The Rod and Greg Show: Kamala's Trip to the Border; Liberal Media Needs New Name

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Don't know if i'd want to go through a hurricane
with what we're seeing out there.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
But I've seen them on TV, and yeah, that leaves
me believing I never want to be near him. Yeah,
you love Florida, and all of a sudden you see
this and you're like, I don't know, I don't know
the water could get that far him or go that high.
Now he's going up the coast with kitting Georgia's Yeah,
wind's one hundred and forty miles an hour. Can you
imagine if there's one thing about the weather. I don't
mind rain, I don't mind snow. When the wind gets going,

(00:26):
I'll be honest, it frightens me a little bit because
I just think the wind is so powerful. Yeah, wind's tough,
and in the flooding, I just think flooding can just
be so devastating too. Yeah, you know, so, I just
I feel badly for all the people in Florida, and
even like I said, in Georgia and North there's other
states now that are being terribly impacted.

Speaker 3 (00:44):
Me.

Speaker 2 (00:44):
You showed me there's a weatherman that's saved someone from
the rod.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
A guy who worked for the who worked for the
Fox News channel. Okay, they have a channel dedicated to weather.
They do a great job with it. He was on
the air reporting. I mean the water is up probably
too about his knee her so ow. And he's standing
there and the winds are blowing and he hears something
or notices something in the background and he looked over
and there's a woman who's drowning. Gee, you know, she's

(01:10):
in her car. She can't get out of her car.
I haven't seen all the coverage of it, but but
he just says, folks, I gotta leave. You see him
walk off the camera. The next shot there is is
here he is carrying a woman out of this water.
She almost round. I mean, wow, you know, and in
situations like this, people really step up. The other one
is this is this guy broadcasts live from his living

(01:32):
room and he was in a pontoon.

Speaker 2 (01:36):
You're handling things well if you can broadcast.

Speaker 1 (01:40):
You know, he's in a living room and he's just
having a little bit of fun of it. But I
tell you what, I tell you what these storms, by
the way, I know, the American Red Cross really steps
up and helps people here. Can't you just make like
a ten dollars donation or something like that. If you
go to the American Red Cross their website, it's very
easy to do. So if you want to help those
people out you know they're going to need everything. Millions

(02:02):
of people, I think four million people right now are
without power. You know, our fearless leader here just left
us to go work in Florida.

Speaker 4 (02:10):
I won't know what she's thinking about Florida right now.

Speaker 5 (02:12):
Yeah, we have we have the brass.

Speaker 4 (02:15):
Florida, Florida.

Speaker 5 (02:16):
She wants to come back. I'm sure we miss her,
we love her.

Speaker 6 (02:19):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:19):
Yeah, But so if if you can make a little donation,
help those people out there, because it is a it's
a difficult I like I said, I've never been through one,
but like you said, we've seen it all on television,
and that is there's scary stuff going on.

Speaker 5 (02:34):
Yeah, No, it's it's it is.

Speaker 2 (02:35):
It's Mother Nature's nothing to uh to flirt around or
or or take for granted.

Speaker 5 (02:41):
It's it's it's terrible and I hate, you know what.
I hate it always.

Speaker 2 (02:45):
Maybe it's too soon to talk about this, but it
seems always around elect these election years. Remember when when
that hurricane hit up in New Jersey and you saw
Krity Governor Christy yucking it.

Speaker 1 (02:54):
Up with Obama? How about how about Katrina with George
Bush in New Orleans. Yeah, Orman, it's that time of
year because traditionally hurricane season is what September in October.

Speaker 2 (03:05):
So you look at all this, but who gets who's
gonna I hope the voting works. Those are pretty important
stage right, Yah. Yeah, and this is a pretty important election.
So hopefully, hopefully you'll be able to do that. All right,
we have got a lot to get to. Uh Kamala
is now on the ground in uh Douglas, Arizona. She's
decided to go to the border and to find out

(03:26):
what's going on. We'll we'll go there and find out
what's there. We'll also talk about the liberal media doesn't
need a new name. I am all in on this
this this interview because I am ready.

Speaker 4 (03:39):
Yeah, and we'll talk about that.

Speaker 1 (03:40):
And there was a study out this week and Greg
and I we've had it in front of us for
a few days. We just haven't been able to get
to it. But the study shows that Americans are afraid
to say out loud what they really think.

Speaker 2 (03:54):
I suffer from that. I'm I'm a very you know,
nobody knows what I think. I'm a very veiled person.
I can't rock My opinion is close to the vest.

