparkle beach Ken, maybe the only Californian who knows
less about economics than Kamala Harris. He's here this week
with his billionaire sugar daddy, Alex Soros, and the Davos

(28:24):
is a perfect place for a man who when everyone
else is on lockdown, when he was having people arrested
for going to he was having on thousand dollars a
night meals at the French laundry. And I'm sure the
California people won't forget that. And I can tell my
message to Governor Newsom is the Trump Administration is coming
to California. We're going to crack down on waste, fraud

(28:48):
and abuse. And I was told he was asked to
give a speech on his signature policies, but he's not speaking.

Speaker 2 (28:57):
I tell you what. At the end of that coming
was asked, one want to ask me a question about that?
And everybody just laughed. He basically said what he believed in.
I mean, it's pretty funny I'm doing. He's a rock star.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
So I had I heard that quote this morning, okay,
and I but I have to admit that I wasn't.
I wasn't up on the kids lingo like I didn't
know who who Patrick Bateman is or was I.

Speaker 2 (29:20):
Psycho from what I understand, right, ye, right, no American psycho?

Speaker 1 (29:24):
Yeah, and so I and so there and then the
and then the Sparkle Beach. That's that's the bar I
think that's the beach. It's the beach Barbie or Ken.
It's the beach Ken in the Barbie movie. So you know,
I think it fits. I really do. I think that
that's a beautiful uh American psycho and uh Sparkle beach
Ken from the Barbie movie.

Speaker 2 (29:44):
The end he goes and when I have any questions
about how I feel, and the room erupted in laughter.

Speaker 1 (29:50):
That's right, it was great. He brought his A game
to Davos wing Man.

Speaker 2 (29:54):
Wednesday, the five o'clock hours coming up. Stay with us.
I'm rod our Kat, Susan Greg.

Speaker 1 (29:59):
He we have so we have so many clips, but
I don't I don't think we want to spend the
five o'clock hour on all the all the clips coming
out of Davos. But I'm reading and I think, you
know Trump does this, and you know he doesn't. This
isn't like a hidden strategy. This isn't some secret you
know formula that he always says, uninterrupted, if nobody wants

(30:21):
to talk to me, this is what I'm gonna do, yea,
And everybody knows that he's not kidding there is. He
will invade Greenland if nobody wants to talk to him,
and he wants to do it in a smart way
of where everybody wins. But if no one wants to
talk to him, he's here to say we're going we're
going to go there, and we're going to protect America
and we're gonna peck protect North America and you'll benefit
to Europe. But if nobody wants to help out, we'll

(30:44):
just do it anyway.

Speaker 3 (30:45):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (30:45):
Well, they don't like that, So what do they do.
They negotiate and they come back and they allow for
an agreement where Trump's announcing right now he's not going
to impose the tariffs on those countries that were threatening,
you know, economic sanctions against the United States. If he
kept talking about Greenland all the things that they were saying.
He said in response to that he was going to

(31:06):
place tariffs on them, he announced that he is not
going to place those terrifts because they've got a deal.
So what the deal is is that they're not going
to see the invasion happen. They're going to do something.
But that's what Trump always does. Trump always says, if
no one wants to talk and get reasonable, I'm going
to do this. And you that doesn't work for everybody,

(31:26):
because not everybody has the strength of will that this
man has. But they know he's not kidding, and so
there you go.

Speaker 2 (31:32):
Well they don't. First of all, I think he should
give every European leader an autograph copy of the art
of the deal. They've lived it so they can kind
of understand where it's going from Jack and mccopy of read.
This is part of his negotiation strategy. He throws them
a curve there, Oh, he's going to invade Greenland. What

(31:53):
are we going to do? How do we respond to this?
He doesn't really mean it, but he uses it as
a negotiator.

Speaker 1 (31:59):
Here's the part of his best part. They're not sure
if he means that they're not They're not decided. They're
not they are not completely decided. And unlike shull diplomacy
where people play brinkmanship and they can just you know,
play chicken with each other, he says all this publicly,
So all these European countries with their citizens are going
what you know, so they feel the pressure of everybody

(32:21):
knowing what the conversation is. They feel these European leaders
they feel that he is serious, and so they're responding
not only to what Trump intends to do if they
can't talk and find a common ground, but the countries,
the citizenship of the countries that they're hearing it also
and they're looking at their leaders going what are you doing?
Like what are we going to do here? Anyway, it

(32:43):
is a way to raise the bring pressure upon a
situation that needs to be resolved. It can't be circled forever,
It can't be just left into the ethos like so
many politicians are used to doing. This has to be solved,
and he has a sense of urgency. He has a
bias towards action. He's going to talk about it until
people want to come together, and Marak they always come

(33:05):
together don't they.

Speaker 2 (33:06):
What's so funny is he just keeps them guessing. They
don't know where he's coming from. Right, he says this,
then he says this, then he says that. So you
can see him all all around a boardroom, these European
leaders right sitting around this big boardroom table, going I
wonder what he's doing. I wonder what he's up to,
because they keep on misjudging this guy. They don't get him.

Speaker 1 (33:27):
It was funny. There's there's a clip out there, the
finished president where he says unequivocally, he uses the word unequivocally,
Europe can defend itself without the United States.

Speaker 10 (33:36):
Sure.

Speaker 1 (33:37):
Eleven minutes later, and I would love to see what
was said in the eleven minutes in between. The moderator says, now,
you said that Europe does not need the United States
and that Europe is completely prepared to defend themselves, and
he says, ign incident. I never said that. That is
not a direct quote. It's actually on tape. We actually
can see them side by side saying and in eleven minutes.

(33:58):
I don't know what was said in the eleven minutes,
but whatever that bluff was, he didn't want to own it.
He didn't want to repeat it. He wanted to say, no, no,
we actually need the United States, we need to partner
with him.

Speaker 7 (34:08):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (34:09):
Well, I think I was listening to Glenn this morning
and he was, you know, carrying the speech live and
giving some analysis of it. I think he described this
as maybe the most important speech a US president has
given for quite some time, maybe as important as Reagan's
GARBATROFV Tear down this Wall. I think. I think it
is Greg set the record straight with Europe as to

(34:31):
where he thinks America stands nowadays.

Speaker 1 (34:33):
Over and over again, he expresses his love for and
respect for these leaders. He did his come to know,
he has had conversations with him, dinners with him, He's
spent time with these world leaders, and he expresses in
these speeches his high regard for each one of these individuals.

Speaker 2 (34:48):
I'm smart, intelligent, innovative. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (34:50):
And he even will say sometimes I know they mean well,
or I know they think that this is the right way,
but here's how it works. And then he has that
uncomfortable conversation and the most I think in a very
respectful way, but it's very truthful and it can be
very uncomfortable for the people hearing it, But he is
not afraid of those uncomfortable conversations. That is, mister Gorbachev,

(35:11):
tear down this wall. That is an uncomfortable thing. The
State too, if you read history of that. The State
Department did everything in their power to omit that from
the speech. They did not want that said, the mortified
that this cowboy would have said such a thing. It
was going to set them back diplomatically. But what we
all were here in twenty twenty six still referring to
that speech and those words, and I think for a

(35:32):
very long time we will look back at these the
time here and the things that Trump said that he
truthfully meant, but was had that resoluteness that he was
going to protect in North America, America and even Europe,
whether they wanted to be, whether they were going to
come along or not, he was going to do it.
And now you're seeing them coalesce around an agreement, which

(35:54):
is what he went there to do.

