Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Here.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
In a minute, we're going to get into Salt Lake City.
I mean, we could do an entire show on once
went on in Salt Lake City. We'll get into that.
John Curtis. I'm trying to does John Curtis just like
to tick off his constituents?
Speaker 3 (00:14):
What's he doing if he saw the Romney model of
being a Utah senator and thought that's what I want
to emulate. Okay, but I don't know that that went
over it very well. Not a real smart idea for
re election. I think there was a reason for that.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
He didn't want to do that. The state of California
has an election coming up for a new governor. Interesting
new poll out on that today, and we'll talk about
this debate that kind of imploded yesterday in.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
California twenty four University of said we're not going to
host this because the will of the people and how
they're polling and how they're we don't agree with it,
and if it's not the candidates we want to have debate,
then we won't hold one. Yeah, whoa USC. I didn't
know that you were running things. I didn't know that.
Why have elections when you USC as a university that
(01:02):
can just call the shots.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Yeah, apparently they did there. We'll get into that as well,
and a lot of other stuff to get to today.
But it's always great to be with you on Wingman Wednesday.
If you want to be a part of the program,
certainly we invite you to give us a call and
participate with us eighty eight eight five seven eight zero
one zero on your cell phone dial pound two fifty
and say hey Rod or leave us a message on
our talkback line by downloading the brand new iHeart Radio app.
(01:27):
And it is a good app, folks. You will want
to pay attention to it all. Right, before we get
into Salt Lake City, there's the story out today, Greg.
It's kind of Donald Trump, it says Trump, I think
a lot now. Apparently, word is that every day since
the start of the war. Okay, US military officials compile
a video update for the president to see. Okay, okay,
(01:51):
and get update. The video apparently shows some of the biggest,
most successful strikes on Iranian targets. Right, get an update
on things. If they call it the stuff Blowing Up Update.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
I want stuff blowing Up up date.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
I would love to be invited to that and see
stuff blowing Dow.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
That'd be the funnest thing to watch. Yeah, I would
love it. Yeah, I mean that's what you it's so
trump it is and you know, you got decades where
it's a pent up you know, frustration over Iran and
just get to see yeah, retribution, you get to see that.
You get to see uh, you know, karma. What comes
around goes around. You have to see it come right around.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
And it's compiled by the Defense Department. Usually runs two minutes,
maybe sometimes longer, but they call it the stuff blowing
up briefing.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Lucky Lucky. I would love to be.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
All right, let's start off the show today. And you
and I have been talking about this. We talked about
it in our morning meeting today, about the ineptitude of
Salt Lake City. Apparently they can't figure anything out.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
No, no, I don't know that it's even across their
minds that they're supposed to figure anything out. I don't
think I think that's their job. I think they think
they're supposed to be performative. They're supposed to hold meetings,
listening tours, let you feel heard. But I don't think
they're ready to pull I make any hard decision. I
think leadership requires you making hard decisions. People vote for you.
(03:14):
You make it very clear where your rudder is in
the water, where your beliefs are. But there's no way
for voters to ever predict what circumstances are going to
come away of whatever you're being elected to, whatever that
may be. And then that's where you're supposed to put
your best eye in, your best judgment, true to who
you were when you ran, and apply it well. In
Salt Lake Salt Lake City, you can't find a mayor
(03:35):
or a city council member that wants to make a
decision about it, even the easy stuff. And then they'll
go ahead and make a decision that's pretty controversial on
the other hand, So I don't know, it's I think
they're playing kids play house, they play city. They like
to play city. Get to be mayor. We'll pretend to
were city council members.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
And you pretend to be mayor. No speaking to the mayor.
She did make one decision. She announced this before the
city council meeting got underway yesterday. She's not a big
happy fan of the detention center that could be built
on the west side of the valley. Right, why ice, Right?
So she's decided Greg, because of the drought, she has
(04:15):
decided not to give that facility any water.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Yeah, she says that then, but she also said, I
will use every tool at the city's disposal to stop it.
Talking about the Ice detention center, so she kind of
let the cat out of the bag as to what's
motivating it, I mean, just saying you're worried about water
is a little bit of a stretch anyway. Yeah, really,
but my question is I think Ice will build it
and they won't have any water. And my question to
the mayor would be, why don't you want the detainees
(04:41):
to have water? You don't want them to Are they thirsty?
Do they need a bathe? Why would you not allow
them to have that water? It sounds kind of cruel
to me.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
Well, real cool, because you've got to think, Greg, in
the summer, that place is going to become pretty darn hot.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
Yeah, right, no water.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
I don't know if they provide air conditioning to detention centers.
They may, but it is going to be hot. So
they don't get any water and they can't bathe thanks
to the mayor.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Mayor doesn't want them to.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
And she's all about water she's all about human rights.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
Sure, thank you, We just I would just you know
how the airport has aaron meninhall, mayor men in hall
talking to you when you get there. Get off at
this recording.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
They should let us talk Greek people.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Yeah, at least some fun. Well, I don't know if
i'd want my name to that airport. They make you
a suffering walk so far in that airport. I don't
know if I want to even associate with you, but
I will say at the ice attention. They should have
her voice saying Hi, are you thirsty? You can thank
me have fun while you're here, because we want to
make sure that you wouldn't have any water to drink nothing.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Would you like to bathe? Sorry, we don't have any water.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Sorry, all right. I'm using every tool of my disposal,
including shutting down the utilities on private property, for my
political agenda, which you are going to be on the
wrong side of.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Yeah. Now, the other issue that apparently the Salt Lake
City Council can't make up it's mind about is the
uh renaming of Caesar Chavez Boulevard on Fifth South. Apparently,
you know, it was announced that the New York Times
investigation into our child as And there were some cities
like Los Angeles and California who instantly changed the holiday
(06:11):
named after him to like farm Workers Day or something
like that.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
Yeah, I was.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
I was in the People's Republican of California when that
all went down. You could just see him throwing drapes
over everything that said the name. The name was apparently
everywhere because but they were very nimble, they were reacting.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
But what was the reaction to the city Salt Lake
City Council when they first heard of this. While we're
going to study.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
This, they said, we're monitoring the this is a story,
an investigative story about saying Hafing decades ago. There's nothing
really to monitor at this point, even the family came
out and acknowledged that these said or these terrible things
that happened. So there's nothing really to monitor. Nothing's going
to change by way of facts. No, so what are
you monitoring? Well, I think they finally came to a decision,
which was, what we need to do something. Here's your decision,
(06:53):
we need to do something. I got an idea. Take
the sign down.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
There's an idea, you know, maybe may you know it's
tough in Salt Lake City. Maybe they need some wrenches,
Maybe we should.
Speaker 5 (07:04):
Don't know.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
There's a lot of signs that say five hundred south
and they don't all say Caesar. Okay, but for some
reason they're just they're just vapor locked. They don't know
what to do. They don't know how to take the
sign down with what to put up in its place.
So I think that it's pretty simple. I think with
the you know, with some ratchet set or some something,
we could we can probably get those signs down. I'll
(07:27):
bet you anything. There's a lot of people of the
city there that inside of before lunch they could get
those signs down. It's not that big of a stretch
that they've got those signs up. But they they haven't.
That's the Da Vinci code. They can't crack it. They
don't know what to do, what to do. It took
them a couple of weeks just to get to the
point where they were ready to make it a cision,
like we're going to do something.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
Yeah, they're staring the sign in the face right now
and going, what do we do about that? What can
we do?
Speaker 3 (07:50):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Apparently city cam'p fit.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
I think I think naming it Chuck Norris Boulevard. That's
that's I think Chuck Norris Boulevard saw everything. It'd be
a two fer.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Yeah, there you go.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Yeah, the real American patriot. And get that guy's name off.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
It's wing Man Wednesday right here on Utah's Talk Radio
one oh five nine. Can us when we come back,
we'll get the latest on what's going on in Iran.
Also coming up a little bit later on, we'll dig
into what happened with the gubernatorial debate in Los Angeles
and in California. And there's a new poll out on
this which is going to scare the daylights out of
the Democrats. That's all coming up on the Roding Gregg Show.
(08:25):
Give us call eight eight eight five seven eight zero
one zero eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero,
or on your cell phone dial pound two fifteen, say
hey Rod. Leave us a talkback comment as well on
our talkback line by downloading the iHeartRadio app. Interesting new
poll out concerning the race for governor in California, and
we'll dig into that debate that apparently wasn't a debate
(08:46):
last night, whatever it turned out to be. We'll try
and figure that one out as well. That's coming up
at the bottom of the hour here on the Rodding
Gregg Show. All right, let's talk about the war in Iran.
We mentioned the president is now getting a daily briefing.
Stuff blowing up is apparently is what they call it,
blowing up, blowing on the president. Apparently Iran haw has
now rejected the president's fifteen point planned and the war surprise, right.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
Yeah, no, they rejected that plan last week.
Speaker 4 (09:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
I mean, I don't get some of this stuff feels
like it's on a loop.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Yeah, well it could be, could be. Well, let's talk
more about the war right now. Joining us on our
any hour newsmaker line is Glenn Beaton. He's a columnist,
good friend of the show. He writes the Aspen beat Glenn,
How are you welcome back to the Rodden Greg Show.
Thanks for joining us, Glenn.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
Oh guy, it's good to be here.
Speaker 6 (09:33):
Glenn.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Let's get some of your thoughts on what is going
on with Iran right now. You wrote an article about
that this isn't Suez in nineteen fifty six, or even
Vietnam in nineteen sixty six. It's Iran and it's twenty
twenty six. Why did you write that why were you
trying to point out, Glenn, Well.
Speaker 4 (09:51):
You know, you can't follow the news without seeing people
who dredge up old wars, we support the current war
or to ar you against the curate war. And I
saw a couple recently. One was they dragged up the
Uez Crisis from nineteen fifty six. That's a little before
(10:12):
my time. But what happened there was France and England
basically controlled the Suez Canal. President Nasar of Egypt took
it away from them, We nationalized it, so there was
a big bluejaha about that. Ultimately, France and England back
down in the face of international pressure, including international pressure
(10:33):
from the United States. This person who cited the Suez
Crisis used it to argue that this just shows that
you should never back down in the Mideast. The UK
and France back down on the Suez Canal and they've
just never been the same in the Middle East. Well,
I thought, geez, this was seventy years ago, completely different circumstances.
(10:59):
Other than it involve the Mideast, completely different actors, different
world alliances, and besides, England and France were on their
way down the tubes. Anyway, to say that the Suez
Canal somehow triggered the demise of English and French culture.
Is kind of getting the cart before the horse. I
(11:19):
think more the demise of French and English culture might
have triggered their loss of the Suez Canal rather than
the other way around. No, I just thought that was
a really stupid way to argue in support of the war.
Now on the other side, of course, it is the
Vietnam War. You can't hear anything about the Iran or
(11:40):
without hearing, oh, here we go again, another quagmire, or
another Vietnam war, another catastrophe. Well, I got two problems
with that. One, Vietnam was sixty years ago. Vietnam was
closer in time to World War One, not two, but one,
than it is to today's time. Now the circumstances and
are completely utterly different. And the other thing that always
(12:03):
kind of bugs me is Vietnam was not the catastrophe
in my view that it's now portrayed to be in
popular culture. We did a lot of good things in Vietnam. Ultimately,
we lost Vietnam, but we delayed the march of communism
across Southeast Asia by fifteen years. Now, whether that was
worth fifty thousand American lives. That's debatable. But to say
(12:27):
that Vietnam was a quagmire and a catastrophe, I think
is ignoring the broader, the historical context of it. Anyway,
to argue that the Iranian War is a good thing
because gee, we don't want to be down the road
with the French and English like they were in Suez,
(12:50):
or the Iranian War is a bad thing because here
we go again with another Vietnam. It's kind of.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
Stupid, sure is, Glenn, here's the thing you bring up
to start contrasts in the Suez Canal in Vietnam. I'll
give you two. There was this popular sentiment after you know,
Afghanist d Afghanis's the mujah had Dean kicked out the
USSR out of Afghanistan. And there was the book Charlie
Charlie Wilson's War. They made it into a movie, and
(13:18):
the lesson at the end of that book and the
movie was that we just after we had helped fund
the United States the musjah Dean in Afghanistan, we left
in a created a vacuum, and that's where Osama bin
Laden came up and gain power. So the argument was
that you shouldn't the other. But the other example is
Afghanistan or in Iraq. You got to finish the job,
(13:38):
you got to stay, you got to help. Twenty years
we sat in there. So you know, if you're looking
for president anywhere in the middle, she's never going to
find it. I don't think here in these conflicts, don't
we trust President Trump enough? Hasn't he shown us he's
not a neocon? Hasn't he shown us that he's opposed
to forever wars? Is there enough that he's done that
we should just trust that he's staring at the unique
circumstances that are confronting this world or country, that region
(14:03):
and just wait to see. I mean, I just don't
think there's a model that you can follow. But I
think we can follow this president, can't we?
Speaker 4 (14:11):
Yeah? I think that's right. There is no model where
you can say, here's the precedent, and here's what dictates
what we should do. Now, everything is always distinguishable. Wars
are all different than other wars. You know, I've made
the point in my piece that this is like trying
(14:32):
to govern by Aesop's table. You know, you can use
you can use these things in an allegorical sense, you
can try to gain some wisdom from them, but to
say that, oh, look at Vietnam and so that dictates
the outcome here, or look at Suez and that they
can the outcome here, or look at Afghanistan or Iraq.
(14:53):
They're all different. You know. You can say, on the
one hand, what a stitch in time saves, or on
the other hand you can say, look before you leave,
And on the other other hand you can say he
who hesitates is lost. These start of things are not
really very useful in complex analysis.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Yeah, and it is a complex situation we're dealing with
now as well. Glenn is always great having me on
the show. Thanks for joining us this afternoon. My pleasure,
Glenn Beat. He's a columnist with the Aspen Beat talking
about the war in Iran. All right, more coming up
on the Rod and Greg Show and Utah It's Talk
Radio one O five nine knrs.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
It turns out that the White House is informed Eon Muscow,
which by the way, they were excited and appreciative of
Elon Musk going to step up and do this. They
have learned that legally it's not going to work because
Congress has the power of the purse, and he would
have to remit that money to the Treasury, of which
Congress would then have to the side where that goes
(15:52):
something that is the worst play. You may as well
just flush it down the toilet and give it to
those clowns. They're not They can't decide what to do
with the money they're they're supposed to appropriate. Can't send
that to him to Congress to do so. Sad that,
I mean. I know that President Trump was appreciative and
that they thought that might be a workaround, but it's not.
But you brought up I mean, maybe Elon could just
privately contribute to money under the table for they do
(16:15):
enough for the illegals, do it for thesa folks. Now,
I think they could charitably give to the poor people
that are working for free for forty four they.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Set up like a fund where people could apply for money.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
I would love to think something should be done.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Maybe maybe you could all right, can you imagine this
a Republican being the governor of California?
Speaker 3 (16:36):
I would love it. It would be Hey, that's Steve
Hilton's working his guts out. He deserves it.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Well now we're months away.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
But they do what do you call that the jungle primary.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Jungle primary where they take the top two candidates and
they face off in.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
The general election in the position the Democrats are like,
we think so little and we hate Republicans so much,
we don't even want them in the general election. We
want to we want to decide between two Democrats in
the general election. We don't want to give the Republicans
an exclusive spot in the general election in November. But
it looks like that might be backfrom.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
New poll out today shows that Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco,
the two Republicans in the race, are leading the pack
of candidates with sixteen percent and fourteen percent. Now, we're
months away right now, but I mean, can you imagine
that Eric Swowell, Katie Porter, Tom Styr they're behind him
and the number has been holding steady for several weeks now, yep. Well,
(17:26):
and I think that'd just be funny. Well, let's talk
about the debate that wasn't a debate last time, Yes,
scheduled at USC.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
Yeah, it's I guess USC gets to decide who should
be running and who should not. And they did not
approve of the candidates that were polling the highest or
most eligible, and so with less than twenty four hours notice,
they canceled it.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Didn't they see this coming? Susan Crabtree is joining us
on our newsmaker line. She has the White House and
national political correspondent for real clear news. Susan, how are
you welcome back to the rodding? Greg?
Speaker 4 (17:55):
All right?
Speaker 2 (17:56):
What happened? Didn't anybody see this coming? I mean, were
you surprised by this? Were people surprised by this? Susan?
Speaker 7 (18:02):
Come on, folks, people were surprised. This is my alma
mater here, but it used to be a conservative bastion
and the city of liberal academia in California, but now
it's been long gone woke in the last decade. And
so no, this does not surprise me. But it was
a big stumble by usc because what happened is they
(18:26):
only wanted they had a formula where they only wanted
a certain number of people on the stage, the highest
performers and the highest polling candidates. But then they added
Matt Mayhon, who's the San Jose mayor, and he's another
white candidate, and he was back in the low digits,
(18:46):
the low single digits, with the other low performing Democrats
he's a Democrat, but he's more moderate and for some
reason they decided in their formula that he should be included.
It was based on intensity of recent unraising so all
interestingly enough, the ones that they had included were all white,
(19:08):
and the low performing Democrats were minorities, including Xavier the Sarah,
the former HHS secretary under Biden, Tony Thurman who is
the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Bettye who's the former controller,
and as well as Anthony via Ragosa, the former Eli Marier.
(19:32):
So they were very upset, but they kind of brought
it on themselves, the USCEDD by including Matt Mahon, and
they should have known this is going to happen, but
it gave them excuse to play the race cards the
minority candidates.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
Yeah, it surprises me because I didn't think you at
the University of Southern California could actually dictate who they
just think ought to debate and if they don't see
someone they like, they can just cancel the whole thing.
I think the pole measure would be important. Does this
play into the hands of a Steve Hilton and Chad
Bianco in terms of two Republicans that we're trying to
point out how broken and how backwards California is that
(20:13):
you've got that state shrinking and population the first time
ever since they've been doing the census. Does this give
them a stronger campaign when something as something as Numbskull
is canceling the debate because you don't you don't like
who gets the debate when that happens, does that help
those candidates, those Republican candidates.