Speaker 2 (35:55):
Well, we want to talk about that, but we also
want to talk can get your reaction this hot or
we'll open up the phones here in just a minute
to what State Representative Corey Maloy is doing, and he's
basically doing as I asked him, a Utah version of
what Mike Lee is trying to do on the national stage,
and that's the Save Act to require proof of citizenship
both the federal and state level to be able to vote. Now,

(36:16):
maybe we get some action on the federal level Mike
Lee is trying. The House is starting to come along
with this idea, but Representative Molloy wants to do it
on the state level, which I feel is a terrific idea.

Speaker 1 (36:27):
It is. In our interview with him, he talked about,
you know, how you have to verify that you are
a citizen to be able to vote. And I said, well,
wait a minute. Don't you have to be a citizen
to vote in a federal election? Be it you know, Senator,
member of Congress And he said that a president, the
president of the United States. And he said, well, they
their laws that you just say I'm a resident and

(36:47):
that's it for purposes of voting, that's all you had
to do.

Speaker 3 (36:50):
Well.

Speaker 1 (36:51):
I think some people lie, okay, I think that they
really say yes. I don't think they're telling the truth.
We've seen ghosts and dead people that are too embarrassed
to vote vote by mail. So there's a lot of
shenanigans that go on. So the interesting part will be
who will show up, who will fail or not be
willing to show their legal citizenship in the United States,

(37:14):
but then insist that they vote federally. I don't know
that that would be an awkward moment, don't you think?

Speaker 3 (37:21):
So?

Speaker 1 (37:21):
Slight so folks, I know, and it might cost a
little more to do two ballots. The county clerks are
actually saying this is something they can do. And I
don't think we should, you know, go that we shouldn't
turn into cheap skates when it comes to a democratically
elected republic. I think this ought to be where we
commit real dollars and make sure that our elections have integrity,
chain of custody, transparency, and certainly be a legal American

(37:44):
resident to vote to be entitled to vote. But what
say you? I heard a lot of public comments. There
are a lot of people that came to that hearing
to say his bill was wrong. It was it would
create a chilling effect on voting at all. And and
so I want to know, do you think that represent
Corey mlloye's bill It should pass Is it a no brainer?
Is it more complicated? I'd love to hear the collective

(38:06):
will of our listeners.

Speaker 2 (38:07):
As I mentioned in our meeting this morning, is this
a backdoor way to ensure all the elections have proof
of citizenship? I mean, you go into you go into
a polling place, all right, Greg, and you ask for
a state ballot, and you have to show ID to
get that ballot. The person sitting right next to that
election judge handled the federal elections. He handed him a ballot, Okay,

(38:29):
he can vote in this one. Is that I don't know.
I think that I think that as interesting.

Speaker 1 (38:36):
I think they have legally allowed a path that because
they can't control that simple are you loyal resident?

Speaker 3 (38:42):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (38:43):
Are you legal here? Are you here legally in American citizen?
You allowed to vote?

Speaker 3 (38:46):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (38:47):
That federal process they can't interrupt. But I think by
requiring to be an American to vote in our state elections,
it will influence how many people would be willing to
break the law and not really be a citizen to
vote and want to vote. I don't know that they're
going to go and make that big difference. I don't
want to do the state ballot, but I really care

(39:07):
about this federal one. I just it's just a coincidence.
But you know, I just want to go here. I
think it could have a chilling effect on fraudulent voting.

Speaker 2 (39:15):
But you want to take it to another level. I
do explain that because when I vote, I'll get it
in the mail, I'll fill it out, and for ease,
I like to just go buy and drop it by
a mail box. All right, but the drop bikes, the
election drop bytes. You say, there needs to be another
level of security there.

Speaker 1 (39:32):
I do. If you vote in person, folks, you go
to a voting booth. What you do, and we've done
this forever, is that you present your ID. We have
our great election judges that volunteer their time to be
there during election day and they say, and you sign
the book that you were there, and then you show
me your idea. Then you're giving the little card to
go and fill vote in the bout. But we lose
all of that in the mail in vote or dropping

(39:54):
off a ballot that was mailed to you. We're just
dropping those off like it a mailbox, but it's a ballot,
it's drop box. Yeah, okay, And some of that can
be even voter harvesting where you can take a bunch
of them and you can drop them in, and so
the transparency is not there. The chain of custody becomes
questionable because we don't know who's dropping off ballots and
who's not. The proposal that I believe in, and I
think that this has I think I'd love to hear

(40:16):
what our listeners think. I think you could have elections
like you have an elections judge and have someone that's
inside that's there. You can have someone have reasonable hours
for those drop boxes. But they have a way that
you present your ID with the name on the ballot,
with the address on the ballot, and just like those
clubs that scan the back to make sure that the
name is the same, you scan it the ID and

(40:39):
then you can drop it and just have the elections
judge there. So you can mail out. You don't mail in,
but you can mail out ballots. People can take the
time to fill it out. But when you return a ballot,
be it by a drop box or to go inside
and vote, you have to have a legal ID to
be able to cast that ballot. There's even talk that
if it's the same household, you would even let if
it's the same house Also, when you scan the ID

(41:01):
and the the same address, you would let the members
of that only of that household be able to drop
off for the household. That's a compromise to the law
or to the idea that comes are saying. But I
think that the chain of custody go day and night
gets better If you have to have your driver's license
to even drop off the ballot you received in the mail,
I think there's a refiner's fire to that process.

Speaker 2 (41:21):
All right, Rod and Greg, listeners, what's say you about
this idea of making sure that you have proper ID
you are a citizen of the United States before you
get to vote on a state level and hopefully someday
on the federal level. Your calls and comments coming up
eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero cell phone.
Just a i'le pound two fifty and say hey, Rod,
or leave us a message on our talk back line

(41:41):
by downloading the iHeartRadio up. We'll get to your calls
and comments coming up. Next Tomorrow night, the governor will
give his annual State of the State address to a
joint session of the Legislature underwagh at about six thirty
six thirty one ish, and we'll carry that live for
you as you head home tomorrow and ein soon. Hear
what the governor has to say.

Speaker 1 (41:59):
That's right, and I'll give the response.

Speaker 2 (42:01):
No, just kidding. He never leaves us enough time to
analyze it. No, he walks it right up. I'll watch
it right up. All right, we're taking your phone calls
right now. We're talking about this bill. Proposed proof of
citizenship for Utai elections came out of committee today, the
first hurdle that has to clear by a vote of
nine to three. Representative Corey moyloy was on the show

(42:21):
earlier explaining what the bill is all about.

Speaker 1 (42:23):
Heading to the floor for a vote. It'll go up
to the floor and they'll vote. We want to know
what do you think about this bill? Do you think
it's good? A lot of public comment, A lot of
people came out of the woodworks to say they didn't
like the bill. And so I want to hear from
our listeners. Let's go straight to our listeners. Let's go
to Joe and Spanish Fork. Joe, thank you for holding.
Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 11 (42:45):
I guess maybe I don't understand the bill. Either. Thank
you for taking my call. I always listen to you guys.

Speaker 2 (42:51):
Thank you.

Speaker 11 (42:53):
But I don't understand why there's any election, state or
federal level where there is an identification requirement. I just
don't understand that.

Speaker 1 (43:06):
I'm with you, I.

Speaker 2 (43:07):
Really, I've got a simple explanation. The Democrats don't want it.

Speaker 1 (43:11):
The three no votes did come from the Democrats today.

Speaker 2 (43:14):
Yeah, the three no votes came from the Democrats. The
Democrats don't want this. They want anybody in the country,
legal or illegally to vote in America today.

Speaker 1 (43:23):
Here's here's something that's not a coincidence. And I don't
know if it will surprise anyone, but the was it
Mormon Women for Ethical Government, the ones that drew the
fake map, the judgement of them to drive our posts
do it plus twenty four percent Kamala Harris. They came
to speaking committee against any kind of uh, you know,
proof of citizenship to vote.

Speaker 2 (43:41):
Leg of women voters did too. Yeah, surprise. Let's go
to Glenn and Sandy. Glenn, how are you welcome to
the Rodin Gregg Show.

Speaker 12 (43:49):
Hey, guys, I'm doing great. Wanted to thank you for
what you're doing.

Speaker 2 (43:52):
Thank you with you, Thank you sir, my thoughts.

Speaker 13 (43:57):
If I understand what's being proposed, I mean, who wouldn't
support this? How could we not support this? I think
it's a great idea. It should it's astounding, it's not
already done years ago, and effective ongoing.

Speaker 1 (44:15):
We agree with you. In fact, when I was listening
to the right before the show started, they were in
the hearing and you can watch these hearings streaming off
the legislative website, and I was thinking about you, Glenn.
Are all of our listeners thinking if they could hear
the arguments being made against having a being legally born
here or legally a resident to vote, you know, citizen

(44:37):
by whatever means, but you're a citizen, a legal citizen
of the country to be able to vote, our listeners
would lose their minds because it's it is so intuitive.

Speaker 2 (44:44):
So I agree.

Speaker 1 (44:46):
By the way, here's another thing we've spoken about before.
Utah has these driver privilege cards. Now they are different.

Speaker 2 (44:52):
I them too.

Speaker 1 (44:54):
Now they are different and they are not supposed to
be used as legal ID. But I've had really, yes,
I've had listeners contact me as we've talked about this,
and I've mentioned, you know, they're not supposed to use
it as ID or some people that know they're illegal
because they're staring at a driver's privilege card not an ID,
so they know what they're looking at. We had a
caller and that that said that anyone you see using

(45:14):
a Driver's Privileged Card as a form of ID, that
is not the law of the land in Utah. They're
not allowed to use it as ID, but I think
it gets used quite a bit.

Speaker 2 (45:22):
It's sure to say. I mean, if you're a clerk
at a convenience store and some guy comes into buy beer, Yeah,
and he shows that, do you think they pay it?
Looks of it? I've never seen one, but my guess
it looks pretty close to an actual driver's life. Am
I wrong?

Speaker 1 (45:36):
They have some distinguishing characteristics to show that it's different,
but clerks know then. I think even if they did,
they're not going to refuse the sale. I think they're
just going to let it go. And I and so
I don't think that law is enforced, but I do
believe in elections it would be. I don't think you're
going to get away with a driver's privileged card? Is
your proof of citizenship in this in this country and
state to be able to vote.

Speaker 2 (45:56):
We could only hope Yes. More coming up, Roder Greg
and more your phone call eight eight eight five seven
eight zero one zero, or leave us some message on
the talk back line by downloading the iHeartRadio ap more
coming up.

Speaker 1 (46:08):
Let's get back to the issue. The issue is this.
If you listen to today's House hearing and the state
ru in the State House represent Corey Mulloy, who we've
had on the program and had he's sponsoring a bill
that requires United States citizenship to vote in our elections.
And it turns out the federal laws very weak. All
you have to do is say I'm a citizen and
that's enough that fulfills a legal requirement federally, so to

(46:31):
vote for president or US Senate or Congress, that's all
you have to say. So his bill would say there's
going to be two ballots, one for federal where you
can say that and we'll get away with it. We'll
get to do it. But in Utah for our state elections,
you're going to have to have proof of citizenship and
a story.

Speaker 2 (46:47):
Yeah we heard.

Speaker 1 (46:48):
I heard a lot of people come to the microphone
and oppose this bill. We have three Democrats that spoke
against it. It seems to me to be into it,
but we want to hear what the collective will of
this great audiences.

Speaker 2 (47:01):
Eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero eighty
eight eight five seven o eight zero one zero or
on our talkback line. Just download the Rheart Radio app
and look for kN RS. Let's go to that talkback line.
Here are a couple of the comments.

Speaker 10 (47:12):
Twilla, the thing.

Speaker 3 (47:15):
With the voting thing that you guys are just talking about.

Speaker 2 (47:17):
It seems like Democrats are dying on all the wrong.

Speaker 5 (47:20):
Hills, like everything.

Speaker 1 (47:22):
They're dying on the trends hills.

Speaker 2 (47:24):
They're dying on the anti ice hill, like it's just.

Speaker 3 (47:28):
Whatever's right and good in moral Really, the Democrats the
left are totally opposite of it. But shouldn't be surprising,
but sometimes it kind of is.

Speaker 2 (47:40):
Thanks guys, you're welcome. Man, they're dying on every so
many hills. Yeah, I mean, you can't count the hills
they aren't dying on, Marylyn.

Speaker 1 (47:48):
Man, you mean the human and drug trafficker from the
trend there are gang yeah, boys.

Speaker 2 (47:52):
And girls, bathrooms, Yeah, yeah, that's fine, that's fine. About
the what is a woman? Oh, I don't know, and Maduro.

Speaker 1 (47:59):
We all want to we want this desperit removed until
Trump did. Now we just feel so sorry for him.
We're gonna be We're gonna defend him.

Speaker 3 (48:05):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (48:05):
It just goes on and on. And now the Democrats
in the state of Utah, even in our red state
of Utah, they are they are saying that it will
have a chilling effect to actually have to prove citizenship
to vote, even though that is the law, it is required.
I wonder if they were as worried when these COVID
these vaccine dates are out there around the country, saying
you have to have a medical you have to have

(48:27):
the shot, you have to have a medical slip that
shows that you have the shot, and then you have
to have an idea that corresponds with your vaccination card
to show that you're the person who was vaccinated. I
don't remember them saying that was arduous, difficult. They sounded
like that was just gonna Everyone's going to do it,
and everyone can public to vote, but to vote, oh,
that's nobody can do that.

Speaker 2 (48:47):
All right. Back to the talk back line, Hi riding Greg.

Speaker 14 (48:51):
This is Raquel from Riverton.

Speaker 12 (48:53):
I think.

Speaker 14 (48:55):
Any sane person would vote for this bill.

Speaker 3 (49:00):
But if it, by.

Speaker 14 (49:01):
Chance doesn't pass, then I think we should hire Ice
to man the ballot boxes. I guarantee you no illegals
will be voting in Utah.

Speaker 2 (49:12):
She's smart. I love that. Just put an Ice agent
Eddy to the ballot See.

Speaker 1 (49:18):
I just this is why I love going to our audience,
because they just come up with the greatest solutions. I'm
going to share that with my former colleagues and say
this is okay, they won't let's do this.

Speaker 2 (49:27):
Let's put a nice agent.

Speaker 1 (49:27):
Let's put them right there. It's like Kryptonite is not
going to come. I think that I think that would
have a chilling effect on people that are not residents
of this country voting.

Speaker 2 (49:38):
From our talk back line, here's another one of our listeners.

Speaker 8 (49:41):
Federal law names the second Tuesday of November as the
day to vote in national elections. To vote early international
election would be against the law. And personally, I'm against
mail in voting. I think a person should get off
their butt and go vote in person, and somebody who
doesn't have enough incentive to do that shouldn't be voting them.

Speaker 2 (50:00):
So much in favor of that, thank you for that comment.
I hate mail in ballet. I think it is a
privilege that the second what is it the first Tuesday,
second Tuesday in November is an opportunity for Americans all
to come together and do one thing. Vote. It's true,
I hate mail in ballot.

Speaker 1 (50:15):
It used to be a time where we all came
together comunity, and it was that one moment, And I
think I agree with the caller, you know, but I'll
tell you there is a lot of people that like that.
To be able to look at ballots early, look at
ballot measures early. There is a there is a pushback
on getting rid of the mail out ballots. But if
you're going to mail ballots out, which I don't like
either because it's mass mailing these batts, I think they

(50:36):
should have to be requested like an absentee ballot used
to be. You should have to specifically request for it
if that's what you want to do. But bringing it
back in, if you're going to do it this way,
it ought to have a chain of custody immediately. There
should be a There should be an election judge president
at the ballot where it drop off box. It should
have certain hours and they scan the idea of the
name that's on the ballot and then that chain of
custody you know is real.