Speaker 7 (20:31):
Yes, I played right into Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco's
hand there. Steve Hilton had an x space forum with
a independent candidate, Elaine Coliedo, and Chad Bianco had his
own in person event, but the rest of the candidates.
(20:52):
It was funny because Tom Steyer, who has been spending
ten of millions of dollars on It's on campaign ads,
he tried to get a forum with the Democratic candidates,
but they couldn't even agree on the ground rules they
wanted to. They wanted a one for all, one for you,
one for all agreement that if any other debate moving forward,
(21:16):
they would all have to be included if they would
if one of them participated, and they couldn't agree on that,
so that that was a short lip fuse. They they
announced that they were trying to have put together an
alternative forum, and then it went could put too. So
it was just frantic scrambling on the behalf of the Democrats.
(21:36):
And you know, we didn't hear him very much at
all from Eric Swawall or Katie Porter. Yes yesterday, I
thought they were I think they were happy they didn't
have to debate Steve Hilton with all this fraud going
on in California.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
That could be true. Nothing against your Alma Manter, but
wouldn't you think somebody in that organization somewhere would have
looked at the list and said, we've got a problem
here we may want to address.
Speaker 7 (22:00):
You would think you would think they it was it
was it was Univision two and KABC, so they had
they must have had advertisements already sold for this debate.
So I mean, people are losing money over this. This
is embarrassing. And even Tommy Veeder, he used to work
(22:20):
for President Obama, a big Democrat podst podcaster, was really
poking fun at the whole thing. And think, seriously, Democrats,
you need to get her act together because this looks
like total disarray in the one party controlled California.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
That's pretty amazing. Susan, is always a pleasure chatting with you.
Thank you, Enjoy the rest of your day.
Speaker 7 (22:41):
Thanks Susan, thank you, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
Thank you, Susan Grebtree National political Course. But I mean
it does say a lot about California.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
California a dummer. They completely prove us wrong and they
just do it worse than they've ever done before.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
Do you think Stude Filton is going to take advantage
of this?
Speaker 8 (23:00):
Should bet?
Speaker 3 (23:02):
It's exhibit A.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
All right, a lot more to get too. Great to
have you with us on this week Man Wednesday, Here
on the Rodd and Greg Show in Utah's talk Radio
one oh five nine KNRS, comediic actor Vince Vaughan had
some comments about late night talk shows. But before we
get to that, here's an example of what he's talking about.
The elitist this time Jimmy Kimmel going after the new
Department of Homeland Security secretary. List what he had to say,
(23:25):
Joe Laurie.
Speaker 9 (23:25):
Trump's got a whole new generation of thinkers lined up,
including his newly confirmed Secretary of Homeland Security, Mark Wayne Chuck.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Mike Bruce, Dave Mellett, Mullen.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Maybe Mellon's better.
Speaker 9 (23:38):
He is the now former Senator of Oklahoma. Before he
was elected to the Senate, Mark Wayne Mullen was a
low level MMA fighter and a plumber.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
That's right.
Speaker 9 (23:48):
We have a plumber protecting us from terrorism.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
Now I work for Super Mario, why not Mark Wayne's.
But honestly, I.
Speaker 9 (23:57):
Mean, if Trump is going to keep taking these unqualified
people to run the department, why do I have more
fun with it? I mean, next time, instead of Mark Wayne,
how about Little Wayne?
Speaker 2 (24:09):
I mean Jimmy Kimmel going after plumbers. Are you surprised
by that at all? No?
Speaker 3 (24:15):
Here's my thing is that I honestly think that that
he is the embodiment of the leftist elitist you know,
regime media. It's and and again, I hope there's not
a single I hope that guy has some leak and
there's not a plumber in the world to go to
his house, and let's smart I figure it out.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
Yeah. Well, here's what Vince Vaughan had to say about
late night talk shows.
Speaker 3 (24:35):
But yeah, because people want authenticity.
Speaker 10 (24:36):
Yeah, and I think that I think that the talk
shows to a large part became really agenda based. Yeah,
they were gonna evangelical people to what they thought, you
know what I mean, And so people just rejected it
because it didn't feel authentic. It felt like they had
an agenda and it's not being funny, and it started
feeling like I was a.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
Class I didn't want to take.
Speaker 10 (24:56):
But if you look at what happened to the talk
shows and why their ratings are low, it's got only
to do with the fact of what you just said,
which is they all became the same show, and they
all became so about their politics and who's good and
who's bad. And it's like imagine sitting next to someone
like that on a plane. Oh, he's right. They all
became the same, no difference between any of them. Tune
(25:17):
in find out. You know, an hour of Trump bashing
every night.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
Wasn't the worst thing in the world that Mark Muwayne Mullen.
You know, when he was twenty years old, his dad's
health turns bad, who owned a company. He drops out
of college to run the family business and turns it
into a giant success. It had six people working there
when he started. It's one hundred and fifty people that
he grew it into. Isn't that a terrible story. It's
unqualified guy. But he's just a plumber. He's just a
(25:42):
plumber Nintendo game. It's just the condescension. I hate the
ignorance and the arrogance when you combine them together, and
that is Jimmy Kimball to a t smug. I'm funny
and they're Democrats sock puppets. I just everything that Vince
vond said is true times ten.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
All Right, here we go. We're going to talk about
John Curtis. What has he done? Now, wait till you
hear it. We'll talk about it. Get your reaction to it.
Come me down on the Rod and Greg Show, bling
Man Wednesday. Stay tuned. I hope you've had a good Wednesday.
I'm Rod Urkett, I'm a citizen.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
Greg Hughes.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
You know, you and I have talked in the past
about Sender John.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
Curtis, and we've spoken with Senator and.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
We've we've spoken with Sender Curtis's he's been on this show.
We've always talked about he's very quick on his feet,
very he knows how to read a room. He's very
very good at that.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
Yes he is. He can speak to the audience. He's
in front of and really persuasively. I will tell you
I find him to be incredibly persuasive when he speaks
on a given topic.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
But of late, I'm trying to figure out what room
he's reading.
Speaker 3 (26:44):
Well, that is a good point, Is that right? I
don't know what I think. Maybe that room is that
that Senate or I've got a second theory. You know
the movie Men in Black? Yes, you remember the Aliens,
how they put on the human mask. I'm going to
talk about something no one's willing to say, has anyone,
Senator John Curtis. The man doesn't look like himself. It
looks like an MiB alien with a rubber John Curtis mask.
(27:07):
He's pulled over his head. Because that does not look
like him. I keep looking at this point, there is
it's not him. I don't know who this is.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
So you think it's not John Curtis.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
It doesn't look like him. And then to the point
you just made, he is not reading the room when
he wants to talk about amnesty in the in the
throes of all the chaos we're dealing with, Well, standing
next to Adam shiff of all people, why.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
Would you stand next to shift first of all, why
would you want to get within one hundred yards of that.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
You can't unsee.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
He is a liar, he is. He had lied to
the American people about seeing evidence that Donald Trump worked
with the Russians to win the election in twenty sixteen.
He lied, he lied, he lied. He never showed mortgage fraud.
He's committed mortgage fraud. So why even stand next to
the guy? He's a crug? Right? And then, and then,
and then John Curtis. First of all, we got after
(27:53):
him a couple of weeks ago because he sponsored Save
America Act, co sponsors, co sponsored it, one of who
co sponsored it. But then he comes out and said,
you know, I don't think he can support No.
Speaker 3 (28:04):
He says it needs sixty votes. Will not He will not.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
So that's what it was.
Speaker 3 (28:08):
A voice or a voice, talking film, talking filibuster, which
means you need sixty votes, which he knows full well.
You can co sponsor anything your ocean's apart from sixty
votes in the Senate to get it. So it's a
pretty safe bet to co sponsor something you'll never actually
have to put your name to. We had a good
discussion with him. He thinks that that the Democrats will
never get rid of the philibuster entirely. I think they
(28:29):
are signaling that every way possible. I don't know how
you can't read that. That's exactly what they're going to do.
But he thinks his resistance to the philibuster will save
the philibuster when, if, and when the Democrats take control.
Speaker 11 (28:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
So here's what happened today if you aren't aware of it.
He appeared on CNBC with Adam Schiff. They were going
to talk about something, right, but the host of the program,
his name is Joe Kernan with CNBC, asked him about amnesty.
Listen to what our Senator John Curtis had to say
about amnesty, and you tell it if he doesn't sound
like a Democrat.
Speaker 12 (29:00):
Do we need then to anyone who's here illegally that
hasn't committed a crime? Senator Curtis, should there be a
path the citizenship?
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Is that what compassion means to you?
Speaker 13 (29:09):
Or should these people not be allowed to stay?
Speaker 2 (29:12):
Well, then let me ask you a question.
Speaker 12 (29:14):
Is there any law, any rule broken in our country
where we don't have a consequence defined? So why don't
we have a consequence defined when it comes to coming
into this country without documentation. We continue to allow these
people to be here, but we haven't defined what their consequence.
Speaker 3 (29:32):
Is, so that that's an action from from policymakers.
Speaker 12 (29:36):
Absolutely, all right, So what what would you say we
need to do?
Speaker 4 (29:40):
Then?
Speaker 2 (29:40):
What's your answer to that?
Speaker 12 (29:42):
I guess it is like so, first of all, you
have to define amnesty, but any other crime that's committed
here in our country, we define what, we define what
the punishment.
Speaker 2 (29:53):
Is, and we've we've failed to do that in this case.
Do you follow the Oh wait a minute, let's turn
on your mic there you go, Oh there you are.
Well for some reason your microphone is not on here,
Grab that, Grab that one next to you. For some
(30:14):
reason that is not working. Not the way it should be. Yeah,
now there you go.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
Yeah, so boy, I'm getting censored here. I don't know
what's going on. That never happened before. It's John Curtis,
it is I I want to play there was you
stopped it right there. But John Curnin from CNBC is
a little Joe Curran. He's taken back a little bit
like he's going back and forth with the Republican senator
on this. He's a little confused. I have one little
(30:42):
I have a couple more seconds. I want to play
of what Joe Curran says next to John Curtis, because
he's a little he's a little bit shocked about the conversation. Yeah,
I play it.
Speaker 2 (30:52):
Yep, go ahead and play that. Let's see what he
had to say Senator Curtis.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
He said, I didn't expect to debate Senator Curtis on this. Well,
he said, Senator shiff, what do you say. I didn't
expect I'd be debating Senator Curtis on this. So you know, again,
I think that this is when he talks amnesty, when
we're talking about here is, by the way, the defined penalty.
You get deported, you get rided. I mean, if you're
(31:22):
telling me that we don't have after administration after administration,
without regard to political party, people that were turned around
at the border, that attempted to enter illegally and we're
and we're turned around, even deported. This has happened. This
is defined. This isn't no man's land. This is actually
a thing that happens or should have happened, didn't happen
during the bad administration. But if you come over a
(31:42):
second time, it is it is a civil penalty the
first time, but you are turned around, you are you're
told to go back. But if you get if you
get apprehended, but if you do it a second time,
then it is a felony. And these felonies are defined.
So when he describes that there are no tell me
a law that you break where there isn't a consequence,
There is a consequence for entering this country a little
(32:03):
there is. There absolutely is. Whether decided to follow it
or not or enforce that law, that's another question. But
you can't say it doesn't exist. It absolutely exists.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
So it is John Curtis, in your opinion, Greg saying
today because we haven't clearly defined what amnesty is and
the consequential penalty is he saying we need amnesty.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
I think he's making a case. I think he absolutely
is making a case for amnesty right now. I don't
know what that comment. I don't know why you'd even
use the word if that's not what's on your mind,
and I don't think that's the word that's on America's
mind right now. It's how do you enforce the law?
How do you enforce federal law? And there are paths
to do that. It's not it's not a it's not
a guess. You get report, you get deported, you get
taken back, you get sent back from where he came.
(32:46):
It's it's absolutely that simple, and it isn't it isn't
a gray area. And just because people have refused to
follow that law or ignored it like the Democrats have,
doesn't mean it's undefined. So I I was frustrated to
hear that, and I would just say this, it's very
on brand if you listen to some of the things
that Senator Curtis has said. He said we should wake
up every day and wonder how can we hug or
(33:06):
support or welcome immigrants city, And he'll can flight, He'll
conflate illegal with legal, he puts them all in the
same category. What I would say to the senator is
you've got over two hundred thousand federal workers out of
the Department of Homeland Security whose families haven't been paid
for over forty four days, and you're staring at a
sixteen day vacation. And if you leave on that vacation,
(33:26):
leaving those families two hundred thousand plus with critical roles
in the federal government in terms of their jobs without pay,
without a compensation for the jobs they're supposed to do.
If you take sixteen days of vacation, who wants to
hear what you think about illegal immigration or anything else
when you are putting American families in such financial straits,
people are suffering. And I don't hear out of that
(33:50):
interview or anywhere else that we will stay here and
we will work until we get this done, and our
vacation time we're probably going to miss it until we agree.
If that's the urgency it takes, do it. But if
you go on vacation sixteen days and that hasn't been resolved,
don't tell me about another issue in this country, because
you've just shown you have a blatant disregard for the
welfare of American families in this country, the ones they protect,
(34:13):
and then the ones that are supposed to be protecting us,
who haven't had a paycheck for forty four days.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
More than half the people, the men and women who
serve in the US Senate, more than half, I don't
have the exact number, have a net worth of three
million dollars or more. Yeah, okay, they get paid to
wopping one hundred and seventy four thousand dollars a year,
as if they really care and if they need it.
Right now, you have the TSA agents making fifty thousand
dollars a year. Yeah, and they may have to continue
(34:37):
working without pay for another two or three weeks. Will
these guys go on vacation? Well, intakeays of empathy here.
And the way you instill some empathy in these people
is you take their staff. So, okay, yeah, you're worth
three millions, so you're not going to really miss one
hundred and seventy four thousand if you get it.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
How about your staff? They don't get paid either. No
one in Congress, none of your office, your everyone, everybody
goes is broken. The people you just made broke because
you have the power of the purse and you can't
do your constitutional duty. See how long that lasts. Then,
I think the sense of urgency, if it was impacting
their own staff, they would be able to feel it.
I think they feel it.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
A little closer, it'd be a little different.
Speaker 14 (35:12):
All right.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
We want to get your reaction to the comments of
Senator John Curtis talking about amnesty. Apparently there is no
consequence defined. Yes, there is. It's called deportation. We'd like
to get your thoughts on this eight eight eight five
seven oh eight zero one zero on your cell phone
dial pound two fifty and say hey Rod, or of
course you can leave us a message on our talk
back line here. Just download the iHeartRadio.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
I got targeted in here. Yes, and my Mike and
this is brand new studio. It's a beautiful studio. And it
wouldn't let me talk. Well you are now well I
am now Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
We fixed it. Yeah, we fixed it all right, welcome back.
We just hit it hard. It is hard work. We
just kept up pounding on it. It is the wingman.
When's the addition of the Rod and Greg Show. I
want to read you the headline from one of the
conservative websites about what John Curtis said today. You're ready
for this?
Speaker 4 (35:56):
Great?
Speaker 2 (35:57):
This is the headline. We all knew this gop SI
was a squish, and he proved it again today on
c MBC.
Speaker 3 (36:05):
A squish. Yeah, there's a there's a few common there's
there's a bunch of well you know, frequented uh sites
on x that are just discussed with Yeah, yeah, just
coming out against Curtis and again large following so this
is a national story that him and Schiff are talking
(36:26):
where they are. Hey, let's go to you, our callers,
our listeners, the collective wisdom of the listeners of the
Rotting Gregg Show. Let's start with Neil and Santa Quin. Neil,
Welcome to the Rotting greg Show.
Speaker 6 (36:38):
Thank you, gentlemen.
Speaker 15 (36:39):
I appreciate the opportunity to talk you. Okay, as far
as my I've been along time Trump supporter, and I'm
absolutely in agreement with the need to attack the uh
illegal immigrants that are lawbreakers and murderers and get them
(36:59):
out of the country as soon as possible. But basically
what I'm concerned about is families that have been here
for a while, that have planted new roots here. Basically,
they are here because they were invited here by our
government's failure to enforce the laws that we have. And
what I'd like to see is anybody that can't prove
(37:21):
residency in this country for a minimum of five to
seven years, where they prove that they have an income,
they have a job, they've paid their bills, they've paid
their taxes, that we should find a way for them.
Speaker 7 (37:34):
To be able to stay.
Speaker 15 (37:35):
Anybody that can't do that should be deported immediately. The
idea that you can lawyer up and be held in
this country is ridiculous. As Americans, just like Jacob and
Esau in the Bible, we were born with a birthright
as centicitness in this country and we need to protect
that birthrighty.
Speaker 2 (37:54):
So, Neil, it sounds like you're in favor of amnesty
under certain conditions. Is that what you're saying, or a
pathway to citizenship under certain conditions?
Speaker 15 (38:03):
Well, I hate I hate the word amnesty.
Speaker 7 (38:06):
OK.
Speaker 15 (38:06):
Yeah, I think that for those that can fulfill those requirements,
there should be a avenue for which they can stay.
Speaker 2 (38:15):
All right, all right, Neil, thank you very much. Let's
go back to the phones. Let's head to ok Clean.
Hear what Jerry has to say on this tonight on
the Rotting Greg Show. Jerry, how are you.
Speaker 8 (38:24):
Hey?
Speaker 6 (38:24):
Doing fine?
Speaker 4 (38:25):
Good? Oh?
Speaker 6 (38:26):
You talk about elitist John Curs is even a rhino?
He just said democrat elitist.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
It doesn't sound like it, Jerry, I.
Speaker 6 (38:34):
Mean recommend that. What's he gonna do it?
Speaker 8 (38:38):
He'll need cake?
Speaker 3 (38:40):
It sounds like it sounds like it. I mean, I
we're getting a lot of national attention with this him
and Schiff appearing together on CNBC this morning. There's a
lot of commentary about it. Do you think that Utahon's
knew this is who they were voting for when he
ran last year or in twenty eighth, But I did.
Speaker 6 (38:56):
I told him, I am not. I am not at
all surprised. And I don't know how you could be
possessed by the soul of a living person, because he's
just met Romney two point zero. And I think it
would be great if he Lisa mccarsky and Susan Collins
did a Big Brother show they get out of the Senate.