Speaker 2 (50:57):
All right, let's go back to the phones. Let's go
to Casey in north Ogden, who wants to weigh in
on this tonight on the Rodin Greg Show. Hey, Kaz,
how are you.

Speaker 7 (51:06):
Good? How are you doing?

Speaker 12 (51:07):
Rodin gregs It only makes sense, great, It only makes
sense to have people who are residents of the state
of Utah to vote. If I want to vote in
a shareholder election, if I were to own General Electric
stock or any kind of corporate situation, I've got to

(51:30):
own stock in that company to vote as a shareholder
for the board of directors. What difference does it make
whether it's a shareholder on a corporate company or the
state of Utah.

Speaker 10 (51:44):
I think you should be a represent or you should have.

Speaker 7 (51:48):
Citizenship in the state of Utah to vote.

Speaker 10 (51:50):
It only makes sense.

Speaker 7 (51:52):
We could open it up.

Speaker 6 (51:53):
To anybody that decides to come here.

Speaker 12 (51:55):
On vacation to vote, or any type of illegal here
and maybe they take up a temporary residence, they're going
to have the.

Speaker 7 (52:05):
Right to vote in our elections. It makes no sense.

Speaker 2 (52:08):
Yeah, yeah, Well, you know, Casey's a problem with your
comment is Greg is Casey's using common sense.

Speaker 1 (52:15):
I love the analogy between you know, the shareholder voting
versus and not, and I just it is there's nothing
you using an ID for so many things in life
you use it, you know, I mean, I just there's
just to have the selective logic and outrage over voting.
I think that. I think that's a tell something else
is afoot.

Speaker 7 (52:35):
Here.

Speaker 2 (52:36):
Let's go to Tom and till it's tonight here on
the routing Greg Show. Hey Tom, how are you?

Speaker 7 (52:41):
I'm great? Thanks for having me. Yeah. I just want
to say that I think we should just have a
national holiday when it's election day and everybody should have
to go in and vote in person, or maybe it's
a couple of days. But if you have to have
mail in Bellot, you still have to apply for it
and show proof OFSS and ship.

Speaker 2 (53:03):
Yes, I'm with you on that.

Speaker 3 (53:04):
Don't.

Speaker 2 (53:04):
Most European countries hold their elections on Sunday.

Speaker 1 (53:07):
I don't know the day they do, but I think.

Speaker 2 (53:10):
It is on Sunday most most of my things.

Speaker 1 (53:12):
But I will tell you this, go look up even
in developing countries the level of scrutiny they paid to elections.
If they have elections, and it is you have to
have an idea. There's not that this isn't actually some
you know'll ill willed requirement. Most anyone who has voting
any country generally wants to know that the person voting

(53:34):
hasn't voted more than once and that they're actually entire
legally allowed to vote. It just seems to be a
thing that easy. Yeah, who knew that easy?

Speaker 2 (53:41):
All right, when we come back, you won't believe what
CNN let one of its commentators get away with a
comment about the president that's coming up on the Routed
Greg Show and Utah's Talk Radio one O five to
nine k n r S. But before so, should we go,
let's go the phones. Let's go to Rick Insall, Lake City.
He wents to weigh in on this is we're talking
about providing citizenship. Proof of citizenship before you vote in

(54:03):
state elections, should be in federal elections as well, but
a lawmaker is trying to bring it down at least
to the state level. Rick, what do you say about this?

Speaker 10 (54:13):
I'm glad you guys are addressing this, but there is
a problem. Immigrants can vote in local uh city and
state or county and state elections. Uh, it's it's that
way and I'm maturity of the country now. It was
a few years back that this was changed and sorry

(54:34):
to say.

Speaker 1 (54:35):
Brick, is that is that done by county ordinances and
city ordinances that they proactively allow that to happen or
is there is there something that impacts jurisdictions across the
country and in that regard.

Speaker 10 (54:48):
It's your county commissioners, it's your city council, it's it's
straight down to school boards. Unfortunately, it's it's like a
blind spot head and right for us.

Speaker 2 (54:59):
Yeah, is that allowed here in Utah yet or do
you see it coming or other states doing it and
you think Utah may follow?

Speaker 10 (55:06):
I believe if in Salt Lake County and Salt Lake
City is pushed through sometime around the COVID.

Speaker 2 (55:12):
Era, why are we not surprised that one.

Speaker 1 (55:15):
Well, then well that's going to end. It represent the
Boy's Bill passing, which we want. That will end. That's
happening in real time. Thank you, Rick for the update.
I think that's that's good to know.

Speaker 2 (55:24):
Here's a comment onto a talkback line.

Speaker 15 (55:26):
Hey, guys, regarding the mooting. I think they will be
satisfied when it's uh Minnesota Somali style where you just
vouch for people.

Speaker 2 (55:42):
That's the next step it could be. It could be
just found for people. Yeah, I hate citizen Okay, So
do you know the.

Speaker 1 (55:49):
New York Times they hated mail in ballots so much
back when they would lose elections in Florida in places
by military.

Speaker 2 (55:55):
Absence absent remember that.

Speaker 1 (55:57):
Yeah, and so they did a big study and said
these are not safe. You don't what you don't know
who you're getting it from by the mail, when it
was what they thought were more right of center votes
arriving from overseas from the military. Miraculously, once this game started,
they all changed their tune and now they actually love
it all. But they used to hate it before they
loved it.

Speaker 2 (56:15):
There's another comment from a listener on our talk back line.

Speaker 16 (56:19):
The collective will of the people is that everybody should
be a citizen of the United States in order to vote.
But stop dancing around the issue and codify it into
law like a big boy's wed. This is Mike from
Eagle Mountain, Utah.

Speaker 2 (56:35):
Good comment, Mike, and we appreciate it, and you're absolutely right.

Speaker 1 (56:38):
Yeah, Mike, Mike's our kind of guy. I mean, I'm
telling you that's exactly right, and that's why I am
actually messaging these lawmakers because they're you get in a
bubble when you're up there. You see all these people
that public comment and they're just railing on them. Tell
them that they're racist and that they're biggots because they
want to prove American citizenship to vote and in there,
and you know they don't. They're not racist, so they

(57:00):
almost are trying so hard to show that they're not,
and they still vote the right way. But there's a
lot of pressure that I think is artificial in terms
of who shows up and goes after them on such
a common sense eighty twenty or ninety ten issue. You
ask every day Americas if you should be an america'sis
in the vote? I don't who's gonna if they say no.

(57:21):
I think there's ill will there. I think there's other
things they believe in too that we wouldn't subscribe to.

Speaker 2 (57:26):
I would agree. Yeah, yeah, standard ground.

Speaker 1 (57:29):
Guys, We look up your lawmaker and thank them for
voting for this bill as it moves through the process.

Speaker 2 (57:34):
Well, you have one of the most listened to radio
shows in the state of Utah. On this show. YEP
will support you if you stand strong. That's right, and
don't be afraid to stand strong. I refer to you listener.

Speaker 1 (57:45):
I talk about the listeners of this program because our
numbers are we are this is the most listen to
conservative Utah radio show bar none. We have great numbers.
You are a great large audience, your thought, your thought leaders,
and just the comments we heard today, no one can
really see an argument why you wouldn't. And I think
that gets missed sometimes with the lawmakers when they're up

(58:06):
in that capital. So I'll be conveying the message, Frokes,
I encourage you to do the same.

Speaker 2 (58:10):
All Right, we ran out of time on what was
set on CNN last night and the apology today. We'll
get to that in the coming out and stay with
us other Rod and Greg show with you on this
Wigman Wednesday in Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine
k rs. I'm Rod Arquette. I'm a citizen citizen, going
to say.

Speaker 1 (58:29):
Goose, I'm Goose. It's Wednesday. I'm Goose. I'm not even
citizen Hughes, I'm Goose. Sovo, you're mav I'm Goose. Okay,
we feel the need for speed.

Speaker 2 (58:38):
You know that. Yeah, we do, we do, all right?
Uh talking about the need for speed. We only can
hope the US Supreme Court gets to this issue real quick.
There was a hearing before the court yesterday on how Hawaii,
which by the way is a beautiful state love going there,
is trying to evade the Second Amendment. Oh, let's just
stop pay any attention to the Second Amendment? Yeah, yeah,

(59:01):
why have one?

Speaker 10 (59:02):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (59:03):
This whole thing because Hawaii, you know, before it was
a state, it might have not had the Second Moment,
So why would you have it now?

Speaker 2 (59:08):
Why would you have it now? Well, the court, you know,
heurd arguments and we're hoping they strike it down. A
law that effectively bans firearms on most private property in
the state of Hawaii. Joining us on our Newsmaker line
to talk about that and somebody you well know when
it comes to gun issues, John Lotte, President of the
Crime Prevention Research Center, John, thanks for joining us tonight.

(59:31):
Why is this bill so dangerous? Do you think? John?

Speaker 12 (59:34):
Well, I don't think they will uphold it, but so basically,
just get people some background. What happened in twenty twenty
two was the Supreme Court strut down what are called
may issue laws. There were seven states that had these,
and what they would require is that you had to
go and justified to somebody that you had a good
reason for having a concealed carry permit to be able

(59:57):
to go and protect yourself and your family. And but
what happened is five of the states, including Hawaii and
California and New York for example, said well, if you're
going to make us give out permits, you know, to
people who meet certain objective criteria like training and you know,
age and things like that, we're just going to make

(01:00:18):
it so that nobody could carry any place. We're going
to essentially make the whole state just about a gun
free zone. And you know, there's the danger that you
have with that, obviously, is that he's gone to his
zones if anything, actually serve as magnets for attacks, because
criminals know that they'll be the only people that have

(01:00:39):
a gunness. You know, you look at something like this,
the school shooting that happened in Minneapolis in September, and
you have a situation there where if you or I
carried a gun under school property there, we face a
five year prison term. Our lives would be completely destroyed.
But let's say you're the murderer there, and let's the

(01:01:00):
murder had lived. Usually they died in these situations. But
even if they had lived, murdered two people, wounded, seventeen others,
where are they going to be facing five or six
life sentences in jail? Is taking five years away from
their sixth through their seventh life we're going to make
a difference in terms of whether or not they're going

(01:01:21):
to you know, it doesn't represent a real penalty then,
So all you've done with setting this up is to
ensure that the criminal is the only person that's going
to be armed, and so that's the reason why it's dangerous.

Speaker 1 (01:01:35):
I could just see the criminal caucus writing in a
Meekus brief for Hawaii saying, you know, this makes our
life very difficult if you were to reverse this law,
because right now we are the only ones that have guns,
and it makes our job of being criminals much much easier.
Don't infringe on our right to rob steele, you know,
plunder or whatever. It seems so counterintuitive. Why did it

(01:01:57):
take us. There's no lower court than under stands our
Second Amendment rights. How did they even have to I'm
just surprised or did they get the wrong answer in
the lower courts, and Hawaii just thinks they're going to
get a friendlier court with the supremes.

Speaker 12 (01:02:12):
Right, Well, this is out of the Ninth Circuit, which
I'm sure you know is dominated by Democrats. So even
when you do win at a district court level on
many different gun issues, it's eventually reversed on bonds there.
And you know, interesting listening to the arguments for this.

(01:02:34):
So basically what the Bruin and the Heller decision said
was that you have to go and look to see
what past precedent is, what laws were in effect in
seventeen ninety one when the Second Amendment was adopted, or
in eighteen sixty seven when the Fourteenth Amendment applied the
entire Bill of.

Speaker 17 (01:02:52):
Rights to the states.

Speaker 12 (01:02:54):
And you know, it was almost comical yesterday listening to
the arguments that Hawaii was making. So the big argument
was in eighteen sixty five, Louisiana, as part of its
Black Code, which basically after the Civil War, they pass
lost to this armed blacks, you know in southern states,

(01:03:18):
that that showed precedent, because that's the type of law
that forbid certain people from being able to go and
carry guns and different establishments, and you know, to go
and have Democrats go and essentially say, well, this is
a good law for using precedent. You kind of wonder
whether a lot of the Blacks that vote for them
what they think about that type ofthet. And you know,

(01:03:43):
it's I don't know, it.

Speaker 3 (01:03:46):
Was embarrassing.

Speaker 12 (01:03:47):
My own guess is it's going to be a pretty
solid sixty three decision in the court. Even Roberts seemed
fairly strong yesterday. And you know, it's.

Speaker 2 (01:04:00):
Yeah, John, John, is it true. I was there a
moment in there I thought I saw this somewhere where
just as Soda Mayor didn't even realize that Hawaii is
in fact part of the United States of America, didn't.
She point out she was a little confused as to
if Hawaii is part of the United States of America.

Speaker 12 (01:04:20):
I'm not sure it was quite that way. I think
that basically may have happened. Is so they were part
of the argument that Hawaii made was the tradition kind
of before it became a state. And so even in
going back even before it became, you know, part of
the United States in any way, and you know, but

(01:04:42):
that's not really relevant. You know, they voluntarily became part
of the United States. That means that they have to
go and deal with things like the Bill of Rights.
You know, it's not like they can go and say, well,
we didn't have a First Amendment in Hawaii before, you know,
we became a state, so we can go and regulate

(01:05:03):
newspapers and what they can publish.

Speaker 1 (01:05:05):
I like Rod's version of that story better. I thought
that was funnier. But let me ask you this, John, So,
court watchers they always you can kind of get tells,
and you've kind of referred to this already that you
kind of could feel where things were going. Do you
feel bold enough to say that the questions and how
they were asked or what was asked gives you a

(01:05:26):
pretty good indication that this law will be overturned, that
people will have the right to bear arms, and that
this concealed carry permit law won't be so prohibitive. Or
are they going to find a technicality to send it
down to another court.

Speaker 12 (01:05:40):
Well, I think they'll strike down the law. The question often,
as you know, is exactly how.

Speaker 10 (01:05:45):
They strike it down.

Speaker 12 (01:05:47):
And so here's the issues. When do you say I
hope they have to define what is a sensitive place
that makes something I've done for your zon't And I
think what they'll do will say, Look, if you say
something is a sensitive place, you just can't put up
a sign that says, you know, no guns allowed. You

(01:06:09):
actually have to show you who are willing to protect people.
If you're not willing to let people protect themselves, then
the government has some obligation to go and protect those
individuals for them by having police there or having metal
detectors or something else there that's more than a sign, because,
as we talked about before, sign actually is counterproductive. You

(01:06:31):
actually get the opposite, and so you know, I mean,
I think this is a real safety concern we and
the peace I had In the Wall Street Journal, I
talked about some recent research that we do. We looked
at all the active shooting attacks in the United States
over the eleven years from twenty fourteen through twenty twenty four.