Speaker 2 (39:15):
Yeah, maybe that's what they need to do. And Mitch
mccaddle could be on that show as well. All right,
let's go to our talk back line here. What someone
had to say here.
Speaker 16 (39:23):
I personally am not surprised by John Curtis at all.
What surprises me is people who actually believed that he
was a Republican or conservative in the first place. John
Curtis has always been a Democrat.
Speaker 2 (39:39):
That's a question a lot of people have raised over
the years. Gregg, that's for sure. All right, more your calls,
more your talkback comments coming up. It is the Wingman Wednesday,
edition of The Rodden Gregg Show on Talk Radio one
oh five nine KNRS. John Curtis appeared to be not
a Republican but a Democrat this morning when he appeared
with of all people, Adam Schiffless on CNBC talking about amnesty,
(40:02):
and he basically said, look, there's no penalty for amnesty.
We need to define what it is, and then we
need to define the consequences of being into this country illegally. Well,
our thoughts on that is, there are consequences. You're here illegally,
we can deport you in a minute.
Speaker 3 (40:18):
It's like a bad bad cop movie watching a buddy
cop movie with schiff and Curtis just shortest shoulder talking
about all that amnesty and all that illegal immigration and
how we can make it right by keeping them and
whatever it is that they're talking about. Like the CNBC
guy Joe Kernan says, I didn't expect to be debating
Senator Curtis on this issue. He was.
Speaker 2 (40:39):
He was, all right, let's go to the phones eight
eight eight five seven eight zero one zero on your
cell phone, of course, dile pound two fifty and say hey, Rod,
or leave us a message on our talkback line. By
downloading the iHeartRadio app. We'll get to some of those
talkback comments here in a minute. Let's go back to
the phones. Let's go to David, who's been waiting for Murray. David,
thank you for holding, and welcome to the Rod and
Greg Show.
Speaker 8 (41:01):
Okay, wingman, here we go. Yeah. I'm seventy three years
old and at about age twelve, my parents got me
involved in politics. I started attending functions and protests that
you name it. So I've been doing this for a
long time. Let's see if this will resonate with a
(41:22):
lot of our listeners. My parents taught me by their
own personal example, when something was presented that was an
absolute lie or per varication if you want to use
a kinder term, they would stand up or raise their
hand and they would say words like this, this is
false doctrine, or that is incorrect, that is absolutely not true.
(41:47):
And that's what needs to happen here with Curtis.
Speaker 12 (41:49):
He lied.
Speaker 8 (41:52):
There are obvious penalties that are in place that were
established by legislature. This is not something made up. It
is he is absolutely lying to our faces, and it's
time for us to stand up and say sorry. I'm
mister Curtis, I'm not going to use the respectful senator.
(42:15):
You're a liar and you know it. That's my that's
my that's my stand. And there is a nice offer
out there that I wouldn't have done. They'll pay him
two thousand dollars and pay for their transport so they
can go down to the border and come back correctly.
If they're hot, then there are all kinds of actions,
(42:35):
and that's on the table right now. They can self
deport and come back and do it right.
Speaker 2 (42:40):
Yep, you're right, David, they can. And by being on
the show and saying what you just said, David, you
are standing up and you are saying thank you and
any and.
Speaker 3 (42:48):
So he is as incredulous about this idea that there's
just no laws, there's no structure for any of this.
Sure of course there is. Okay, Richard, Salt Lake City,
thank you for holding. Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.
Speaker 17 (43:00):
Hi, thanks for taking my call. I just wanted to
respond to a previous caller who implied that these people
were invited in because the laws weren't enforced. That is
completely not true. They crashed the party, They were not invited,
the invitation to become a legal citizen in the United States.
We already have a process for that. We have a
(43:20):
process of legal immigration that brings in new citizens. These
people did not come illegally. They violated the law by
doing that in the first place. And if they've been
here for years, they had to get a fake identification
to assert that they were US citizens. Every time I
applied for a job, I have to show proof of citizenship.
(43:41):
If they're here working for whatever years, they're either working
under the table for cash or they've falsified their identity
in order to assert that they're legal citizens and have
a right to work here. So they are committing at
least two crimes by being here for years and working.
And I'm sorry, have any sympathy for them. They knew
(44:02):
what they were doing, and they knew what they were
continuing to do the whole time they were here. It's
not like they forgot that they jumped to the border.
They need to take that payout and go back to
their country and then come in legally if they want
to do that.
Speaker 2 (44:16):
You're right, Richard, You're right. And stolen identity we forget.
Speaker 3 (44:19):
Well, I was just gonna say, Richard brought up a
real important issue, and that is identity theft a theft.
It is a identity theft that happens if you're trying
to get a job and you're asked for to provide
documentation and the documentation you provide is false, falsified. That
is a identity theft. There's some young person with a
social Security number that's getting used by someone and they
will only find out about it later. So that that's
(44:41):
that is a real problem.
Speaker 2 (44:42):
We hear from you as well on our talk back line.
Here's one of the comments coming in tonight. Hey, Rod
and Greg. How's this.
Speaker 11 (44:50):
Eight USC Code thirteen twenty makes it a federal crime
to cross the border illegally. That includes in between you know,
waypoints and all that stuff, and it is punishable by
up to six months in prison and fines. Not only
is John Curtis a Democrat, but he's an idiot. Well,
(45:10):
you understand the law. I'm surprised John Curtis doesn't understand that.
Speaker 3 (45:15):
Tell me, is there a definition? Well, talk to our listeners,
have them.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
You just heard it. Here's another comment.
Speaker 16 (45:22):
John Curtis was a Democrat before he changed to be
a Republican period. Basically, all Democrats are Democrats, and most
Republicans are also Democrats. John Curtis has always been a
Democrat and he always will be a Democrat. And just
(45:43):
hopeful that one day the Utah constituency will wake up
and realize that they voted in a Democrat.
Speaker 2 (45:51):
Well, they voted. I can't remember how much did John
Curtis win by? Pretty significant, wasn't I know?
Speaker 3 (45:57):
Uh No, I think it was I hek he was
fifty two percent.
Speaker 2 (46:02):
I can't remember. Just wondering because people in this state
voted John Curtis in. Be aware of that, folks. All right,
more your calls, more your talkback comments coming up on
the Rodding Greg Show. If you want to weigh in
on this tonight eighty eight eight five seven eight zero
one zero again on your cell phone, just style pound
two fifteen, then say hey Rod, or leave us a
talkback comment by downloading the iHeartRadio one.
Speaker 3 (46:23):
So John Curtis won forty eight point seven percent of
the Republican vote, which stands that we have more republic
registered Republicans and primaries voting against our nominees and we
have voted for them.
Speaker 2 (46:35):
Something wrong, There's something.
Speaker 3 (46:35):
Wrong with that.
Speaker 2 (46:36):
Yeah, fixed it, all right, let's go back to the phone.
Speaker 3 (46:37):
Okay, let's go to Howard, who's been patiently waiting. Howard
in Provo, Welcome to the rodding, Greg Show.
Speaker 13 (46:45):
Well, thank you, gentlemen. Nice to be on with you,
mister wingman.
Speaker 4 (46:50):
Hey.
Speaker 13 (46:51):
John Curtis, with chairman of the Utah County Democrat Party,
ran unsuccessfully for state Senate against Kurt Brown as a Democrat.
As mayor of Provo, used the Provo CD power as
his tax increase instrument to tax churches another five oh
(47:14):
one c threes and residents as another way to increase taxes,
but hide it on the power bill. When the legislature
passed SB fifty four, they gave John Curtis a golden
ticket to be elected to Congress when we should have
had Chris Herrod three terms we got or Trents gagged
(47:37):
as senator. We've asked congressman having access to inside information.
He made over three hundred million dollars, exceeding even what
Nancy Pelosi made. Let's see, well, I got it.
Speaker 2 (47:56):
We need to move along. Howard. Thank you for your comings.
Speaker 3 (47:58):
But you're right, is it not? Yeah, it's my goodness.
Speaker 2 (48:01):
John Curtis done pretty well being a US Center. Hasn't
he all?
Speaker 13 (48:04):
Right?
Speaker 2 (48:04):
Back to the phones, Let's go to Lynn in Uh,
let's say Lynch and salt Lake said, he tonight, Lynn,
how are you? Thanks for joining in the Rodin Greg Show.
How are you tonight?
Speaker 5 (48:13):
I'm good? How are you?
Speaker 2 (48:14):
We're doing well? Thank you your thoughts on this one.
Speaker 5 (48:18):
Well, I just wanted to make a comment because I
thought it was odd and I didn't realize it at
the time. But when he was running for the Senate
for TV in the Senate where he is now, I
did not matter. I never pay attention to stuff. But
when I'd watched TV, no matter what channel I turned to,
whether it was local or on the dish or satellite,
I could not get away from his commercials. We were everywhere.
(48:40):
I made a comment to my husband and said, his
his his commercials, they're everywhere. Who is sending him? It
was such I had such an I have such a
bad feeling about it, and I was like, this isn't right,
Something's not right here, and I just remember that this
(49:01):
is just weird. And this was before his competitor accused
him of inside trader and trading, and I was like, Okay,
I'm going to listen to that. I'm going to listen
to my gut feeling this is not right. And can
I just say equipped heads up because I keep forgetting
to email you, Greg Weird Twins Happy birthday on October thirteenth.
Speaker 1 (49:23):
Oh you're a weird buddy.
Speaker 2 (49:24):
You we are.
Speaker 3 (49:26):
I love that October thirteenth. We have a lot of
we share that birthday with a lot of people. There's
a lot My uncle, my uncle Dnning, Yeah, brnn, my neighbor, Yeah.
Climate control. Climate people funded a super pack. They put
eight There was a combined eight million dollars. The highest
spent Senate race in Utah history was John Curtis.
Speaker 2 (49:46):
Wow, all right, mare coming up? Power number three?
Speaker 4 (49:48):
Isn't that?
Speaker 2 (49:48):
We've gone after Mayor Aaron Mendon Hall and the Salt
Lake City Council today last hour, we went after John
Curtis and his comments about amnesty in America.
Speaker 3 (50:00):
Who next, Well, I'll tell you who we're not going at.
Speaker 2 (50:04):
We are going after this guy, this guy.
Speaker 3 (50:06):
Oh do we ever? Okay, So we've got joining us
on the program Senator John Johnson, a strong state senator
representing what what district is it? It's a district, It's
I know that. Yeah, I should know this, Oh, District
three three Morgan summit Me Weber Senator, Welcome to the
(50:27):
Rodd and Greg Show.
Speaker 8 (50:29):
Great, great to be with you. It's always a pleasure
for me.
Speaker 3 (50:33):
Well, I'll tell you what you are. You are one
of our champions, not just in the legislature, but our
listeners need to know that on issues of surrounding education,
public education, higher ED. You are a leader. You're all.
You've been fighting DEI. You've been arguing to bring the
classic education back, the classic classical curriculum back into our schools.
You have a bill and I read the headline today
(50:54):
and it said that some want this bill that you
passed successfully VETOED. Well, for me, if someone wants you're
bill veto, they're on the wrong side. You're on the
right side. So I wanted to bring if we wanted
to bring you on the show. You've got this bill.
It sent it Bill three twelve, and it looks to
allow some teachers who have lost their license for administrative
reasons to still be able to be employed in our schools.
(51:17):
It's a it's a it's a narrow issue, but it
is getting a lot of attention, or some attention I
guess from the Salt Fake Tribune, maybe you could share
with our listeners what is what does this bill seek
to do?
Speaker 8 (51:27):
Well, I think what you really have to do is
define this by fairness, right does the punishment fit the crime.
One of one of the problems teachers have now with
with you PACK is you've you've got an organization who
basically is the judge, the jury, and the executioner all
at once. And and you know, there's a lot of
(51:49):
things that teachers can be brought up on charges with.
And what what this bill attempts to do is basically say, look,
if you if you are a threat to a child,
if you're going to harm a child, you don't belong
in the schools. But you know, if you if you've
followed some of our administrative hearings in the Senate, you
(52:10):
find that this seems to have been I don't know
how to put it weaponized maybe, And you know, some
teachers are really suffering because of some administrative errors or
other things, and then all of a sudden, you know,
they're putting a situation where they put their license gits
(52:31):
on suspension and then they're banned from working anywhere. And
you know, it doesn't make sense if you're in some
administrative job, or even the ability to go to your
grandchild's school to watch a play.
Speaker 4 (52:46):
It's just it's just.
Speaker 8 (52:47):
Bizarre to me.
Speaker 2 (52:48):
So anything involving like you pointed out Sender Johnson, sexual misconduct, grooming,
any of that, that teacher would not be allowed back
into the system. You're saying, it deals only with people
who make what administrative mistakes or or maybe tick off
the principle they work with. I mean, who would be
impacted by this the most?
Speaker 8 (53:09):
Well, I think honestly they're families, the kids themselves. I mean,
it actually shocked me. And this is what's the surprising
thing with this. You've you've got a build that deals
with basically helping teachers, right, promoting teachers, that is opposed
(53:31):
by the union but supported by parents groups. Doesn't that
seem bizarre to you that now all of a sudden,
the governor wants to veto a bill that is that
is simply trying to establish fairness for teachers and administrators
that bump up against you know, some of these mistakes
(53:54):
or oversights or anything else. Right, So we're and doesn't
it isn't isn't it surprising though, that it's the union
that's fighting this and it's the parents groups that are
supporting it.
Speaker 3 (54:05):
It's bizarre. In fact, I feel like I'm missing something
because what I and when I was on the clock,
it seemed like the unions were trying to keep unqualified
teachers on the job in front of our kids, and
that was a big worry. Your bill seeks to remedy
some I think, some you know, loop, some cracks, people
falling through the cracks, or some loopholes here. But let
me ask you this. I know you live in a
(54:27):
world up in the capital of good reasons and real reasons,
and they can give it whatever good reason they want,
and to the Tribune or to any paper, if your
Senate de Corum will allow you your You know how
you guys just like to talk so nice to each other.
Can you just suspend that for a second and tell
me what the real reason is that people are pushing
back on this bill, because I can't. It sounds like
it's logical that if there's someone that ran up against
(54:49):
the administrator that didn't like them, and they got their
license suspended or something happened where it was administrative as
you've defined How on earth are they not allowed to
work in that in any capacity at the school. What
is the real reason that this bill has any kind
of controversy?
Speaker 8 (55:06):
You know, you know, it's it's puzzling to me, you know,
for one, I mean maybe it's because I ran it,
and and you know, I run up against the what
what what I termed is big AD all the time,
pushing back against this administrative state that is our public
education system. You know, they seem to fight us on
(55:30):
school choice, they seem to fight us on you know,
you know, parents complaints, parents grievances, being able to you know,
it seems like to me that, you know, do they
really want to educate our kids? I'm not sure sometimes.
Speaker 2 (55:47):
Senator Johnson, you mentioned a moment ago, you peck. I
think it's called the Utah Professional Practices Advisory Commission. In
your opinion, does this commission have too much power? Do
things need to change or do they they just need
some accommodations made to allow some people to get back
into education.
Speaker 8 (56:06):
Well this was simply a start, right, And I really
think that this system is broken in a lot of
ways because I know parents complain, because they file complaints
that never never get heard in a way, right, they're
supposed to be. I don't know what happens to them.
(56:27):
They seem sometimes to fall into a black hole. But
then you've got situations where if the charge comes from
an administrative function, especially I hate to say the Salt
Lake City School District, I think sometimes you have a
situation where this is used to you know, as a
(56:50):
weapon in some ways. And you know, I hate to
say that, but I sit through too many of these meetings,
and I wish people would actually watch the Administrative Rules
Committee meeting when we had you know, a you know,
the former principle for instance, that East High, I mean
West High, Jared Wright who is in there, and some
of the things that happened there were puzzling to me,
(57:13):
and and I think people ought to look into it,
you know, And that's simply what I've asked the governor
and other people to do. But you know, it seems
to me that you know, he's dead said on basically
vetoing this bill.
Speaker 3 (57:30):
So we're speaking with Senator John Johnson. You are also
the chair of the Senate Education Committee. So it's a
it's an area of expertise that you've always gravitated with
your legislation, but also your responsibility and the legislature. You
are the chair of the Senate Education Committee. I think
what I'm hearing, and I think I saw this a lot.
It really isn't about the kids. It's not about these teachers.
(57:51):
What it is is that you have adults that control
adult systems. And what I'm reading here is that that
you have an inside shop, a game that they get
to decide all the rules. And what you've done is
you've you've changed those rules. They don't get to these
adults don't get to control adult systems like they're used
to doing. And it's it's boiling down to a turf
battle between the establishment and how they get to run things.
(58:13):
And some Senate Education chare senator who thinks that this
ought to have an opener or a better process, or
you shouldn't be able to condemn people from being able
to work. Is that what this is?
Speaker 8 (58:25):
You know, it's hard, it's hard to say, oh.
Speaker 3 (58:27):
You're just see this is where this is where I
can't You're just being a senator. This is you being nice,
This is you just being too nice.
Speaker 8 (58:35):
Well I thought so, honestly, thank you. I think we
need something to happen.
Speaker 10 (58:42):
Senator.
Speaker 3 (58:42):
I love you. I'm just teasing you, but I knew
that you're very you know the Senate you got you
guys have so much decorum. I I was trying to
pull it out of you because I know that's what's
going on here. But you know, you just you love
to give the benefit of the doubt. I love that,
but I do think, I do think that the the
cake is baked here and they don't like that what
you're doing, and that's why you're getting this veto push
because what you're arguing for, on its face should defend
(59:04):
no one. But what you're doing is you're stepping on
someone's turf and that's that's the problem with with this bill.
But you keep fighting a good fight, sir.
Speaker 2 (59:11):
Yeah, Sunder. Let me ask you this. Any indication from
the Governor's office to where he may go with this yet?
Have you heard of it?
Speaker 8 (59:18):
I I well, in my conversation with him today, it's
you know, he basically told me he didn't like my bill,
and I you know, I tried to figure out, uh,
you know what exactly he didn't like. And I think
that this is just this just happens to be a
turf battle that he's going to side with the Union
(59:39):
on sunder.