(01:06:51):
These are the FBI defines the gun fired in public,
not part of some other type of the prime like
a robbery or a gang fight, over drugged her anything
from one person being shot out and missed all the
way up to a mass public shooting And what you
find is, I don't think people appreciate this, but what
an incredibly difficult job uniform police officers have When you

(01:07:13):
have somebody in uniform, that puts them at a real
tactical disadvantage the people who want to go and commit crimes.
So let's say you have somebody who wants to shoot
up a place and they see a police officer in
uniform there, Well, what can they do? They can either
wait for the officer to leave before they attack, or
they can move on to another target themselves. Both of

(01:07:33):
those make it more difficult for officers to be present
to stop these attacks. But what they also can do
is if they decide to attack and the officers there,
who do you think they shoot first? They shoot the officers.
And what we found is that civilians with concealed carey
permit actually stopped more of these attacks than police did.

(01:07:56):
But on top of that, when police were present, they
end up being twelve times more likely to get killed
in active shooting attacks. And civilians with concealitory permits people,
you know, they are good reasons for officers to be
in uniform. Yah, definitely, but we have to appreciate that
putting somebody in uniform in these situations is like putting

(01:08:19):
a neon sign above them that says shoot me first.

Speaker 2 (01:08:22):
You know, John, thank you for joining us tonight. John
Lott from the Crime Prevention Research Center. I've never heard
the study that he just cited at the end of
our interview where he's talking. You know, you're a police officer,
you know, and there's a mass shooting out there, they're
going to target you. Is that scary? That is scary?

Speaker 10 (01:08:38):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (01:08:38):
It is all right. When we come back, we'll talk
about two people who should be fired, who will explain why.
Coming up next on the Rod and Greg Show and
Utah's Talk Radio one O five nine knrs. And I'm
Rod Arquent, our hard working board operator Denny looked up
looked this up for us. According to Google, military planes

(01:08:59):
fly at seventy thousand feet.

Speaker 1 (01:09:02):
Not mav not good below the flight deck you remember,
not at you that was three hundred feet.

Speaker 2 (01:09:09):
That could be Yeah, they were moving, they're moving. You
love that show?

Speaker 3 (01:09:13):
Do I?

Speaker 2 (01:09:14):
I love it? Do you watch her like weekly?

Speaker 1 (01:09:17):
Anytime it's on anything? You watch it? I am morally
obligated to watch for at least some period of time.

Speaker 2 (01:09:23):
No, Yes, all right, let's talk about it. You know,
I hate see people fired, but sometimes it's justified. Right, Well,
we've got two examples of two people that, in my opinion,
should be fired Greg. First of all, let's go to CNN.
Last night, on the program, a insufferable leftist, his name
is Cameron Caske decided to go after Donald true young punk.

(01:09:43):
He's a young punk too. Listen to what he said
on the show last night about Donald Trump and then
Scott Jennings' reaction to this.

Speaker 1 (01:09:51):
I'm appreciative that the president is being transparent about this.
I would love it if he was more transparent about
the human sex traffic trafficking network that he was a
part of. But you can't want to all.

Speaker 9 (01:10:00):
Camera's grateful that the president is being transparent about the
Nobel Peace Prize and it has designs for green with Scott,
what do you think about that?

Speaker 2 (01:10:06):
You're gonna let that sit.

Speaker 12 (01:10:07):
We're gonna claim here on CNN that the president is
part of a global sex trafficking ring or.

Speaker 5 (01:10:11):
Well, I mean, we're gonna talk about the FC fol Scott,
I will do the fact checking.

Speaker 2 (01:10:16):
I'm just as we go along.

Speaker 9 (01:10:17):
Here, repeat what you said about the global sex trafficking ring.

Speaker 1 (01:10:19):
That Donald Trump was provably very involved with it.

Speaker 2 (01:10:23):
Man and Scott Jenny said, you aren't going to challenge this,
Are you kidding me? Great, you aren't going to challenge
what This guy accused the president of being part of
an international human sex trafficking ring. And CNN didn't challenge him.

Speaker 1 (01:10:36):
No, they didn't. But somebody's got to him because apparently
that was said yesterday. Today he issued an apology. He
has a different tune, doesn't he.

Speaker 2 (01:10:45):
Yeah, that's what he said today. I would like to
retract my comments from CNN last night and truly apologize.
Donald Trump, he writes, was obviously not involved with a
giant international human sex trafficking ring where women and girls
were as system is systemically raped by others. I believe

(01:11:06):
I said that by accident and I didn't mean it.
I still think you should be fired. Get them off.

Speaker 1 (01:11:10):
Yeah, it's over the top, and again it really does.
I don't think CNN has much of a reputation all
the way, but if they think they do, that would
certainly not meet the mark of a serious news cable channel.

Speaker 2 (01:11:24):
Now another individual who should be fired on Benny Johnson,
well known talk show we saw when we were in
Milwaukee a couple of years ago for the RNC convention.
Posted this video Today. Now a lot is going on
in Minnesota, tensions are very high. But here you have Greg,
a postal service worker, driving his van down a street

(01:11:44):
where Ice is. You know, Ice is doing what it
should do, right, drives by them and flips them off
and yells f Ice.

Speaker 1 (01:11:54):
And remember, folks, postal workers are currently administering vote by
mail in your state, in your state. Okay, that's a
good point. So you know, I don't know that they
should be in the election business, which we've all somehow
allowed to happen, but here we are.

Speaker 2 (01:12:10):
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now the problem with that Greg, You
know you would think the guy's pretty smart, right, Okay?
Who the postal worker who flipped off Ice? Okay, okay, yeah,
he's driving a postal service truck with an ID number
on it. Do you think they can find out who
the guy was?

Speaker 7 (01:12:28):
Well?

Speaker 1 (01:12:28):
Do you remember, so, do you remember the saying like
I'm going to go postal on You remember how these
people used to say that. Oh yeah, that's because there
were always these low, angry postal workers. It would open
fire on their co workers at post offices. That's why,
that's why that's saying became a thing twenty years thirty
years ago. I'm going to go postal on someone, Well,
doesn't look like they're getting saner, and I just again.

(01:12:49):
And then it was after we came up we coined
the phrase postal that we gave him the job of
administering our elections through the mail.

Speaker 2 (01:12:57):
Go figure, So get this kid, this young smart butt
of a kid off CNN. He'll apologize. CNM will probably
let him get away with that. But don't you love
what Scott Jennings did? Are you gonna let him get away?

Speaker 1 (01:13:08):
He wasn't moving a muscle on that show until that.

Speaker 2 (01:13:10):
Was you're gonna let him get away? And then the
host of the show comes back and saying, well, I'll
do the fact checking on that, and.

Speaker 1 (01:13:16):
I'm just happen to do it right now. Ye funny coincidence.
I was just about to ask him now after I
tried to ask you a question.

Speaker 2 (01:13:22):
Yeah, yeah, Scott Jennings say, you'll then get away with that.
CNN will, and they wonder why their numbers are in
the tank.

Speaker 1 (01:13:29):
Yeah, they're just not credible.

Speaker 2 (01:13:31):
All right, when we come back, we'll talk with our
good friend Guy Sure Rocky about what's going on in Minnesota.
It's absurd. We all agree with that. We'll talk about
it with Guy. Coming up next on the Rotting Greg
Show and Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine kN rs.
Tomorrow night. At this time, you'll hear live coverage of
the Governor's State of the State Address from a joint
session of the Utah Legislature. We'll have that for you

(01:13:53):
live tomorrow night, six thirty right here during the Rotting
Greg Show.

Speaker 1 (01:13:57):
That's right, don't want to miss it. Hey, join us
us right now on the show. One of my faves,
Guy Shiaki. Guy that when I was eighteen years old,
just a little young gun Pittsburgh, PA, working on a
Bush Quail eighty eight campaign. And uh, you don't forget
the name Guy Sharaki. It's not like Bill Smith. You
Guy Shaki, and the guy's running things. It sticks with

(01:14:19):
you all these years later, eighty eight to today. Guy,
thank you for joining us on the Roddy Greg Show.

Speaker 17 (01:14:27):
Thanks little non fact. When I attended law school at Villanova,
we used to have a it was like theater style,
and we all had microphones because it was a few hundreds. Anyway,
when I would walk into the class, there was always
somebody in the back that we grab the microphone and
say that guy. Sure all of a certain age that

(01:14:49):
remember the Max absolutely.

Speaker 2 (01:14:53):
Now, before we get into the topic we go. You
proudly displayed a couple of pictures on social media. O,
you were attending a fantasy camp with a Philadelphia Phillies.
Talk about that.

Speaker 1 (01:15:07):
That sounds like a Actually, by the way, you look good, legit, yeah,
you look good, my friend.

Speaker 17 (01:15:15):
Major League Baseball does a wonderful thing. So I'm a
life one filled a Phillies fan and every year, about
two weeks before spring training starts, they hold this fantasy camp.
I am in Clearwater, Florida. I practiced today at the
Phillies Complex with the Phillies. Will be here in two
weeks to practice. We bat in their cages, and we

(01:15:36):
all have retired Phillies as our coaches. You know Aaron Rowan,
who also had a stint with the Giants along with
Phillies and the White Sox as one of my coaches.
And so is Matt Stairs, who Aaron Rowan will remember
it in Phillies Lord because he caught him over the
shoulder touch and ran into the wall and shattered his

(01:15:59):
nose and Involuto the ball and Matt Stairs played for
US in the World Series years of eight oh nine,
he hit a home run on National TV coming off
the benches, a pitch hitter against Jonathan Broxton, who was
like the closer of closers. So even my kids knew
who these folks were. So it's great, I mean so,

(01:16:19):
I mean, and they treat you wonderfully. The players couldn't
be nicer. I get to play baseball, which is my
favorite sport, and I get to be coached by these guys.
It's I'm blessed. I mean, this is this is what
not to mention the fact that's seven degrees back in philadel.

Speaker 3 (01:16:36):
Clearwater.

Speaker 2 (01:16:37):
Now, did did they appoint you at? What position?

Speaker 3 (01:16:39):
Were you?

Speaker 2 (01:16:40):
Were you allowed to play? Was it bat boy? Or
did you actually get into the field. So well, that's
supposed to be a quick answer to that. You're not
supposed to suffer over this answer.

Speaker 7 (01:16:54):
No, I played, I mean I played.

Speaker 17 (01:16:55):
I played center field because Aaron Rowan said to me,
you're always running around. Why don't you you seem to
have a lot of energy. Why don't you go out
to center field.

Speaker 2 (01:17:02):
And run around.

Speaker 7 (01:17:05):
Play center field.

Speaker 2 (01:17:06):
Good for you.

Speaker 17 (01:17:06):
I play center field.

Speaker 2 (01:17:07):
Good man.

Speaker 17 (01:17:09):
It's a bless it really is. And as the girls
I coach in softball who are twelve, uh, they said,
are you going to They describe it as I'm going
to play old man baseball this week. And the one
girl said, try not to die, coach. That's the hurdle.
I have to overcome it.

Speaker 2 (01:17:28):
Why not to die? Yeah, we're all there with you. Yeah,
we all have to admit. All right, topic a hand,
let's talk about Minnesota and some of the absurdity that
is going on in Minnesota. What do you make of
all this so far?

Speaker 17 (01:17:42):
Guy, Well, it is it is absurd. But the problem
is that it got to be so you know, it's
like kids messing around in the house. It's funny till
someone gets hurt.

Speaker 2 (01:17:52):
It is absurd.

Speaker 17 (01:17:53):
And then a young mom died, and she died in
part because of a whole bunch of reasons, but not
the least of which is that there are progressive activists
that are encouraging people to go to these ice raids
and get in their way and to confront them. And
they're actually holding trainings, and they hold trainings to tell

(01:18:14):
people how to docs agents in essence, how to tell them,
tell everyone who their names are, how to post online
and tell everybody, hey, there's going to be a raid,
you know, at Fifth and Simpson today at the old
apartment complex. And then people show up with their cars
and they try to block in the officers. And so
this has now gotten to the point of absurdity that

(01:18:36):
a mom died because an ICE agent was about to
be run over by a car and you reacted. We're
now at a point where Don Lemon, of all people,
led a group of people to run and break up
a church service, because apparently that's how you show you're
upset with ICE. You interrupt a religious services where people

(01:18:57):
are worshiping God, you drive it to a halt. So
I thought it was important, you know, as I do
when I talk with you guys from time to time,
is to step back and look what do we have here.
What we have here is the same people that wanted
illegal immigration now don't want those people deported. And what
we now have is we now have encouraged that there
are certain law enforcement officers that you're allowed to confront them,

(01:19:18):
defy them, even try to block them from doing their jobs,
and I think it's now at a point where it's
not funny. This is beyond political disagreement. We've had a death,
We've had a tragedy, and I'm afraid it's going to
continue because apparently the rules of civil discourse and even
traditional protesting have been violated.

Speaker 1 (01:19:39):
You know, guy, one of the things when you write
your columns, and there's a column here that I'm looking
at that he wrote to while we're talking about this topic,
because you really kind of break it down for people
you can. You always are. I think you're really good
at showing the strategies. And this isn't These aren't organic protests,
This isn't This isn't something that's coming from the heart.
These are well funded. They use use practices and proven

(01:20:01):
strategies to fement fear uh, to use transference to accuse
others of what they themselves are actually doing. And one
of the analogies that you use to show how absurd
this is is you say, you point out, what if
you hated banks, what if you think they charged too
much of an interest rate, or you think that these
banks are too big and that they're lending policies are
discriminatory you hate their interest rates, and you try to

(01:20:24):
place would you would we be okay with the with
the protest of a bank to the extent that we
would let criminals rob it, or would you stop the
police from stopping a crime at that bank? Share with
our listeners why it's about that basic. We have people
that don't care about the people that are getting killed,
even on their side of the cause. What is it

(01:20:46):
that's happening in front of us that is just so
calculated and callous and has nothing to do with real
you know, First Amendment right protests.

Speaker 17 (01:20:55):
Well, I think he is the nail on the head
Greg Right. I mean, we're at this moment and we
discussed together on the air before or at this moment
in time where there are a group of progressive activists
and the leaders of them and even some members of Congress. Unfortunately,
that pretend as if no one in history has ever
felt strongly about an issue, as if no one else

(01:21:16):
in history has ever disagreed with governors or mayors or presidents.
And therefore they have to really show you, they have
to really elevate their tactics. Is they have to show
you how really upset they're not just upset with ice.
They're really upset with ice, And you're right. I walk
through a series of analogies and say, okay, but there
are people, as we've seen, get angry with big businesses.

(01:21:39):
You know where we had the horrible tragedy in New
York where the CEO of US of United Healthcare was
gone down. But we also know there are people in
society that think drugs should be legalized. Well, should those
folks organize and begin to block the EA agents where
they're doing a drug bring There are people who are
sick in twist who believe that that sex with minors

(01:22:02):
should be legal. They talk about this online. When the
FBI risks their lives and goes into a motel to
rescue children from child predators, are you allowed to interrupt
the FBI because you really think that sex with minors
is right? I mean, my point isn't. What I asked
all of the listeners to think about, is just because
you think you believe deeply in something, or you believe

(01:22:25):
that some politician, the president, of the governor, of the
mayor is really wrong, it doesn't give you the right
to violate the rule of law. You know, the First
Amendment says the right of the citizens peaceably to assemble,
the right of citizens to petition their government and tell
them they're upset or that they want something. It does
not say you can throw things at police officers. It

(01:22:47):
does not say you can post their pictures and where
their families live online. We've crossed the line there's now
been in death, and I think the people doing this,
you know guys they want it's now more and more
to us, those of us who may not even agree,
but we should agree. Is we want a civil society

(01:23:08):
and discourse. It's okay for Republicans and Democrats and independence
to disagree and even be heated and yell. That's fine,
but there's never violence. And you can't interrupt a law
enforcement officer because you're in the unique position that you
disagree with they're doing. That's a breakdown of society. It's
ended in tragedy, and I hope the rest of us

(01:23:28):
say it's wrong. Even if you think these illegal immigrants
should stay, you have to agree that the confronting armed
police officers is wrong and it can't become part of
America's fabric. That's the line I want. This is a
line we should all agree on this line cannot be crossed.