Speaker 2 (59:40):
Always great chatting with you. Thank you, We appreciate him
and it's your times under Johnson.
Speaker 8 (59:45):
Thank you, thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (59:47):
On our any hour news reader line that is State Center,
John Johnson talking about a bill that it sounds like
the governor most likely is going to veto more coming
up on The Rodden Greg Show and Utah's Talk Radio
one oh five. Dine Okayn, I I think everybody would admit,
even women would admit this Greg that nobody really likes
to talk about feminine hygiene products. Right, It's uncomfortable for
(01:00:09):
people to talk. Yes, me too, I'm with that. But
this story shows where we are in twenty twenty six.
A Republican female lawmaker is putting the uncomfortable conversation out
there in a way that should make her woke. Democratic
colleagues in the Maryland House of Della gets feel embarrassed,
if not a shame. They have a bill that would
(01:00:31):
mandate putting tampons, Yes, tampons and other such products in
men's restrooms in public buildings. You say Republican's doing this, No,
a Republican is calling out Democrats who want to do this. Yeah,
I mean they want to put it in Raven Stadium
at Camden Yards.
Speaker 16 (01:00:48):
Please.
Speaker 2 (01:00:49):
Really, that's what she had to say. She posts a
very interesting question. By the way, listen to this.
Speaker 18 (01:00:54):
Menstrual hygiene products means appropriately sized tampons. What are appropriately sizedampons?
I've never heard of such a thing. What do you
consider appropriate?
Speaker 14 (01:01:09):
It just means that tampons are offered. There are no
specific side.
Speaker 18 (01:01:14):
Well, apparently there's four different sizes. So which one would
you like them to use?
Speaker 14 (01:01:20):
Just a regular sized tampon in the bathroom?
Speaker 18 (01:01:23):
Okay, maybe it should say that and not appropriately sized tampon?
Speaker 8 (01:01:28):
Now?
Speaker 18 (01:01:28):
Is this going in all bathrooms men and women's?
Speaker 9 (01:01:31):
Yes?
Speaker 18 (01:01:33):
How about the Ravens Stadium?
Speaker 14 (01:01:37):
If it is a state owned building, then yes, it
would go in it's a public building.
Speaker 18 (01:01:47):
Oriole Park.
Speaker 14 (01:01:50):
Well, if it applies to the raven Stadium, it would
also apply to Oriole's Park.
Speaker 18 (01:01:54):
I guess Pimlico.
Speaker 2 (01:01:57):
Correct.
Speaker 8 (01:01:58):
Now?
Speaker 2 (01:01:59):
Can I tell you what my story dealing with this issue?
Speaker 3 (01:02:03):
Yeah? Maybe I this is this I'm suffering through this segment.
This was a terrible thing.
Speaker 2 (01:02:08):
This was a couple of years ago, prior to the
youth kicking off the football season. My wife and I
wanted to go get some new Utah tire, right, so
I went to the bookstore. I go into men's room.
There's a basket of tampons. When was this just two
three years ago? Up with the U you're kidding, No,
two three years ago, I would imagine they're still there.
Nobody in this town has guts enough to say take
(01:02:30):
them out of here.
Speaker 3 (01:02:32):
It's just it's so messed up. I mean, if there's
someone that needs that and they're in the men's.
Speaker 2 (01:02:35):
Room, all right, they shouldn't be in the men's room.
Speaker 3 (01:02:38):
I don't think that's where you want to be. No,
so you shouldn't be in the men That should be
like in a unisex bathroom. Can we just if we
if we have to talk about this, can you just
put it in the bathroom. There's plenty of those kind
of bathrooms. I see that it's uni sex. Has a
lock on the door. You just you know, you could
be a guy or girl. Just go in there. It's
a single stall. You lock the door behind.
Speaker 2 (01:02:54):
You, don't have to worry about it.
Speaker 3 (01:02:55):
Go put whatever you want in there. That makes sense,
But don't put women's stuff in the guys in the
men It's just it's demented. It's absolutely demented.
Speaker 2 (01:03:02):
Maybe someone's been up there at the bookstore to you.
I bet they still have them there. I know you
they have changed anything.
Speaker 3 (01:03:09):
Yeah, you're right, You're right, they're probably still doing it,
because yeah, it's.
Speaker 2 (01:03:12):
Just bizarre Maryland Democrats.
Speaker 3 (01:03:16):
I would move for this conversation alone. I get out
of that town. I wouldn't want to hear this.
Speaker 2 (01:03:20):
Well, it's Baltimore, Yeah yeah, I mean you think.
Speaker 3 (01:03:23):
What they call it, those Camden Yards? What happened to
Camden Yards?
Speaker 2 (01:03:27):
I think it still is called yards. She referred to
it as Oriole Ballpark. Yeah, but it's Camden Yards. And
couldn't you see it had a Ravens football game.
Speaker 3 (01:03:38):
You know what, I hate the Ravens as a Steeler fan,
So you know what, they probably need him in the
men's room with the Ravens for the Ravens fans. Yeah,
they are a bunch of women. Wow, and think there's
a man to be found amongst them. Yeah, a bunch
of brutal, bunch of ladies figures. Okay, But because I
bet you those raven fans who think they wear dresses,
even the guys are wearing dresses. Yeah, go give them, give.
Speaker 2 (01:03:57):
Them all that you're heard of the Ravens.
Speaker 3 (01:03:59):
I don't like the Ravens now that I think about it.
Speaker 2 (01:04:01):
Really Yeah, okay, all right, more coming up here on
the Rod and Greg Show in Utah's Talk Radio one
O five to nine k n R S. Is that easy?
I'm Rod arquit citizen, Greg Hughes. All right, Let's say, Greg,
you are a naturalized citizen. Okay, you've gone through all
the legal channels. You've now become a citizen of the
United States. But you do something against the country. Can
(01:04:22):
you be I guess de naturalized and kicked out of
the country. Is that possible?
Speaker 3 (01:04:26):
Well, let's find out.
Speaker 2 (01:04:28):
Ah.
Speaker 3 (01:04:28):
Joining us on the program George Fishman. He is a
senior legal fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies and George,
welcome to the program. This is the question. You bring
this up in your article. Shed some light on this
for us. Is it true that a naturalized citizen could
potentially lose their citizenship?
Speaker 1 (01:04:47):
Well, the issue has is in the public sphere right now. Unfortunately,
as you know, we've had a number of naturalized citizens
recently engaging in terror activity and members of Congress, the
President have brought up the question of whether they can
(01:05:07):
be denaturalized and the answer, the short answer is the
Supreme Court has said that an alien can be denaturalized
for lying for misrepresenting during the naturalization process, not for
(01:05:30):
actions or activities or beliefs or statements that happen after naturalization. However,
actions and activities and misdeeds after naturalization can be used
as evidence of what the person's frame of mind was
when they naturalize. When you naturalize, you have to take
(01:05:53):
an oath of citizenship, you to protect and defend the Constitution,
to read that bouncible prior allegiances. And if a few
years after naturalization you're doing activities fundamentally inconsistent with with America.
Speaker 4 (01:06:15):
With uh.
Speaker 1 (01:06:18):
With the Constitution, with supporting your former country over the
United States, even in case of war, that can be
used as evidence that wait a second, there's no way
you were truthful when you took the oath, and therefore
you can be naturalized to naturalize, but only as evidence
of what you're of, what you were at, what your
(01:06:40):
frame of mind was when you were naturalized.
Speaker 2 (01:06:44):
George, how difficult would it be to prove a cage
like this, I mean, what, what would someone need to
be able to prove this?
Speaker 3 (01:06:52):
Well?
Speaker 2 (01:06:52):
It is, It's difficult.
Speaker 1 (01:06:53):
And the difficulty emerged during the Second World War when
the Federal government sought to denaturalize a fair number of
basically Nazis who had naturalized citizens from Germany, and the
Supreme Court made it very very difficult for them to
(01:07:15):
do that on the and basically the Federal government's plans
to do a large number of deportations of denaturalizations of
Nazis during World War Two had to end because of
the Supreme Court's decision decisions, and in reaction to that,
(01:07:35):
Congress passed legislation in nineteen fifty the Internal Security Act,
and then further as part of the Immigration and Naturalization
Act of nineteen fifty two to put in statutory provisions.
(01:07:56):
And the statutory provision basically says, and this was you
know during the Cold War that if you within five
years after you're naturalized, you join a subversive organization, the
Communist Party, things of that nature, you can be the
(01:08:17):
naturalized on that basis because the fact that you joined
the Communist Party within five years of naturalization shows that
you know, you were never wedded to the US Constitution
never wedded to the good order and happiness of the
United States. Now, those statutes have never been really tested
(01:08:41):
in federal court, so who knows whether they would stand up.
But that was in reaction to the Supreme Court essentially
saying in World War Two, after World War Two that
you know, the mere fact that you've become a Nazi,
that you've become an active leader in the I mean
this party, those things in and of themselves can't get
(01:09:04):
you denaturalized.
Speaker 2 (01:09:06):
You know, it's only evidence.
Speaker 1 (01:09:09):
It can only be used as evidence, and the Supreme
Court has often been dubious even as to using it
as evidence of what your attitude was when you were naturalized.
And so it is very difficult. And that's probably one
important reason for the federal government to be a lot
(01:09:32):
more judicious when it naturalizes someone, because essentially it's going
to be very, very, very difficult to denaturalize someone once
they're naturalized, So the government should be a lot more
careful in who it naturalizes in the first place.
Speaker 3 (01:09:50):
So I'm really fascinated by this, this language. It's in
the Internal Security Act in nineteen fifty because as you
were talking and as I looked at this issue. I thought, yeah,
you'd have to see them in the event very soon after,
So it'd have to be people that were just recently
naturalized that you could see maybe social media posts or
something that was that would contradict that oath that they
take upon being, you know, a naturalized citizen. What this
(01:10:12):
says in Congress, even from nineteen fifty is that you
have like a five year window after if their conduct
contradicts that oath. You say, it's never been tried in courts.
Does that mean it's never been enforced to do we
know that no one has ever lost their citizenship based
on this five year window to look at someone's that conduct.
Speaker 1 (01:10:30):
Well, what I can say, I mean others have concluded
that it's been very rarely used, sure, And I have
been unable to find any court case in the federal
courts challenging it. So I think it's doubtful that it's
ever successfully been used. And if it has been successfully
(01:10:52):
been used, you know, the person who got to naturalized,
you know, chows for whatever reason not to not to
challenge in federal court. There was a on a different
naturalization presumption, the naturalization presumption, and a Supreme Court decision
in nineteen thirteen saying essentially, yeah, you.
Speaker 4 (01:11:16):
Can use it.
Speaker 1 (01:11:17):
You can use you know, activities after naturalization as evidence
of someone's frame of mind when they were being naturalized.
But the longer the person has been a naturalized citizen,
the more and more evidence the government is going to
have to provide. And five years and this is the
Supreme Court in nineteen thirteen saying five years is really
(01:11:40):
pushing it. The government is going to need a lot
of evidence if it's you know, going to use actions
of a citizen, you know, year years, five years after
they were naturalized.
Speaker 2 (01:11:55):
George, thank you very much for joining us on our
any hour newsmaker line. That's George Fishman, senior legal fellow
at the Center for Immigration Studies. More the Rod and
Greg Show coming your way on this wing Man Wednesday.
You're on Utah's Talk Radio one O five nine, kay
an Ters, real interesting three hours of radio. Jess Jesse
has some uh really interesting ideas.
Speaker 3 (01:12:16):
Yeah, I like I like listening to him. After our
show's over, listening to his show and he was nice
to Yeah. When we were at the Republican National Convention,
he was broadcasting next to us, so we got to
interview him. On our show, and we got to spend
some time with him and his you know, his producer
loved your voice. Remember that he said he wanted to
he wanted to set an alarm and how you just
say wake up and he wanted to he wanted to
(01:12:36):
hear that when he woke up.
Speaker 2 (01:12:38):
Do you see what United Airlines is doing today? What
they announced today? No, they announced that you can basically
turn your airplane seat into a bed.
Speaker 3 (01:12:47):
Oh I did see?
Speaker 2 (01:12:48):
Have you seen this?
Speaker 3 (01:12:49):
This look cozy? You could buy all three seat.
Speaker 2 (01:12:52):
You gotta three the middle seat, you know it's worth sat.
Apparently you can take it and somehow drop down slats
and it becomes a bed.
Speaker 3 (01:13:03):
Yeah, so underneath the underneath the seat, it'll swing out
and it'll touch kind of the seat in front of you,
So it becomes a flat like a bed.
Speaker 8 (01:13:12):
Light.
Speaker 2 (01:13:13):
You can lay you can lay down with a child
if you.
Speaker 3 (01:13:16):
Want, taking a rest you it's a much better way
to sleep. I can you can't.
Speaker 2 (01:13:22):
I can't. My wife, I have.
Speaker 3 (01:13:25):
No trouble sleeping. But here's the problem. If you're in
a really long flight, if my legs are below my
head for very long, if on those long long flights,
now I'm not even talking from here to East Coast.
I'm talking if you're doing an international flight. My ankles swell.
I get cankles. I got my calves, and my ankles
just become one. You know, there's no it doesn't go narrow.
Speaker 2 (01:13:44):
That's common for quite a few people.
Speaker 3 (01:13:46):
I mean those compression socks and everything. I still get it.
Speaker 2 (01:13:49):
You know what you're supposed to do? What do the
abcs with your feet?
Speaker 3 (01:13:53):
Really?
Speaker 4 (01:13:53):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (01:13:54):
I didn't know that, but I I would rather just like.
Speaker 2 (01:13:56):
Get up and walk around.
Speaker 3 (01:13:57):
If you can't a little bit, I want to lay down.
Speaker 2 (01:14:00):
I would too. I would too, all right. You know
we're in this age, Greg, you and I the kind
of students we were.
Speaker 3 (01:14:08):
I only know what kind of student I was. I'm
not judging you, man.
Speaker 2 (01:14:11):
We would be. We would be asking ourselves where was
AI when we were students? Because you can go to
I know, and say give me a I need a
paper on this, and you'd have it like in.
Speaker 3 (01:14:22):
Seconds, and then you can tell you I make it
so it doesn't sound like it's been my AI, and
it'll rewrite it again. It'll even make it so does
it's not coming from themselves?
Speaker 2 (01:14:31):
Teachers who are having to deal with now, and really
good teachers can tell that's not his work or her work.
Speaker 3 (01:14:37):
Oh yeah, it's like this sounds coaching, This sounds smart. Yeah,
Hughes didn't do this one.
Speaker 2 (01:14:43):
Why bring this up because apparently now many college students
are college professors trying to battle this right, are now
requiring oral exams.
Speaker 3 (01:14:53):
Do you know that's interesting because my business partner friend
of mine, he graduated from Oxford. Yeah, all their examinations
were oral.
Speaker 2 (01:15:02):
How do they do that?
Speaker 3 (01:15:03):
They would give you a stack of books to read,
and then you'd sit with that professor and they would
just he would just ask you a ton of questions
of which you had to be prepared to answer. It
was all oral, So you had to talk, you had
to get you had to talk about what you learned.
Speaker 2 (01:15:16):
Apparently it's a growing trend in this country. I think
they're doing it very simply. What you study the subject,
you sit down with a professor, and that professor will
ask you all kinds of questions about the subject.
Speaker 3 (01:15:25):
I actually would prefer that. I would rather have a
conversational yeah, because you could be through because some of
those multiple choice questions. You know, even in college, you
felt like you were getting tricked. It was almost like
it was like a riddle, you know. I could actually
I could actually find answers, correct answers and a number
of options, you know, And so I'm like, I'm just
overthinking it. I would rather just have a conversation.
Speaker 2 (01:15:45):
So you'd be good at it, because what I do.
You can talk your way? Yeah yeah, now me, I'm
kind of a quiet guy. Oh yeah, Actually I couldn't
do it, but you could. You could. You could fill
an hour without something.
Speaker 3 (01:15:57):
I missed a boat. Because in the Commonwealth dates or
you know England, you know, the UK, and then all
the you know, Canada and Australia and all the Commonwealth
countries in the world, they have taken the legal profession.
They've and they've bifurcated it in the barristers and solicitors,
and solicitors do all the paperwork. They do all barristers
put on a wig and talk. Man, give me that show.
Speaker 2 (01:16:21):
I could have been embarrasser. Would you have worn one of.
Speaker 4 (01:16:23):
Them that way?
Speaker 3 (01:16:24):
To just pay to be to talk? You You load
me up with the info, put me in front of
a court and let me go. I would do that
all day man. That is my that's my dream job.
I never had that. We don't have that option and
are in the American legal That's interesting and I would
be embarrassed. You've now seen oral exams being done at
colleges around the country more trying to come back AI.
You know what, they're going to be mildly disappointed in
(01:16:45):
those oral Those conversations are not going.
Speaker 14 (01:16:47):
To go well.
Speaker 2 (01:16:48):
Yeah, you know what I love about it. You have
to learn to express yourself. And how many kids do
you run into nowadays? They can't express themselves?
Speaker 3 (01:16:55):
Yeah, yeah, I think basic communications.
Speaker 2 (01:16:57):
Someone made me change the other day with fifty cents
back right, two quarters They don't think they headquarters city
and the thing. No, they gave me five times because
they couldn't figure out the two quarters and fifty cents.
Speaker 3 (01:17:09):
Yeah, I'm not a story for him.
Speaker 2 (01:17:12):
Yeah wow, all right, that does it for us Tonight,
head up, shoulders back. May God bless you and your
family and this wonderful, wonderful community and country of hours.
We'll be back tomorrow with a brand new edition of
The Rod and Gregg Show.
Here.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
In a minute, we're going to get into Salt Lake City.
I mean, we could do an entire show on once
went on in Salt Lake City. We'll get into that.
John Curtis. I'm trying to does John Curtis just like
to tick off his constituents?