Speaker 2 (01:23:47):
Yeah. You know, another point, another absurdity that was pointed
out the other day by Greg Guttfeld. I don't know
if you saw this on the five, but he says,
you have a lot of women involved in this. A
lot of women are demonstrating against this. These women are
protecting men who have raped other women or could rape them,
who have abused children, maybe their children. Uh, and they're

(01:24:09):
out there protecting them, saying you can't remove these people
talk about something that is way out of whack in Minnesota?
Is that fact? Guy?

Speaker 17 (01:24:18):
No, Look, you're absolutely right. And to me, you know,
you know, sort of joke being in a purple state
unlike unlike yours, but in a purple state, we joke.
The Republicans may be wrong, with the Democrats are crazy.
I mean it's that simple. It's that simple. The Republicans
may be wrong, but the Democrats are crazy. Now again,
I would say, not my next door neighbor, you know,

(01:24:39):
not the parents of the girls I coach them softball.
But these activists right who these activists who say you
should you should confront ice agents, you should block in
their cars. The people who say you can run into
someone's religious service and shut it down. The people who
think the rules don't applause, that's the hell, that's the

(01:25:01):
real danger. And those are the lines we've crossed. And
I keep waiting, I keep waiting and praying that there
will be democratic elected officials who come forward and say
this is wrong. And in the terms of this ice,
I mean, look, as a nation, we can read a lot.
In the twenty twenty fourth election. Everyone who's an honest

(01:25:21):
commentator has to be honest. One of the biggest issues
on the ballot was illegal immigration. President Trump and the
Republicans won. They should be given the opportunity to carry
it out. If you disagree, you have the twenty twenty
sixth election. But this idea is that just because you
fundamentally disagree. And look, they protected this murderer in Maryland

(01:25:44):
to the point where the United States Senators were going
to visit him and they called him the Maryland men.

Speaker 3 (01:25:49):
Well, the Maryland man.

Speaker 17 (01:25:50):
Was from Columbia, was a member of an organized gang
and had murdered people. I mean again, talk to me
about talk to me about the mom and dad who
are here for Mexico and they've been here twenty five
years and have raised their kids. Okay, maybe we have
a debate about what do you do about them. There's
no debate about pedophiles, there's no debate about drug terrorists,

(01:26:11):
there's no debate about multiple murders. And you're right, Rod,
I mean, those are some of the very people you
know that in a regular society we would be praising
what the men and women and ice are doing. They're
removing murderers and rapists from these communities. They should be praised. Instead,
they're being intimidated. So again, I think it's just time

(01:26:34):
for all of us of common sense. Wherever you fit
on the political spectrum, violence and taking the law into
your own hands. Is not part of America. It's not
how we resolve our differences. There's an election in ten months.
Go express yourself that way. Run for office or vote
for the other side.

Speaker 2 (01:26:49):
That's how we do it, don't do America. Guy is
always great chatting with you. Safe travels. Did you heading
back home after your camp? Thanks Guy?

Speaker 17 (01:26:58):
Thanks, thanks again. Guys have a great.

Speaker 2 (01:27:01):
Guys columnist, well known columnists, someone we love having on
the show. I was going to ask him we were
running out of the time. How many tubes of Ben
Gate has he got.

Speaker 1 (01:27:10):
You gotta have some hot hand eye coordination to still
be playing some baseball there, I guess not softball.

Speaker 2 (01:27:14):
That would be my dream to go to a Yankee
fantasy camp.

Speaker 1 (01:27:17):
Really you want to play? So you want to go
Yankee softball camp a little hard ball? You couldn't. You
wouldn't hit it, don't pitch.

Speaker 2 (01:27:25):
Oh you're issuing a challenge. Yeah, I'm just saying the
time you want to go to one of the batting cages. Well,
I'm not.

Speaker 1 (01:27:30):
I was never that you ever play baseball. I played
little league, but not not anymore after that. But I
love baseball, watch it.

Speaker 2 (01:27:38):
But I do go to fantasy That would be terrible
because you're you don't play the game. I don't.

Speaker 1 (01:27:44):
But that's what I'm saying. If you actually could go
to one and hit a fact, even if it's by
another person your own age, throw fast pitch back baseball
and you can hit it, I think that's pretty impressive.

Speaker 2 (01:27:52):
Well, I don't know if I could hit it, but
I'm willing to try.

Speaker 1 (01:27:54):
There you go, put those pin stripes on with the Yankees.

Speaker 2 (01:27:57):
Yeah, give me power? All right? More coming up, final
segment of The Rod and Greg Show next on talk
radio one oh five nine.

Speaker 1 (01:28:03):
Can ras talk Radio one five nine cans.

Speaker 2 (01:28:06):
Just from my generation Buffalo Springfield War protest song.

Speaker 1 (01:28:09):
That's not a thirty song. That didn't that song didn't
come out in the thirties. What do you talking about
your generation generation appropriating that song?

Speaker 2 (01:28:20):
You are so bad? Yeah, I know, you know. People
ask me, am I offended by the comments you make
about my age?

Speaker 1 (01:28:26):
You say, I will not hold my my co host
use of an experience against it.

Speaker 2 (01:28:32):
Ronald Reagan. There was a new analysis, Greg that's interesting today,
if we wrap things up, reveals political leanings of America's
pro sports leagues.

Speaker 1 (01:28:44):
I found this fascinating.

Speaker 2 (01:28:45):
That's fascinating. Of all the leagues out there, which one
are the answer? Yeah, you know the answer, But do
you know this answer, which one hates Donald Trump the most?

Speaker 1 (01:28:55):
I would think it'd be the same one that is
the most liberally professional sport league we have.

Speaker 2 (01:29:00):
And it is w n b A. W n b A,
You're exactly right, w ABA.

Speaker 1 (01:29:04):
Here's what's so funny about that that is probably the
least financially successful professional league we have in America compared
to the ones that are compared the other ones that
are listed. That's the NBA, the the NHL, and NFL,
and Baseball MLB.

Speaker 2 (01:29:19):
Major League Baseball is the only league with the majority
of registered athletes being affiliated with a single party. So
Major League.

Speaker 1 (01:29:26):
Baseball single party of of Republican Republicans. I didn't. I
found that surprising. I would have thought hockey did. But
you clarified that.

Speaker 2 (01:29:35):
Canadians ruin it.

Speaker 1 (01:29:38):
The Canadians, you know, they.

Speaker 2 (01:29:40):
Second the NFL.

Speaker 1 (01:29:41):
That's great.

Speaker 2 (01:29:42):
Yeah, I love it.

Speaker 1 (01:29:45):
Because they believe in earned success.

Speaker 2 (01:29:48):
You got it all right for us tonight, head up,
shoulders back. May God bless you and your family, and
that's great. Chuntry of ours. Will talk to you tomorrow,
for I have a good evening.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Rod and Greg Show: Human Cost off Minnesota Fraud Scandal; Hawaii 2nd Amendment SCOTUS case; Left's Theater of the Absurd

Episode Transcript

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

Popular Podcasts

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

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

All Episodes