Speaker 3 (00:14):
What's he doing if he saw the Romney model of
being a Utah senator and thought that's what I want
to emulate. Okay, but I don't know that that went
over it very well. Not a real smart idea for
re election. I think there was a reason for that.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
He didn't want to do that. The state of California
has an election coming up for a new governor. Interesting
new poll out on that today, and we'll talk about
this debate that kind of imploded yesterday in.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
California twenty four University of said we're not going to
host this because the will of the people and how
they're polling and how they're we don't agree with it,
and if it's not the candidates we want to have debate,
then we won't hold one. Yeah, whoa USC. I didn't
know that you were running things. I didn't know that.
Why have elections when you USC as a university that
(01:02):
can just call the shots.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Yeah, apparently they did there. We'll get into that as well,
and a lot of other stuff to get to today.
But it's always great to be with you on Wingman Wednesday.
If you want to be a part of the program,
certainly we invite you to give us a call and
participate with us eighty eight eight five seven eight zero
one zero on your cell phone dial pound two fifty
and say hey Rod or leave us a message on
our talkback line by downloading the brand new iHeart Radio app.
(01:27):
And it is a good app, folks. You will want
to pay attention to it all. Right, before we get
into Salt Lake City, there's the story out today, Greg.
It's kind of Donald Trump, it says Trump, I think
a lot now. Apparently, word is that every day since
the start of the war. Okay, US military officials compile
a video update for the president to see. Okay, okay,
(01:51):
and get update. The video apparently shows some of the biggest,
most successful strikes on Iranian targets. Right, get an update
on things. If they call it the stuff Blowing Up Update.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
I want stuff blowing Up up date.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
I would love to be invited to that and see
stuff blowing Dow.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
That'd be the funnest thing to watch. Yeah, I would
love it. Yeah, I mean that's what you it's so
trump it is and you know, you got decades where
it's a pent up you know, frustration over Iran and
just get to see yeah, retribution, you get to see that.
You get to see uh, you know, karma. What comes
around goes around. You have to see it come right around.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
And it's compiled by the Defense Department. Usually runs two minutes,
maybe sometimes longer, but they call it the stuff blowing
up briefing.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Lucky Lucky. I would love to be.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
All right, let's start off the show today. And you
and I have been talking about this. We talked about
it in our morning meeting today, about the ineptitude of
Salt Lake City. Apparently they can't figure anything out.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
No, no, I don't know that it's even across their
minds that they're supposed to figure anything out. I don't
think I think that's their job. I think they think
they're supposed to be performative. They're supposed to hold meetings,
listening tours, let you feel heard. But I don't think
they're ready to pull I make any hard decision. I
think leadership requires you making hard decisions. People vote for you.
(03:14):
You make it very clear where your rudder is in
the water, where your beliefs are. But there's no way
for voters to ever predict what circumstances are going to
come away of whatever you're being elected to, whatever that
may be. And then that's where you're supposed to put
your best eye in, your best judgment, true to who
you were when you ran, and apply it well. In
Salt Lake Salt Lake City, you can't find a mayor
(03:35):
or a city council member that wants to make a
decision about it, even the easy stuff. And then they'll
go ahead and make a decision that's pretty controversial on
the other hand, So I don't know, it's I think
they're playing kids play house, they play city. They like
to play city. Get to be mayor. We'll pretend to
were city council members.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
And you pretend to be mayor. No speaking to the mayor.
She did make one decision. She announced this before the
city council meeting got underway yesterday. She's not a big
happy fan of the detention center that could be built
on the west side of the valley. Right, why ice, Right?
So she's decided Greg, because of the drought, she has
(04:15):
decided not to give that facility any water.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Yeah, she says that then, but she also said, I
will use every tool at the city's disposal to stop it.
Talking about the Ice detention center, so she kind of
let the cat out of the bag as to what's
motivating it, I mean, just saying you're worried about water
is a little bit of a stretch anyway. Yeah, really,
but my question is I think Ice will build it
and they won't have any water. And my question to
the mayor would be, why don't you want the detainees
(04:41):
to have water? You don't want them to Are they thirsty?
Do they need a bathe? Why would you not allow
them to have that water? It sounds kind of cruel
to me.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
Well, real cool, because you've got to think, Greg, in
the summer, that place is going to become pretty darn hot.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
Yeah, right, no water.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
I don't know if they provide air conditioning to detention centers.
They may, but it is going to be hot. So
they don't get any water and they can't bathe thanks
to the mayor.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Mayor doesn't want them to.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
And she's all about water she's all about human rights.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
Sure, thank you, We just I would just you know
how the airport has aaron meninhall, mayor men in hall
talking to you when you get there. Get off at
this recording.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
They should let us talk Greek people.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Yeah, at least some fun. Well, I don't know if
i'd want my name to that airport. They make you
a suffering walk so far in that airport. I don't
know if I want to even associate with you, but
I will say at the ice attention. They should have
her voice saying Hi, are you thirsty? You can thank
me have fun while you're here, because we want to
make sure that you wouldn't have any water to drink nothing.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Would you like to bathe? Sorry, we don't have any water.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Sorry, all right. I'm using every tool of my disposal,
including shutting down the utilities on private property, for my
political agenda, which you are going to be on the
wrong side of.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Yeah. Now, the other issue that apparently the Salt Lake
City Council can't make up it's mind about is the
uh renaming of Caesar Chavez Boulevard on Fifth South. Apparently,
you know, it was announced that the New York Times
investigation into our child as And there were some cities
like Los Angeles and California who instantly changed the holiday
(06:11):
named after him to like farm Workers Day or something
like that.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
Yeah, I was.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
I was in the People's Republican of California when that
all went down. You could just see him throwing drapes
over everything that said the name. The name was apparently
everywhere because but they were very nimble, they were reacting.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
But what was the reaction to the city Salt Lake
City Council when they first heard of this. While we're
going to study.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
This, they said, we're monitoring the this is a story,
an investigative story about saying Hafing decades ago. There's nothing
really to monitor at this point, even the family came
out and acknowledged that these said or these terrible things
that happened. So there's nothing really to monitor. Nothing's going
to change by way of facts. No, so what are
you monitoring? Well, I think they finally came to a decision,
which was, what we need to do something. Here's your decision,
(06:53):
we need to do something. I got an idea. Take
the sign down.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
There's an idea, you know, maybe may you know it's
tough in Salt Lake City. Maybe they need some wrenches,
Maybe we should.
Speaker 5 (07:04):
Don't know.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
There's a lot of signs that say five hundred south
and they don't all say Caesar. Okay, but for some
reason they're just they're just vapor locked. They don't know
what to do. They don't know how to take the
sign down with what to put up in its place.
So I think that it's pretty simple. I think with
the you know, with some ratchet set or some something,
we could we can probably get those signs down. I'll
(07:27):
bet you anything. There's a lot of people of the
city there that inside of before lunch they could get
those signs down. It's not that big of a stretch
that they've got those signs up. But they they haven't.
That's the Da Vinci code. They can't crack it. They
don't know what to do, what to do. It took
them a couple of weeks just to get to the
point where they were ready to make it a cision,
like we're going to do something.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
Yeah, they're staring the sign in the face right now
and going, what do we do about that? What can
we do?
Speaker 3 (07:50):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Apparently city cam'p fit.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
I think I think naming it Chuck Norris Boulevard. That's
that's I think Chuck Norris Boulevard saw everything. It'd be
a two fer.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Yeah, there you go.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Yeah, the real American patriot. And get that guy's name off.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
It's wing Man Wednesday right here on Utah's Talk Radio
one oh five nine. Can us when we come back,
we'll get the latest on what's going on in Iran.
Also coming up a little bit later on, we'll dig
into what happened with the gubernatorial debate in Los Angeles
and in California. And there's a new poll out on
this which is going to scare the daylights out of
the Democrats. That's all coming up on the Roding Gregg Show.
(08:25):
Give us call eight eight eight five seven eight zero
one zero eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero,
or on your cell phone dial pound two fifteen, say
hey Rod. Leave us a talkback comment as well on
our talkback line by downloading the iHeartRadio app. Interesting new
poll out concerning the race for governor in California, and
we'll dig into that debate that apparently wasn't a debate
(08:46):
last night, whatever it turned out to be. We'll try
and figure that one out as well. That's coming up
at the bottom of the hour here on the Rodding
Gregg Show. All right, let's talk about the war in Iran.
We mentioned the president is now getting a daily briefing.
Stuff blowing up is apparently is what they call it,
blowing up, blowing on the president. Apparently Iran haw has
now rejected the president's fifteen point planned and the war surprise, right.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
Yeah, no, they rejected that plan last week.
Speaker 4 (09:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
I mean, I don't get some of this stuff feels
like it's on a loop.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Yeah, well it could be, could be. Well, let's talk
more about the war right now. Joining us on our
any hour newsmaker line is Glenn Beaton. He's a columnist,
good friend of the show. He writes the Aspen beat Glenn,
How are you welcome back to the Rodden Greg Show.
Thanks for joining us, Glenn.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
Oh guy, it's good to be here.
Speaker 6 (09:33):
Glenn.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Let's get some of your thoughts on what is going
on with Iran right now. You wrote an article about
that this isn't Suez in nineteen fifty six, or even
Vietnam in nineteen sixty six. It's Iran and it's twenty
twenty six. Why did you write that why were you
trying to point out, Glenn, Well.
Speaker 4 (09:51):
You know, you can't follow the news without seeing people
who dredge up old wars, we support the current war
or to ar you against the curate war. And I
saw a couple recently. One was they dragged up the
Uez Crisis from nineteen fifty six. That's a little before
(10:12):
my time. But what happened there was France and England
basically controlled the Suez Canal. President Nasar of Egypt took
it away from them, We nationalized it, so there was
a big bluejaha about that. Ultimately, France and England back
down in the face of international pressure, including international pressure
(10:33):
from the United States. This person who cited the Suez
Crisis used it to argue that this just shows that
you should never back down in the Mideast. The UK
and France back down on the Suez Canal and they've
just never been the same in the Middle East. Well,
I thought, geez, this was seventy years ago, completely different circumstances.
(10:59):
Other than it involve the Mideast, completely different actors, different
world alliances, and besides, England and France were on their
way down the tubes. Anyway, to say that the Suez
Canal somehow triggered the demise of English and French culture.
Is kind of getting the cart before the horse. I
(11:19):
think more the demise of French and English culture might
have triggered their loss of the Suez Canal rather than
the other way around. No, I just thought that was
a really stupid way to argue in support of the war.
Now on the other side, of course, it is the
Vietnam War. You can't hear anything about the Iran or
(11:40):
without hearing, oh, here we go again, another quagmire, or
another Vietnam war, another catastrophe. Well, I got two problems
with that. One, Vietnam was sixty years ago. Vietnam was
closer in time to World War One, not two, but one,
than it is to today's time. Now the circumstances and
are completely utterly different. And the other thing that always
(12:03):
kind of bugs me is Vietnam was not the catastrophe
in my view that it's now portrayed to be in
popular culture. We did a lot of good things in Vietnam. Ultimately,
we lost Vietnam, but we delayed the march of communism
across Southeast Asia by fifteen years. Now, whether that was
worth fifty thousand American lives. That's debatable. But to say
(12:27):
that Vietnam was a quagmire and a catastrophe, I think
is ignoring the broader, the historical context of it. Anyway,
to argue that the Iranian War is a good thing
because gee, we don't want to be down the road
with the French and English like they were in Suez,
(12:50):
or the Iranian War is a bad thing because here
we go again with another Vietnam. It's kind of.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
Stupid, sure is, Glenn, here's the thing you bring up
to start contrasts in the Suez Canal in Vietnam. I'll
give you two. There was this popular sentiment after you know,
Afghanist d Afghanis's the mujah had Dean kicked out the
USSR out of Afghanistan. And there was the book Charlie
Charlie Wilson's War. They made it into a movie, and
(13:18):
the lesson at the end of that book and the
movie was that we just after we had helped fund
the United States the musjah Dean in Afghanistan, we left
in a created a vacuum, and that's where Osama bin
Laden came up and gain power. So the argument was
that you shouldn't the other. But the other example is
Afghanistan or in Iraq. You got to finish the job,
(13:38):
you got to stay, you got to help. Twenty years
we sat in there. So you know, if you're looking
for president anywhere in the middle, she's never going to
find it. I don't think here in these conflicts, don't
we trust President Trump enough? Hasn't he shown us he's
not a neocon? Hasn't he shown us that he's opposed
to forever wars? Is there enough that he's done that
we should just trust that he's staring at the unique
circumstances that are confronting this world or country, that region
(14:03):
and just wait to see. I mean, I just don't
think there's a model that you can follow. But I
think we can follow this president, can't we?
Speaker 4 (14:11):
Yeah? I think that's right. There is no model where
you can say, here's the precedent, and here's what dictates
what we should do. Now, everything is always distinguishable. Wars
are all different than other wars. You know, I've made
the point in my piece that this is like trying
(14:32):
to govern by Aesop's table. You know, you can use
you can use these things in an allegorical sense, you
can try to gain some wisdom from them, but to
say that, oh, look at Vietnam and so that dictates
the outcome here, or look at Suez and that they
can the outcome here, or look at Afghanistan or Iraq.
(14:53):
They're all different. You know. You can say, on the
one hand, what a stitch in time saves, or on
the other hand you can say, look before you leave,
And on the other other hand you can say he
who hesitates is lost. These start of things are not
really very useful in complex analysis.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Yeah, and it is a complex situation we're dealing with
now as well. Glenn is always great having me on
the show. Thanks for joining us this afternoon. My pleasure,
Glenn Beat. He's a columnist with the Aspen Beat talking
about the war in Iran. All right, more coming up
on the Rod and Greg Show and Utah It's Talk
Radio one O five nine knrs.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
It turns out that the White House is informed Eon Muscow,
which by the way, they were excited and appreciative of
Elon Musk going to step up and do this. They
have learned that legally it's not going to work because
Congress has the power of the purse, and he would
have to remit that money to the Treasury, of which
Congress would then have to the side where that goes
(15:52):
something that is the worst play. You may as well
just flush it down the toilet and give it to
those clowns. They're not They can't decide what to do
with the money they're they're supposed to appropriate. Can't send
that to him to Congress to do so. Sad that,
I mean. I know that President Trump was appreciative and
that they thought that might be a workaround, but it's not.
But you brought up I mean, maybe Elon could just
privately contribute to money under the table for they do
(16:15):
enough for the illegals, do it for thesa folks. Now,
I think they could charitably give to the poor people
that are working for free for forty four they.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Set up like a fund where people could apply for money.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
I would love to think something should be done.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Maybe maybe you could all right, can you imagine this
a Republican being the governor of California?
Speaker 3 (16:36):
I would love it. It would be Hey, that's Steve
Hilton's working his guts out. He deserves it.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Well now we're months away.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
But they do what do you call that the jungle primary.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Jungle primary where they take the top two candidates and
they face off in.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
The general election in the position the Democrats are like,
we think so little and we hate Republicans so much,
we don't even want them in the general election. We
want to we want to decide between two Democrats in
the general election. We don't want to give the Republicans
an exclusive spot in the general election in November. But
it looks like that might be backfrom.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
New poll out today shows that Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco,
the two Republicans in the race, are leading the pack
of candidates with sixteen percent and fourteen percent. Now, we're
months away right now, but I mean, can you imagine
that Eric Swowell, Katie Porter, Tom Styr they're behind him
and the number has been holding steady for several weeks now, yep. Well,
(17:26):
and I think that'd just be funny. Well, let's talk
about the debate that wasn't a debate last time, Yes,
scheduled at USC.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
Yeah, it's I guess USC gets to decide who should
be running and who should not. And they did not
approve of the candidates that were polling the highest or
most eligible, and so with less than twenty four hours notice,
they canceled it.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Didn't they see this coming? Susan Crabtree is joining us
on our newsmaker line. She has the White House and
national political correspondent for real clear news. Susan, how are
you welcome back to the rodding? Greg?
Speaker 4 (17:55):
All right?
Speaker 2 (17:56):
What happened? Didn't anybody see this coming? I mean, were
you surprised by this? Were people surprised by this? Susan?
Speaker 7 (18:02):
Come on, folks, people were surprised. This is my alma
mater here, but it used to be a conservative bastion
and the city of liberal academia in California, but now
it's been long gone woke in the last decade. And
so no, this does not surprise me. But it was
a big stumble by usc because what happened is they
(18:26):
only wanted they had a formula where they only wanted
a certain number of people on the stage, the highest
performers and the highest polling candidates. But then they added
Matt Mayhon, who's the San Jose mayor, and he's another
white candidate, and he was back in the low digits,
(18:46):
the low single digits, with the other low performing Democrats
he's a Democrat, but he's more moderate and for some
reason they decided in their formula that he should be included.
It was based on intensity of recent unraising so all
interestingly enough, the ones that they had included were all white,
(19:08):
and the low performing Democrats were minorities, including Xavier the Sarah,
the former HHS secretary under Biden, Tony Thurman who is
the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Bettye who's the former controller,
and as well as Anthony via Ragosa, the former Eli Marier.
(19:32):
So they were very upset, but they kind of brought
it on themselves, the USCEDD by including Matt Mahon, and
they should have known this is going to happen, but
it gave them excuse to play the race cards the
minority candidates.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
Yeah, it surprises me because I didn't think you at
the University of Southern California could actually dictate who they
just think ought to debate and if they don't see
someone they like, they can just cancel the whole thing.
I think the pole measure would be important. Does this
play into the hands of a Steve Hilton and Chad
Bianco in terms of two Republicans that we're trying to
point out how broken and how backwards California is that
(20:13):
you've got that state shrinking and population the first time
ever since they've been doing the census. Does this give
them a stronger campaign when something as something as Numbskull
is canceling the debate because you don't you don't like
who gets the debate when that happens, does that help
those candidates, those Republican candidates.
Speaker 7 (20:31):
Yes, I played right into Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco's
hand there. Steve Hilton had an x space forum with
a independent candidate, Elaine Coliedo, and Chad Bianco had his
own in person event, but the rest of the candidates.
(20:52):
It was funny because Tom Steyer, who has been spending
ten of millions of dollars on It's on campaign ads,
he tried to get a forum with the Democratic candidates,
but they couldn't even agree on the ground rules they
wanted to. They wanted a one for all, one for you,
one for all agreement that if any other debate moving forward,
(21:16):
they would all have to be included if they would
if one of them participated, and they couldn't agree on that,
so that that was a short lip fuse. They they
announced that they were trying to have put together an
alternative forum, and then it went could put too. So
it was just frantic scrambling on the behalf of the Democrats.
(21:36):
And you know, we didn't hear him very much at
all from Eric Swawall or Katie Porter. Yes yesterday, I
thought they were I think they were happy they didn't
have to debate Steve Hilton with all this fraud going
on in California.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
That could be true. Nothing against your Alma Manter, but
wouldn't you think somebody in that organization somewhere would have
looked at the list and said, we've got a problem
here we may want to address.
Speaker 7 (22:00):
You would think you would think they it was it
was it was Univision two and KABC, so they had
they must have had advertisements already sold for this debate.
So I mean, people are losing money over this. This
is embarrassing. And even Tommy Veeder, he used to work
(22:20):
for President Obama, a big Democrat podst podcaster, was really
poking fun at the whole thing. And think, seriously, Democrats,
you need to get her act together because this looks
like total disarray in the one party controlled California.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
That's pretty amazing. Susan, is always a pleasure chatting with you.
Thank you, Enjoy the rest of your day.
Speaker 7 (22:41):
Thanks Susan, thank you, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
Thank you, Susan Grebtree National political Course. But I mean
it does say a lot about California.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
California a dummer. They completely prove us wrong and they
just do it worse than they've ever done before.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
Do you think Stude Filton is going to take advantage
of this?
Speaker 8 (23:00):
Should bet?
Speaker 3 (23:02):
It's exhibit A.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
All right, a lot more to get too. Great to
have you with us on this week Man Wednesday, Here
on the Rodd and Greg Show in Utah's talk Radio
one oh five nine KNRS, comediic actor Vince Vaughan had
some comments about late night talk shows. But before we
get to that, here's an example of what he's talking about.
The elitist this time Jimmy Kimmel going after the new
Department of Homeland Security secretary. List what he had to say,
(23:25):
Joe Laurie.
Speaker 9 (23:25):
Trump's got a whole new generation of thinkers lined up,
including his newly confirmed Secretary of Homeland Security, Mark Wayne Chuck.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Mike Bruce, Dave Mellett, Mullen.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Maybe Mellon's better.
Speaker 9 (23:38):
He is the now former Senator of Oklahoma. Before he
was elected to the Senate, Mark Wayne Mullen was a
low level MMA fighter and a plumber.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
That's right.
Speaker 9 (23:48):
We have a plumber protecting us from terrorism.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
Now I work for Super Mario, why not Mark Wayne's.
But honestly, I.
Speaker 9 (23:57):
Mean, if Trump is going to keep taking these unqualified
people to run the department, why do I have more
fun with it? I mean, next time, instead of Mark Wayne,
how about Little Wayne?
Speaker 2 (24:09):
I mean Jimmy Kimmel going after plumbers. Are you surprised
by that at all? No?
Speaker 3 (24:15):
Here's my thing is that I honestly think that that
he is the embodiment of the leftist elitist you know,
regime media. It's and and again, I hope there's not
a single I hope that guy has some leak and
there's not a plumber in the world to go to
his house, and let's smart I figure it out.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
Yeah. Well, here's what Vince Vaughan had to say about
late night talk shows.
Speaker 3 (24:35):
But yeah, because people want authenticity.
Speaker 10 (24:36):
Yeah, and I think that I think that the talk
shows to a large part became really agenda based. Yeah,
they were gonna evangelical people to what they thought, you
know what I mean, And so people just rejected it
because it didn't feel authentic. It felt like they had
an agenda and it's not being funny, and it started
feeling like I was a.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
Class I didn't want to take.
Speaker 10 (24:56):
But if you look at what happened to the talk
shows and why their ratings are low, it's got only
to do with the fact of what you just said,
which is they all became the same show, and they
all became so about their politics and who's good and
who's bad. And it's like imagine sitting next to someone
like that on a plane. Oh, he's right. They all
became the same, no difference between any of them. Tune
(25:17):
in find out. You know, an hour of Trump bashing
every night.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
Wasn't the worst thing in the world that Mark Muwayne Mullen.
You know, when he was twenty years old, his dad's
health turns bad, who owned a company. He drops out
of college to run the family business and turns it
into a giant success. It had six people working there
when he started. It's one hundred and fifty people that
he grew it into. Isn't that a terrible story. It's
unqualified guy. But he's just a plumber. He's just a
(25:42):
plumber Nintendo game. It's just the condescension. I hate the
ignorance and the arrogance when you combine them together, and
that is Jimmy Kimball to a t smug. I'm funny
and they're Democrats sock puppets. I just everything that Vince
vond said is true times ten.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
All Right, here we go. We're going to talk about
John Curtis. What has he done? Now, wait till you
hear it. We'll talk about it. Get your reaction to it.
Come me down on the Rod and Greg Show, bling
Man Wednesday. Stay tuned. I hope you've had a good Wednesday.
I'm Rod Urkett, I'm a citizen.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
Greg Hughes.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
You know, you and I have talked in the past
about Sender John.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
Curtis, and we've spoken with Senator and.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
We've we've spoken with Sender Curtis's he's been on this show.
We've always talked about he's very quick on his feet,
very he knows how to read a room. He's very
very good at that.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
Yes he is. He can speak to the audience. He's
in front of and really persuasively. I will tell you
I find him to be incredibly persuasive when he speaks
on a given topic.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
But of late, I'm trying to figure out what room
he's reading.
Speaker 3 (26:44):
Well, that is a good point, Is that right? I
don't know what I think. Maybe that room is that
that Senate or I've got a second theory. You know
the movie Men in Black? Yes, you remember the Aliens,
how they put on the human mask. I'm going to
talk about something no one's willing to say, has anyone,
Senator John Curtis. The man doesn't look like himself. It
looks like an MiB alien with a rubber John Curtis mask.
(27:07):
He's pulled over his head. Because that does not look
like him. I keep looking at this point, there is
it's not him. I don't know who this is.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
So you think it's not John Curtis.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
It doesn't look like him. And then to the point
you just made, he is not reading the room when
he wants to talk about amnesty in the in the
throes of all the chaos we're dealing with, Well, standing
next to Adam shiff of all people, why.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
Would you stand next to shift first of all, why
would you want to get within one hundred yards of that.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
You can't unsee.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
He is a liar, he is. He had lied to
the American people about seeing evidence that Donald Trump worked
with the Russians to win the election in twenty sixteen.
He lied, he lied, he lied. He never showed mortgage fraud.
He's committed mortgage fraud. So why even stand next to
the guy? He's a crug? Right? And then, and then,
and then John Curtis. First of all, we got after
(27:53):
him a couple of weeks ago because he sponsored Save
America Act, co sponsors, co sponsored it, one of who
co sponsored it. But then he comes out and said,
you know, I don't think he can support No.
Speaker 3 (28:04):
He says it needs sixty votes. Will not He will not.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
So that's what it was.
Speaker 3 (28:08):
A voice or a voice, talking film, talking filibuster, which
means you need sixty votes, which he knows full well.
You can co sponsor anything your ocean's apart from sixty
votes in the Senate to get it. So it's a
pretty safe bet to co sponsor something you'll never actually
have to put your name to. We had a good
discussion with him. He thinks that that the Democrats will
never get rid of the philibuster entirely. I think they
(28:29):
are signaling that every way possible. I don't know how
you can't read that. That's exactly what they're going to do.
But he thinks his resistance to the philibuster will save
the philibuster when, if, and when the Democrats take control.
Speaker 11 (28:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
So here's what happened today if you aren't aware of it.
He appeared on CNBC with Adam Schiff. They were going
to talk about something, right, but the host of the program,
his name is Joe Kernan with CNBC, asked him about amnesty.
Listen to what our Senator John Curtis had to say
about amnesty, and you tell it if he doesn't sound
like a Democrat.
Speaker 12 (29:00):
Do we need then to anyone who's here illegally that
hasn't committed a crime? Senator Curtis, should there be a
path the citizenship?
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Is that what compassion means to you?
Speaker 13 (29:09):
Or should these people not be allowed to stay?
Speaker 2 (29:12):
Well, then let me ask you a question.
Speaker 12 (29:14):
Is there any law, any rule broken in our country
where we don't have a consequence defined? So why don't
we have a consequence defined when it comes to coming
into this country without documentation. We continue to allow these
people to be here, but we haven't defined what their consequence.
Speaker 3 (29:32):
Is, so that that's an action from from policymakers.
Speaker 12 (29:36):
Absolutely, all right, So what what would you say we
need to do?
Speaker 4 (29:40):
Then?
Speaker 2 (29:40):
What's your answer to that?
Speaker 12 (29:42):
I guess it is like so, first of all, you
have to define amnesty, but any other crime that's committed
here in our country, we define what, we define what
the punishment.
Speaker 2 (29:53):
Is, and we've we've failed to do that in this case.
Do you follow the Oh wait a minute, let's turn
on your mic there you go, Oh there you are.
Well for some reason your microphone is not on here,
Grab that, Grab that one next to you. For some
(30:14):
reason that is not working. Not the way it should be. Yeah,
now there you go.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
Yeah, so boy, I'm getting censored here. I don't know
what's going on. That never happened before. It's John Curtis,
it is I I want to play there was you
stopped it right there. But John Curnin from CNBC is
a little Joe Curran. He's taken back a little bit
like he's going back and forth with the Republican senator
on this. He's a little confused. I have one little
(30:42):
I have a couple more seconds. I want to play
of what Joe Curran says next to John Curtis, because
he's a little he's a little bit shocked about the conversation. Yeah,
I play it.
Speaker 2 (30:52):
Yep, go ahead and play that. Let's see what he
had to say Senator Curtis.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
He said, I didn't expect to debate Senator Curtis on this. Well,
he said, Senator shiff, what do you say. I didn't
expect I'd be debating Senator Curtis on this. So you know, again,
I think that this is when he talks amnesty, when
we're talking about here is, by the way, the defined penalty.
You get deported, you get rided. I mean, if you're
(31:22):
telling me that we don't have after administration after administration,
without regard to political party, people that were turned around
at the border, that attempted to enter illegally and we're
and we're turned around, even deported. This has happened. This
is defined. This isn't no man's land. This is actually
a thing that happens or should have happened, didn't happen
during the bad administration. But if you come over a
(31:42):
second time, it is it is a civil penalty the
first time, but you are turned around, you are you're
told to go back. But if you get if you
get apprehended, but if you do it a second time,
then it is a felony. And these felonies are defined.
So when he describes that there are no tell me
a law that you break where there isn't a consequence,
There is a consequence for entering this country a little
(32:03):
there is. There absolutely is. Whether decided to follow it
or not or enforce that law, that's another question. But
you can't say it doesn't exist. It absolutely exists.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
So it is John Curtis, in your opinion, Greg saying
today because we haven't clearly defined what amnesty is and
the consequential penalty is he saying we need amnesty.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
I think he's making a case. I think he absolutely
is making a case for amnesty right now. I don't
know what that comment. I don't know why you'd even
use the word if that's not what's on your mind,
and I don't think that's the word that's on America's
mind right now. It's how do you enforce the law?
How do you enforce federal law? And there are paths
to do that. It's not it's not a it's not
a guess. You get report, you get deported, you get
taken back, you get sent back from where he came.
(32:46):
It's it's absolutely that simple, and it isn't it isn't
a gray area. And just because people have refused to
follow that law or ignored it like the Democrats have,
doesn't mean it's undefined. So I I was frustrated to
hear that, and I would just say this, it's very
on brand if you listen to some of the things
that Senator Curtis has said. He said we should wake
up every day and wonder how can we hug or
(33:06):
support or welcome immigrants city, And he'll can flight, He'll
conflate illegal with legal, he puts them all in the
same category. What I would say to the senator is
you've got over two hundred thousand federal workers out of
the Department of Homeland Security whose families haven't been paid
for over forty four days, and you're staring at a
sixteen day vacation. And if you leave on that vacation,
(33:26):
leaving those families two hundred thousand plus with critical roles
in the federal government in terms of their jobs without pay,
without a compensation for the jobs they're supposed to do.
If you take sixteen days of vacation, who wants to
hear what you think about illegal immigration or anything else
when you are putting American families in such financial straits,
people are suffering. And I don't hear out of that
(33:50):
interview or anywhere else that we will stay here and
we will work until we get this done, and our
vacation time we're probably going to miss it until we agree.
If that's the urgency it takes, do it. But if
you go on vacation sixteen days and that hasn't been resolved,
don't tell me about another issue in this country, because
you've just shown you have a blatant disregard for the
welfare of American families in this country, the ones they protect,
(34:13):
and then the ones that are supposed to be protecting us,
who haven't had a paycheck for forty four days.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
More than half the people, the men and women who
serve in the US Senate, more than half, I don't
have the exact number, have a net worth of three
million dollars or more. Yeah, okay, they get paid to
wopping one hundred and seventy four thousand dollars a year,
as if they really care and if they need it.
Right now, you have the TSA agents making fifty thousand
dollars a year. Yeah, and they may have to continue
(34:37):
working without pay for another two or three weeks. Will
these guys go on vacation? Well, intakeays of empathy here.
And the way you instill some empathy in these people
is you take their staff. So, okay, yeah, you're worth
three millions, so you're not going to really miss one
hundred and seventy four thousand if you get it.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
How about your staff? They don't get paid either. No
one in Congress, none of your office, your everyone, everybody
goes is broken. The people you just made broke because
you have the power of the purse and you can't
do your constitutional duty. See how long that lasts. Then,
I think the sense of urgency, if it was impacting
their own staff, they would be able to feel it.
I think they feel it.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
A little closer, it'd be a little different.
Speaker 14 (35:12):
All right.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
We want to get your reaction to the comments of
Senator John Curtis talking about amnesty. Apparently there is no
consequence defined. Yes, there is. It's called deportation. We'd like
to get your thoughts on this eight eight eight five
seven oh eight zero one zero on your cell phone
dial pound two fifty and say hey Rod, or of
course you can leave us a message on our talk
back line here. Just download the iHeartRadio.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
I got targeted in here. Yes, and my Mike and
this is brand new studio. It's a beautiful studio. And it
wouldn't let me talk. Well you are now well I
am now Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
We fixed it. Yeah, we fixed it all right, welcome back.
We just hit it hard. It is hard work. We
just kept up pounding on it. It is the wingman.
When's the addition of the Rod and Greg Show. I
want to read you the headline from one of the
conservative websites about what John Curtis said today. You're ready
for this?
Speaker 4 (35:56):
Great?
Speaker 2 (35:57):
This is the headline. We all knew this gop SI
was a squish, and he proved it again today on
c MBC.
Speaker 3 (36:05):
A squish. Yeah, there's a there's a few common there's
there's a bunch of well you know, frequented uh sites
on x that are just discussed with Yeah, yeah, just
coming out against Curtis and again large following so this
is a national story that him and Schiff are talking
(36:26):
where they are. Hey, let's go to you, our callers,
our listeners, the collective wisdom of the listeners of the
Rotting Gregg Show. Let's start with Neil and Santa Quin. Neil,
Welcome to the Rotting greg Show.
Speaker 6 (36:38):
Thank you, gentlemen.
Speaker 15 (36:39):
I appreciate the opportunity to talk you. Okay, as far
as my I've been along time Trump supporter, and I'm
absolutely in agreement with the need to attack the uh
illegal immigrants that are lawbreakers and murderers and get them
(36:59):
out of the country as soon as possible. But basically
what I'm concerned about is families that have been here
for a while, that have planted new roots here. Basically,
they are here because they were invited here by our
government's failure to enforce the laws that we have. And
what I'd like to see is anybody that can't prove
(37:21):
residency in this country for a minimum of five to
seven years, where they prove that they have an income,
they have a job, they've paid their bills, they've paid
their taxes, that we should find a way for them.
Speaker 7 (37:34):
To be able to stay.
Speaker 15 (37:35):
Anybody that can't do that should be deported immediately. The
idea that you can lawyer up and be held in
this country is ridiculous. As Americans, just like Jacob and
Esau in the Bible, we were born with a birthright
as centicitness in this country and we need to protect
that birthrighty.
Speaker 2 (37:54):
So, Neil, it sounds like you're in favor of amnesty
under certain conditions. Is that what you're saying, or a
pathway to citizenship under certain conditions?
Speaker 15 (38:03):
Well, I hate I hate the word amnesty.
Speaker 7 (38:06):
OK.
Speaker 15 (38:06):
Yeah, I think that for those that can fulfill those requirements,
there should be a avenue for which they can stay.
Speaker 2 (38:15):
All right, all right, Neil, thank you very much. Let's
go back to the phones. Let's head to ok Clean.
Hear what Jerry has to say on this tonight on
the Rotting Greg Show. Jerry, how are you.
Speaker 8 (38:24):
Hey?
Speaker 6 (38:24):
Doing fine?
Speaker 4 (38:25):
Good? Oh?
Speaker 6 (38:26):
You talk about elitist John Curs is even a rhino?
He just said democrat elitist.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
It doesn't sound like it, Jerry, I.
Speaker 6 (38:34):
Mean recommend that. What's he gonna do it?
Speaker 8 (38:38):
He'll need cake?
Speaker 3 (38:40):
It sounds like it sounds like it. I mean, I
we're getting a lot of national attention with this him
and Schiff appearing together on CNBC this morning. There's a
lot of commentary about it. Do you think that Utahon's
knew this is who they were voting for when he
ran last year or in twenty eighth, But I did.
Speaker 6 (38:56):
I told him, I am not. I am not at
all surprised. And I don't know how you could be
possessed by the soul of a living person, because he's
just met Romney two point zero. And I think it
would be great if he Lisa mccarsky and Susan Collins
did a Big Brother show they get out of the Senate.
Speaker 2 (39:15):
Yeah, maybe that's what they need to do. And Mitch
mccaddle could be on that show as well. All right,
let's go to our talk back line here. What someone
had to say here.
Speaker 16 (39:23):
I personally am not surprised by John Curtis at all.
What surprises me is people who actually believed that he
was a Republican or conservative in the first place. John
Curtis has always been a Democrat.
Speaker 2 (39:39):
That's a question a lot of people have raised over
the years. Gregg, that's for sure. All right, more your calls,
more your talkback comments coming up. It is the Wingman Wednesday,
edition of The Rodden Gregg Show on Talk Radio one
oh five nine KNRS. John Curtis appeared to be not
a Republican but a Democrat this morning when he appeared
with of all people, Adam Schiffless on CNBC talking about amnesty,
(40:02):
and he basically said, look, there's no penalty for amnesty.
We need to define what it is, and then we
need to define the consequences of being into this country illegally. Well,
our thoughts on that is, there are consequences. You're here illegally,
we can deport you in a minute.
Speaker 3 (40:18):
It's like a bad bad cop movie watching a buddy
cop movie with schiff and Curtis just shortest shoulder talking
about all that amnesty and all that illegal immigration and
how we can make it right by keeping them and
whatever it is that they're talking about. Like the CNBC
guy Joe Kernan says, I didn't expect to be debating
Senator Curtis on this issue. He was.
Speaker 2 (40:39):
He was, all right, let's go to the phones eight
eight eight five seven eight zero one zero on your
cell phone, of course, dile pound two fifty and say hey, Rod,
or leave us a message on our talkback line. By
downloading the iHeartRadio app. We'll get to some of those
talkback comments here in a minute. Let's go back to
the phones. Let's go to David, who's been waiting for Murray. David,
thank you for holding, and welcome to the Rod and
Greg Show.
Speaker 8 (41:01):
Okay, wingman, here we go. Yeah. I'm seventy three years
old and at about age twelve, my parents got me
involved in politics. I started attending functions and protests that
you name it. So I've been doing this for a
long time. Let's see if this will resonate with a
(41:22):
lot of our listeners. My parents taught me by their
own personal example, when something was presented that was an
absolute lie or per varication if you want to use
a kinder term, they would stand up or raise their
hand and they would say words like this, this is
false doctrine, or that is incorrect, that is absolutely not true.
(41:47):
And that's what needs to happen here with Curtis.
Speaker 12 (41:49):
He lied.
Speaker 8 (41:52):
There are obvious penalties that are in place that were
established by legislature. This is not something made up. It
is he is absolutely lying to our faces, and it's
time for us to stand up and say sorry. I'm
mister Curtis, I'm not going to use the respectful senator.
(42:15):
You're a liar and you know it. That's my that's
my that's my stand. And there is a nice offer
out there that I wouldn't have done. They'll pay him
two thousand dollars and pay for their transport so they
can go down to the border and come back correctly.
If they're hot, then there are all kinds of actions,
(42:35):
and that's on the table right now. They can self
deport and come back and do it right.
Speaker 2 (42:40):
Yep, you're right, David, they can. And by being on
the show and saying what you just said, David, you
are standing up and you are saying thank you and
any and.
Speaker 3 (42:48):
So he is as incredulous about this idea that there's
just no laws, there's no structure for any of this.
Sure of course there is. Okay, Richard, Salt Lake City,
thank you for holding. Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.
Speaker 17 (43:00):
Hi, thanks for taking my call. I just wanted to
respond to a previous caller who implied that these people
were invited in because the laws weren't enforced. That is
completely not true. They crashed the party, They were not invited,
the invitation to become a legal citizen in the United States.
We already have a process for that. We have a
(43:20):
process of legal immigration that brings in new citizens. These
people did not come illegally. They violated the law by
doing that in the first place. And if they've been
here for years, they had to get a fake identification
to assert that they were US citizens. Every time I
applied for a job, I have to show proof of citizenship.
(43:41):
If they're here working for whatever years, they're either working
under the table for cash or they've falsified their identity
in order to assert that they're legal citizens and have
a right to work here. So they are committing at
least two crimes by being here for years and working.
And I'm sorry, have any sympathy for them. They knew
(44:02):
what they were doing, and they knew what they were
continuing to do the whole time they were here. It's
not like they forgot that they jumped to the border.
They need to take that payout and go back to
their country and then come in legally if they want
to do that.
Speaker 2 (44:16):
You're right, Richard, You're right. And stolen identity we forget.
Speaker 3 (44:19):
Well, I was just gonna say, Richard brought up a
real important issue, and that is identity theft a theft.
It is a identity theft that happens if you're trying
to get a job and you're asked for to provide
documentation and the documentation you provide is false, falsified. That
is a identity theft. There's some young person with a
social Security number that's getting used by someone and they
will only find out about it later. So that that's
(44:41):
that is a real problem.
Speaker 2 (44:42):
We hear from you as well on our talk back line.
Here's one of the comments coming in tonight. Hey, Rod
and Greg. How's this.
Speaker 11 (44:50):
Eight USC Code thirteen twenty makes it a federal crime
to cross the border illegally. That includes in between you know,
waypoints and all that stuff, and it is punishable by
up to six months in prison and fines. Not only
is John Curtis a Democrat, but he's an idiot. Well,
(45:10):
you understand the law. I'm surprised John Curtis doesn't understand that.
Speaker 3 (45:15):
Tell me, is there a definition? Well, talk to our listeners,
have them.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
You just heard it. Here's another comment.
Speaker 16 (45:22):
John Curtis was a Democrat before he changed to be
a Republican period. Basically, all Democrats are Democrats, and most
Republicans are also Democrats. John Curtis has always been a
Democrat and he always will be a Democrat. And just
(45:43):
hopeful that one day the Utah constituency will wake up
and realize that they voted in a Democrat.
Speaker 2 (45:51):
Well, they voted. I can't remember how much did John
Curtis win by? Pretty significant, wasn't I know?
Speaker 3 (45:57):
Uh No, I think it was I hek he was
fifty two percent.
Speaker 2 (46:02):
I can't remember. Just wondering because people in this state
voted John Curtis in. Be aware of that, folks. All right,
more your calls, more your talkback comments coming up on
the Rodding Greg Show. If you want to weigh in
on this tonight eighty eight eight five seven eight zero
one zero again on your cell phone, just style pound
two fifteen, then say hey Rod, or leave us a
talkback comment by downloading the iHeartRadio one.
Speaker 3 (46:23):
So John Curtis won forty eight point seven percent of
the Republican vote, which stands that we have more republic
registered Republicans and primaries voting against our nominees and we
have voted for them.
Speaker 2 (46:35):
Something wrong, There's something.
Speaker 3 (46:35):
Wrong with that.
Speaker 2 (46:36):
Yeah, fixed it, all right, let's go back to the phone.
Speaker 3 (46:37):
Okay, let's go to Howard, who's been patiently waiting. Howard
in Provo, Welcome to the rodding, Greg Show.
Speaker 13 (46:45):
Well, thank you, gentlemen. Nice to be on with you,
mister wingman.
Speaker 4 (46:50):
Hey.
Speaker 13 (46:51):
John Curtis, with chairman of the Utah County Democrat Party,
ran unsuccessfully for state Senate against Kurt Brown as a Democrat.
As mayor of Provo, used the Provo CD power as
his tax increase instrument to tax churches another five oh
(47:14):
one c threes and residents as another way to increase taxes,
but hide it on the power bill. When the legislature
passed SB fifty four, they gave John Curtis a golden
ticket to be elected to Congress when we should have
had Chris Herrod three terms we got or Trents gagged
(47:37):
as senator. We've asked congressman having access to inside information.
He made over three hundred million dollars, exceeding even what
Nancy Pelosi made. Let's see, well, I got it.
Speaker 2 (47:56):
We need to move along. Howard. Thank you for your comings.
Speaker 3 (47:58):
But you're right, is it not? Yeah, it's my goodness.
Speaker 2 (48:01):
John Curtis done pretty well being a US Center. Hasn't
he all?
Speaker 13 (48:04):
Right?
Speaker 2 (48:04):
Back to the phones, Let's go to Lynn in Uh,
let's say Lynch and salt Lake said, he tonight, Lynn,
how are you? Thanks for joining in the Rodin Greg Show.
How are you tonight?
Speaker 5 (48:13):
I'm good? How are you?
Speaker 2 (48:14):
We're doing well? Thank you your thoughts on this one.
Speaker 5 (48:18):
Well, I just wanted to make a comment because I
thought it was odd and I didn't realize it at
the time. But when he was running for the Senate
for TV in the Senate where he is now, I
did not matter. I never pay attention to stuff. But
when I'd watched TV, no matter what channel I turned to,
whether it was local or on the dish or satellite,
I could not get away from his commercials. We were everywhere.
(48:40):
I made a comment to my husband and said, his
his his commercials, they're everywhere. Who is sending him? It
was such I had such an I have such a
bad feeling about it, and I was like, this isn't right,
Something's not right here, and I just remember that this
(49:01):
is just weird. And this was before his competitor accused
him of inside trader and trading, and I was like, Okay,
I'm going to listen to that. I'm going to listen
to my gut feeling this is not right. And can
I just say equipped heads up because I keep forgetting
to email you, Greg Weird Twins Happy birthday on October thirteenth.
Speaker 1 (49:23):
Oh you're a weird buddy.
Speaker 2 (49:24):
You we are.
Speaker 3 (49:26):
I love that October thirteenth. We have a lot of
we share that birthday with a lot of people. There's
a lot My uncle, my uncle Dnning, Yeah, brnn, my neighbor, Yeah.
Climate control. Climate people funded a super pack. They put
eight There was a combined eight million dollars. The highest
spent Senate race in Utah history was John Curtis.
Speaker 2 (49:46):
Wow, all right, mare coming up? Power number three?
Speaker 4 (49:48):
Isn't that?
Speaker 2 (49:48):
We've gone after Mayor Aaron Mendon Hall and the Salt
Lake City Council today last hour, we went after John
Curtis and his comments about amnesty in America.
Speaker 3 (50:00):
Who next, Well, I'll tell you who we're not going at.
Speaker 2 (50:04):
We are going after this guy, this guy.
Speaker 3 (50:06):
Oh do we ever? Okay, So we've got joining us
on the program Senator John Johnson, a strong state senator
representing what what district is it? It's a district, It's
I know that. Yeah, I should know this, Oh, District
three three Morgan summit Me Weber Senator, Welcome to the
(50:27):
Rodd and Greg Show.
Speaker 8 (50:29):
Great, great to be with you. It's always a pleasure
for me.
Speaker 3 (50:33):
Well, I'll tell you what you are. You are one
of our champions, not just in the legislature, but our
listeners need to know that on issues of surrounding education,
public education, higher ED. You are a leader. You're all.
You've been fighting DEI. You've been arguing to bring the
classic education back, the classic classical curriculum back into our schools.
You have a bill and I read the headline today
(50:54):
and it said that some want this bill that you
passed successfully VETOED. Well, for me, if someone wants you're
bill veto, they're on the wrong side. You're on the
right side. So I wanted to bring if we wanted
to bring you on the show. You've got this bill.
It sent it Bill three twelve, and it looks to
allow some teachers who have lost their license for administrative
reasons to still be able to be employed in our schools.
(51:17):
It's a it's a it's a narrow issue, but it
is getting a lot of attention, or some attention I
guess from the Salt Fake Tribune, maybe you could share
with our listeners what is what does this bill seek
to do?
Speaker 8 (51:27):
Well, I think what you really have to do is
define this by fairness, right does the punishment fit the crime.
One of one of the problems teachers have now with
with you PACK is you've you've got an organization who
basically is the judge, the jury, and the executioner all
at once. And and you know, there's a lot of
(51:49):
things that teachers can be brought up on charges with.
And what what this bill attempts to do is basically say, look,
if you if you are a threat to a child,
if you're going to harm a child, you don't belong
in the schools. But you know, if you if you've
followed some of our administrative hearings in the Senate, you
(52:10):
find that this seems to have been I don't know
how to put it weaponized maybe, And you know, some
teachers are really suffering because of some administrative errors or
other things, and then all of a sudden, you know,
they're putting a situation where they put their license gits
(52:31):
on suspension and then they're banned from working anywhere. And
you know, it doesn't make sense if you're in some
administrative job, or even the ability to go to your
grandchild's school to watch a play.
Speaker 4 (52:46):
It's just it's just.
Speaker 8 (52:47):
Bizarre to me.
Speaker 2 (52:48):
So anything involving like you pointed out Sender Johnson, sexual misconduct, grooming,
any of that, that teacher would not be allowed back
into the system. You're saying, it deals only with people
who make what administrative mistakes or or maybe tick off
the principle they work with. I mean, who would be
impacted by this the most?
Speaker 8 (53:09):
Well, I think honestly they're families, the kids themselves. I mean,
it actually shocked me. And this is what's the surprising
thing with this. You've you've got a build that deals
with basically helping teachers, right, promoting teachers, that is opposed
(53:31):
by the union but supported by parents groups. Doesn't that
seem bizarre to you that now all of a sudden,
the governor wants to veto a bill that is that
is simply trying to establish fairness for teachers and administrators
that bump up against you know, some of these mistakes
(53:54):
or oversights or anything else. Right, So we're and doesn't
it isn't isn't it surprising though, that it's the union
that's fighting this and it's the parents groups that are
supporting it.
Speaker 3 (54:05):
It's bizarre. In fact, I feel like I'm missing something
because what I and when I was on the clock,
it seemed like the unions were trying to keep unqualified
teachers on the job in front of our kids, and
that was a big worry. Your bill seeks to remedy
some I think, some you know, loop, some cracks, people
falling through the cracks, or some loopholes here. But let
me ask you this. I know you live in a
(54:27):
world up in the capital of good reasons and real reasons,
and they can give it whatever good reason they want,
and to the Tribune or to any paper, if your
Senate de Corum will allow you your You know how
you guys just like to talk so nice to each other.
Can you just suspend that for a second and tell
me what the real reason is that people are pushing
back on this bill, because I can't. It sounds like
it's logical that if there's someone that ran up against
(54:49):
the administrator that didn't like them, and they got their
license suspended or something happened where it was administrative as
you've defined How on earth are they not allowed to
work in that in any capacity at the school. What
is the real reason that this bill has any kind
of controversy?
Speaker 8 (55:06):
You know, you know, it's it's puzzling to me, you know,
for one, I mean maybe it's because I ran it,
and and you know, I run up against the what
what what I termed is big AD all the time,
pushing back against this administrative state that is our public
education system. You know, they seem to fight us on
(55:30):
school choice, they seem to fight us on you know,
you know, parents complaints, parents grievances, being able to you know,
it seems like to me that, you know, do they
really want to educate our kids? I'm not sure sometimes.
Speaker 2 (55:47):
Senator Johnson, you mentioned a moment ago, you peck. I
think it's called the Utah Professional Practices Advisory Commission. In
your opinion, does this commission have too much power? Do
things need to change or do they they just need
some accommodations made to allow some people to get back
into education.
Speaker 8 (56:06):
Well this was simply a start, right, And I really
think that this system is broken in a lot of
ways because I know parents complain, because they file complaints
that never never get heard in a way, right, they're
supposed to be. I don't know what happens to them.
(56:27):
They seem sometimes to fall into a black hole. But
then you've got situations where if the charge comes from
an administrative function, especially I hate to say the Salt
Lake City School District, I think sometimes you have a
situation where this is used to you know, as a
(56:50):
weapon in some ways. And you know, I hate to
say that, but I sit through too many of these meetings,
and I wish people would actually watch the Administrative Rules
Committee meeting when we had you know, a you know,
the former principle for instance, that East High, I mean
West High, Jared Wright who is in there, and some
of the things that happened there were puzzling to me,
(57:13):
and and I think people ought to look into it,
you know, And that's simply what I've asked the governor
and other people to do. But you know, it seems
to me that you know, he's dead said on basically
vetoing this bill.
Speaker 3 (57:30):
So we're speaking with Senator John Johnson. You are also
the chair of the Senate Education Committee. So it's a
it's an area of expertise that you've always gravitated with
your legislation, but also your responsibility and the legislature. You
are the chair of the Senate Education Committee. I think
what I'm hearing, and I think I saw this a lot.
It really isn't about the kids. It's not about these teachers.
(57:51):
What it is is that you have adults that control
adult systems. And what I'm reading here is that that
you have an inside shop, a game that they get
to decide all the rules. And what you've done is
you've you've changed those rules. They don't get to these
adults don't get to control adult systems like they're used
to doing. And it's it's boiling down to a turf
battle between the establishment and how they get to run things.
(58:13):
And some Senate Education chare senator who thinks that this
ought to have an opener or a better process, or
you shouldn't be able to condemn people from being able
to work. Is that what this is?
Speaker 8 (58:25):
You know, it's hard, it's hard to say, oh.
Speaker 3 (58:27):
You're just see this is where this is where I
can't You're just being a senator. This is you being nice,
This is you just being too nice.
Speaker 8 (58:35):
Well I thought so, honestly, thank you. I think we
need something to happen.
Speaker 10 (58:42):
Senator.
Speaker 3 (58:42):
I love you. I'm just teasing you, but I knew
that you're very you know the Senate you got you
guys have so much decorum. I I was trying to
pull it out of you because I know that's what's
going on here. But you know, you just you love
to give the benefit of the doubt. I love that,
but I do think, I do think that the the
cake is baked here and they don't like that what
you're doing, and that's why you're getting this veto push
because what you're arguing for, on its face should defend
(59:04):
no one. But what you're doing is you're stepping on
someone's turf and that's that's the problem with with this bill.
But you keep fighting a good fight, sir.
Speaker 2 (59:11):
Yeah, Sunder. Let me ask you this. Any indication from
the Governor's office to where he may go with this yet?
Have you heard of it?
Speaker 8 (59:18):
I I well, in my conversation with him today, it's
you know, he basically told me he didn't like my bill,
and I you know, I tried to figure out, uh,
you know what exactly he didn't like. And I think
that this is just this just happens to be a
turf battle that he's going to side with the Union
(59:39):
on sunder.
Speaker 2 (59:40):
Always great chatting with you. Thank you, We appreciate him
and it's your times under Johnson.
Speaker 8 (59:45):
Thank you, thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (59:47):
On our any hour news reader line that is State Center,
John Johnson talking about a bill that it sounds like
the governor most likely is going to veto more coming
up on The Rodden Greg Show and Utah's Talk Radio
one oh five. Dine Okayn, I I think everybody would admit,
even women would admit this Greg that nobody really likes
to talk about feminine hygiene products. Right, It's uncomfortable for
(01:00:09):
people to talk. Yes, me too, I'm with that. But
this story shows where we are in twenty twenty six.
A Republican female lawmaker is putting the uncomfortable conversation out
there in a way that should make her woke. Democratic
colleagues in the Maryland House of Della gets feel embarrassed,
if not a shame. They have a bill that would
(01:00:31):
mandate putting tampons, Yes, tampons and other such products in
men's restrooms in public buildings. You say Republican's doing this, No,
a Republican is calling out Democrats who want to do this. Yeah,
I mean they want to put it in Raven Stadium
at Camden Yards.
Speaker 16 (01:00:48):
Please.
Speaker 2 (01:00:49):
Really, that's what she had to say. She posts a
very interesting question. By the way, listen to this.
Speaker 18 (01:00:54):
Menstrual hygiene products means appropriately sized tampons. What are appropriately sizedampons?
I've never heard of such a thing. What do you
consider appropriate?
Speaker 14 (01:01:09):
It just means that tampons are offered. There are no
specific side.
Speaker 18 (01:01:14):
Well, apparently there's four different sizes. So which one would
you like them to use?
Speaker 14 (01:01:20):
Just a regular sized tampon in the bathroom?
Speaker 18 (01:01:23):
Okay, maybe it should say that and not appropriately sized tampon?
Speaker 8 (01:01:28):
Now?
Speaker 18 (01:01:28):
Is this going in all bathrooms men and women's?
Speaker 9 (01:01:31):
Yes?
Speaker 18 (01:01:33):
How about the Ravens Stadium?
Speaker 14 (01:01:37):
If it is a state owned building, then yes, it
would go in it's a public building.
Speaker 18 (01:01:47):
Oriole Park.
Speaker 14 (01:01:50):
Well, if it applies to the raven Stadium, it would
also apply to Oriole's Park.
Speaker 18 (01:01:54):
I guess Pimlico.
Speaker 2 (01:01:57):
Correct.
Speaker 8 (01:01:58):
Now?
Speaker 2 (01:01:59):
Can I tell you what my story dealing with this issue?
Speaker 3 (01:02:03):
Yeah? Maybe I this is this I'm suffering through this segment.
This was a terrible thing.
Speaker 2 (01:02:08):
This was a couple of years ago, prior to the
youth kicking off the football season. My wife and I
wanted to go get some new Utah tire, right, so
I went to the bookstore. I go into men's room.
There's a basket of tampons. When was this just two
three years ago? Up with the U you're kidding, No,
two three years ago, I would imagine they're still there.
Nobody in this town has guts enough to say take
(01:02:30):
them out of here.
Speaker 3 (01:02:32):
It's just it's so messed up. I mean, if there's
someone that needs that and they're in the men's.
Speaker 2 (01:02:35):
Room, all right, they shouldn't be in the men's room.
Speaker 3 (01:02:38):
I don't think that's where you want to be. No,
so you shouldn't be in the men That should be
like in a unisex bathroom. Can we just if we
if we have to talk about this, can you just
put it in the bathroom. There's plenty of those kind
of bathrooms. I see that it's uni sex. Has a
lock on the door. You just you know, you could
be a guy or girl. Just go in there. It's
a single stall. You lock the door behind.
Speaker 2 (01:02:54):
You, don't have to worry about it.
Speaker 3 (01:02:55):
Go put whatever you want in there. That makes sense,
But don't put women's stuff in the guys in the
men It's just it's demented. It's absolutely demented.
Speaker 2 (01:03:02):
Maybe someone's been up there at the bookstore to you.
I bet they still have them there. I know you
they have changed anything.
Speaker 3 (01:03:09):
Yeah, you're right, You're right, they're probably still doing it,
because yeah, it's.
Speaker 2 (01:03:12):
Just bizarre Maryland Democrats.
Speaker 3 (01:03:16):
I would move for this conversation alone. I get out
of that town. I wouldn't want to hear this.
Speaker 2 (01:03:20):
Well, it's Baltimore, Yeah yeah, I mean you think.
Speaker 3 (01:03:23):
What they call it, those Camden Yards? What happened to
Camden Yards?
Speaker 2 (01:03:27):
I think it still is called yards. She referred to
it as Oriole Ballpark. Yeah, but it's Camden Yards. And
couldn't you see it had a Ravens football game.
Speaker 3 (01:03:38):
You know what, I hate the Ravens as a Steeler fan,
So you know what, they probably need him in the
men's room with the Ravens for the Ravens fans. Yeah,
they are a bunch of women. Wow, and think there's
a man to be found amongst them. Yeah, a bunch
of brutal, bunch of ladies figures. Okay, But because I
bet you those raven fans who think they wear dresses,
even the guys are wearing dresses. Yeah, go give them, give.
Speaker 2 (01:03:57):
Them all that you're heard of the Ravens.
Speaker 3 (01:03:59):
I don't like the Ravens now that I think about it.
Speaker 2 (01:04:01):
Really Yeah, okay, all right, more coming up here on
the Rod and Greg Show in Utah's Talk Radio one
O five to nine k n R S. Is that easy?
I'm Rod arquit citizen, Greg Hughes. All right, Let's say, Greg,
you are a naturalized citizen. Okay, you've gone through all
the legal channels. You've now become a citizen of the
United States. But you do something against the country. Can
(01:04:22):
you be I guess de naturalized and kicked out of
the country. Is that possible?
Speaker 3 (01:04:26):
Well, let's find out.
Speaker 2 (01:04:28):
Ah.
Speaker 3 (01:04:28):
Joining us on the program George Fishman. He is a
senior legal fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies and George,
welcome to the program. This is the question. You bring
this up in your article. Shed some light on this
for us. Is it true that a naturalized citizen could
potentially lose their citizenship?
Speaker 1 (01:04:47):
Well, the issue has is in the public sphere right now. Unfortunately,
as you know, we've had a number of naturalized citizens
recently engaging in terror activity and members of Congress, the
President have brought up the question of whether they can
(01:05:07):
be denaturalized and the answer, the short answer is the
Supreme Court has said that an alien can be denaturalized
for lying for misrepresenting during the naturalization process, not for
(01:05:30):
actions or activities or beliefs or statements that happen after naturalization. However,
actions and activities and misdeeds after naturalization can be used
as evidence of what the person's frame of mind was
when they naturalize. When you naturalize, you have to take
(01:05:53):
an oath of citizenship, you to protect and defend the Constitution,
to read that bouncible prior allegiances. And if a few
years after naturalization you're doing activities fundamentally inconsistent with with America.
Speaker 4 (01:06:15):
With uh.
Speaker 1 (01:06:18):
With the Constitution, with supporting your former country over the
United States, even in case of war, that can be
used as evidence that wait a second, there's no way
you were truthful when you took the oath, and therefore
you can be naturalized to naturalize, but only as evidence
of what you're of, what you were at, what your
(01:06:40):
frame of mind was when you were naturalized.
Speaker 2 (01:06:44):
George, how difficult would it be to prove a cage
like this, I mean, what, what would someone need to
be able to prove this?
Speaker 3 (01:06:52):
Well?
Speaker 2 (01:06:52):
It is, It's difficult.
Speaker 1 (01:06:53):
And the difficulty emerged during the Second World War when
the Federal government sought to denaturalize a fair number of
basically Nazis who had naturalized citizens from Germany, and the
Supreme Court made it very very difficult for them to
(01:07:15):
do that on the and basically the Federal government's plans
to do a large number of deportations of denaturalizations of
Nazis during World War Two had to end because of
the Supreme Court's decision decisions, and in reaction to that,
(01:07:35):
Congress passed legislation in nineteen fifty the Internal Security Act,
and then further as part of the Immigration and Naturalization
Act of nineteen fifty two to put in statutory provisions.
(01:07:56):
And the statutory provision basically says, and this was you
know during the Cold War that if you within five
years after you're naturalized, you join a subversive organization, the
Communist Party, things of that nature, you can be the
(01:08:17):
naturalized on that basis because the fact that you joined
the Communist Party within five years of naturalization shows that
you know, you were never wedded to the US Constitution
never wedded to the good order and happiness of the
United States. Now, those statutes have never been really tested
(01:08:41):
in federal court, so who knows whether they would stand up.
But that was in reaction to the Supreme Court essentially
saying in World War Two, after World War Two that
you know, the mere fact that you've become a Nazi,
that you've become an active leader in the I mean
this party, those things in and of themselves can't get
(01:09:04):
you denaturalized.
Speaker 2 (01:09:06):
You know, it's only evidence.
Speaker 1 (01:09:09):
It can only be used as evidence, and the Supreme
Court has often been dubious even as to using it
as evidence of what your attitude was when you were naturalized.
And so it is very difficult. And that's probably one
important reason for the federal government to be a lot
(01:09:32):
more judicious when it naturalizes someone, because essentially it's going
to be very, very, very difficult to denaturalize someone once
they're naturalized, So the government should be a lot more
careful in who it naturalizes in the first place.
Speaker 3 (01:09:50):
So I'm really fascinated by this, this language. It's in
the Internal Security Act in nineteen fifty because as you
were talking and as I looked at this issue. I thought, yeah,
you'd have to see them in the event very soon after,
So it'd have to be people that were just recently
naturalized that you could see maybe social media posts or
something that was that would contradict that oath that they
take upon being, you know, a naturalized citizen. What this
(01:10:12):
says in Congress, even from nineteen fifty is that you
have like a five year window after if their conduct
contradicts that oath. You say, it's never been tried in courts.
Does that mean it's never been enforced to do we
know that no one has ever lost their citizenship based
on this five year window to look at someone's that conduct.
Speaker 1 (01:10:30):
Well, what I can say, I mean others have concluded
that it's been very rarely used, sure, And I have
been unable to find any court case in the federal
courts challenging it. So I think it's doubtful that it's
ever successfully been used. And if it has been successfully
(01:10:52):
been used, you know, the person who got to naturalized,
you know, chows for whatever reason not to not to
challenge in federal court. There was a on a different
naturalization presumption, the naturalization presumption, and a Supreme Court decision
in nineteen thirteen saying essentially, yeah, you.
Speaker 4 (01:11:16):
Can use it.
Speaker 1 (01:11:17):
You can use you know, activities after naturalization as evidence
of someone's frame of mind when they were being naturalized.
But the longer the person has been a naturalized citizen,
the more and more evidence the government is going to
have to provide. And five years and this is the
Supreme Court in nineteen thirteen saying five years is really
(01:11:40):
pushing it. The government is going to need a lot
of evidence if it's you know, going to use actions
of a citizen, you know, year years, five years after
they were naturalized.
Speaker 2 (01:11:55):
George, thank you very much for joining us on our
any hour newsmaker line. That's George Fishman, senior legal fellow
at the Center for Immigration Studies. More the Rod and
Greg Show coming your way on this wing Man Wednesday.
You're on Utah's Talk Radio one O five nine, kay
an Ters, real interesting three hours of radio. Jess Jesse
has some uh really interesting ideas.
Speaker 3 (01:12:16):
Yeah, I like I like listening to him. After our
show's over, listening to his show and he was nice
to Yeah. When we were at the Republican National Convention,
he was broadcasting next to us, so we got to
interview him. On our show, and we got to spend
some time with him and his you know, his producer
loved your voice. Remember that he said he wanted to
he wanted to set an alarm and how you just
say wake up and he wanted to he wanted to
(01:12:36):
hear that when he woke up.
Speaker 2 (01:12:38):
Do you see what United Airlines is doing today? What
they announced today? No, they announced that you can basically
turn your airplane seat into a bed.
Speaker 3 (01:12:47):
Oh I did see?
Speaker 2 (01:12:48):
Have you seen this?
Speaker 3 (01:12:49):
This look cozy? You could buy all three seat.
Speaker 2 (01:12:52):
You gotta three the middle seat, you know it's worth sat.
Apparently you can take it and somehow drop down slats
and it becomes a bed.
Speaker 3 (01:13:03):
Yeah, so underneath the underneath the seat, it'll swing out
and it'll touch kind of the seat in front of you,
So it becomes a flat like a bed.
Speaker 8 (01:13:12):
Light.
Speaker 2 (01:13:13):
You can lay you can lay down with a child
if you.
Speaker 3 (01:13:16):
Want, taking a rest you it's a much better way
to sleep. I can you can't.
Speaker 2 (01:13:22):
I can't. My wife, I have.
Speaker 3 (01:13:25):
No trouble sleeping. But here's the problem. If you're in
a really long flight, if my legs are below my
head for very long, if on those long long flights,
now I'm not even talking from here to East Coast.
I'm talking if you're doing an international flight. My ankles swell.
I get cankles. I got my calves, and my ankles
just become one. You know, there's no it doesn't go narrow.
Speaker 2 (01:13:44):
That's common for quite a few people.
Speaker 3 (01:13:46):
I mean those compression socks and everything. I still get it.
Speaker 2 (01:13:49):
You know what you're supposed to do? What do the
abcs with your feet?
Speaker 3 (01:13:53):
Really?
Speaker 4 (01:13:53):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (01:13:54):
I didn't know that, but I I would rather just like.
Speaker 2 (01:13:56):
Get up and walk around.
Speaker 3 (01:13:57):
If you can't a little bit, I want to lay down.
Speaker 2 (01:14:00):
I would too. I would too, all right. You know
we're in this age, Greg, you and I the kind
of students we were.
Speaker 3 (01:14:08):
I only know what kind of student I was. I'm
not judging you, man.
Speaker 2 (01:14:11):
We would be. We would be asking ourselves where was
AI when we were students? Because you can go to
I know, and say give me a I need a
paper on this, and you'd have it like in.
Speaker 3 (01:14:22):
Seconds, and then you can tell you I make it
so it doesn't sound like it's been my AI, and
it'll rewrite it again. It'll even make it so does
it's not coming from themselves?
Speaker 2 (01:14:31):
Teachers who are having to deal with now, and really
good teachers can tell that's not his work or her work.
Speaker 3 (01:14:37):
Oh yeah, it's like this sounds coaching, This sounds smart. Yeah,
Hughes didn't do this one.
Speaker 2 (01:14:43):
Why bring this up because apparently now many college students
are college professors trying to battle this right, are now
requiring oral exams.
Speaker 3 (01:14:53):
Do you know that's interesting because my business partner friend
of mine, he graduated from Oxford. Yeah, all their examinations
were oral.
Speaker 2 (01:15:02):
How do they do that?
Speaker 3 (01:15:03):
They would give you a stack of books to read,
and then you'd sit with that professor and they would
just he would just ask you a ton of questions
of which you had to be prepared to answer. It
was all oral, So you had to talk, you had
to get you had to talk about what you learned.
Speaker 2 (01:15:16):
Apparently it's a growing trend in this country. I think
they're doing it very simply. What you study the subject,
you sit down with a professor, and that professor will
ask you all kinds of questions about the subject.
Speaker 3 (01:15:25):
I actually would prefer that. I would rather have a
conversational yeah, because you could be through because some of
those multiple choice questions. You know, even in college, you
felt like you were getting tricked. It was almost like
it was like a riddle, you know. I could actually
I could actually find answers, correct answers and a number
of options, you know, And so I'm like, I'm just
overthinking it. I would rather just have a conversation.
Speaker 2 (01:15:45):
So you'd be good at it, because what I do.
You can talk your way? Yeah yeah, now me, I'm
kind of a quiet guy. Oh yeah, Actually I couldn't
do it, but you could. You could. You could fill
an hour without something.
Speaker 3 (01:15:57):
I missed a boat. Because in the Commonwealth dates or
you know England, you know, the UK, and then all
the you know, Canada and Australia and all the Commonwealth
countries in the world, they have taken the legal profession.
They've and they've bifurcated it in the barristers and solicitors,
and solicitors do all the paperwork. They do all barristers
put on a wig and talk. Man, give me that show.
Speaker 2 (01:16:21):
I could have been embarrasser. Would you have worn one of.
Speaker 4 (01:16:23):
Them that way?
Speaker 3 (01:16:24):
To just pay to be to talk? You You load
me up with the info, put me in front of
a court and let me go. I would do that
all day man. That is my that's my dream job.
I never had that. We don't have that option and
are in the American legal That's interesting and I would
be embarrassed. You've now seen oral exams being done at
colleges around the country more trying to come back AI.
You know what, they're going to be mildly disappointed in
(01:16:45):
those oral Those conversations are not going.
Speaker 14 (01:16:47):
To go well.
Speaker 2 (01:16:48):
Yeah, you know what I love about it. You have
to learn to express yourself. And how many kids do
you run into nowadays? They can't express themselves?
Speaker 3 (01:16:55):
Yeah, yeah, I think basic communications.
Speaker 2 (01:16:57):
Someone made me change the other day with fifty cents
back right, two quarters They don't think they headquarters city
and the thing. No, they gave me five times because
they couldn't figure out the two quarters and fifty cents.
Speaker 3 (01:17:09):
Yeah, I'm not a story for him.
Speaker 2 (01:17:12):
Yeah wow, all right, that does it for us Tonight,
head up, shoulders back. May God bless you and your
family and this wonderful, wonderful community and country of hours.
We'll be back tomorrow with a brand new edition of
The Rod and Gregg Show.
The Rod & Greg Show News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Kingdom of Fraud
It’s the unlikeliest of criminal partnerships: a devout polygamist from an insular Utah sect joining forces with a shadowy Armenian tycoon from LA. The result - a billion dollar fraud conspiracy. In Kingdom of Fraud, investigative reporter Michele McPhee traces the origins of the extraordinary alliance between Jacob Kingston and Levon Termendzhyan. Together, the two men trigger the largest tax investigation in American history and weave around themselves a web of dirty cops, influential political relationships and transnational money laundering. All this is set against the backdrop of Jacob Kingston’s clan – The Order. A powerful and secretive polygamist organization in Salt Lake City. To whom Jacob is desperate to prove his worth. Kingdom of Fraud is produced by Novel for iHeart Podcasts. For more from Novel, visit https://novel.audio/. You can listen to new episodes of Kingdom of Fraud completely ad-free and 1 week early with an iHeart True Crime+ subscription, available exclusively on Apple Podcasts. Open your Apple Podcasts app, search for “iHeart True Crime+, and subscribe today!