Speaker 4 (04:03):
Have they listened to this show at all? Get into that.

Speaker 1 (04:07):
I know we're opposite. We're going to get into that.
Talk about why people are afraid to say what they
really think, and if they've had experiences on sensitive topics
and what are the sensitive topics in this country that
you can't talk about.

Speaker 2 (04:20):
And sensitive topics in Utah I think gets a little
more sensitive than certainly back East. Yeah, I mean our family.
I mean, if Uton's were privy to our family discussions,
they would think there is a full blown fight going on.

Speaker 5 (04:32):
There's not.

Speaker 2 (04:32):
Everyone's just very passionate about their opinions. But yeah, no,
it's even in Utah. It's a it's a little more sensitive,
is it. Some call passive aggressive. I say that they
just don't like brutal honesty. The brutal part, Well, fair enough,
I mean I.

Speaker 1 (04:46):
Brutal honesty for the sake of being nice to each other.

Speaker 2 (04:49):
Basically, Well, yeah, I always think honesty is the best policy,
and if I'm brutally honest, I would think that's good.
But some people find brutal honesty to not be good.
They'd rather you be civil and maybe not so nice.

Speaker 1 (05:01):
You don't say anything unkind toward anybody?

Speaker 2 (05:03):
Correct, well, I never say anything unkind. I just say
the truth. If you find the truth uncomfortable, no, that's
on you.

Speaker 1 (05:09):
Deal with it right, all right, So it's good to
be with you today. We're going to be invite you
again to be part of our discussion, part of the
Rod and Greg Show. A reminder coming up on Monday.
First of all, we begin every Monday for I think
the next four or five weeks. We'll give you a
chance to win some tickets to see Billy Joel and
Stinging concert coming up on Friday, May twenty third of

(05:29):
at Rice Ecles. Will be fun because we're going to
play a game with you on this when this will
be kind of fun. And then Tuesday night we've got
the vice presidential debate, which I know you're all excited about.

Speaker 2 (05:40):
That's just going to move the needle completely the whole
election hinges on this debate.

Speaker 1 (05:44):
Not but yeah, oh you know the conversation the interview
that Kamala did with Stephanie Rule from MSNBC. What was
it Tuesday or Wednesday night? I'm trying to forget. But yes,
it bombed night, it bombed hardly, got it hardly. Anybody
watched it?

Speaker 5 (06:00):
Well, yeah, well lucky for her. I'd just say lucky
for Kamalin.

Speaker 2 (06:04):
No one watched it, because I don't think they would
walk away from that interview thinking she ready to be president. Honestly,
I don't. I don't think that's a partisan statement. I
think if you watch that with an open mind, you
would leave that interview thinking she thinks she can get something.
You can raise taxes without a Senate. I'm pretty sure
she The reporter said what if you know the Senate,

(06:26):
and she just looked blankly and said, well, we still
have to do it.

Speaker 7 (06:28):
Yeah, man.

Speaker 1 (06:28):
So I don't know if that would inspire confidence. All right, here,
in a few minutes, we're going to head down to Douglas, Arizona.
That's where Kamala Harris is right now. Finally, pay attention
to the border. But in light of that, this an
unbelievable report coming out today from ICE, and it shows
tens of thousands of illegal immigrants with sexual assault and
murder convictions are roaming our street screak and the numbers

(06:51):
are just staggering. The Data says there are four hundred
and twenty five thousand, four hundred and thirty one convicted
criminals who've come into this country thanks to our open borders,
with two hundred and twenty two with pending criminal charges
against them. How on earth did they ever get into

(07:13):
this country? Great, I mean, those numbers are staggering.

Speaker 2 (07:15):
Well, here's the numbers that I have, and they've crunched
them a little differently. It's six hundred and sixty three
thousand have some form of criminal history to them that
ICE detained and knew about.

Speaker 5 (07:24):
These are documented. By the way.

Speaker 2 (07:25):
This isn't everybody that had a criminal history of some
sort that got across our border. These are the ones
detained by ICE. Six hundred and sixty three thousand, thirteen
thousand were convicted of homicides, sixteen thousand of sexual assaults,
one eight hundred and forty five face homicide charges. Yeah,
I mean, I just and that comes out. That's I'm

(07:47):
looking at the letter. It's from the US Immigration and
Customs Enforcement. This is a letter that they wrote in
response to a congressional inquiry. They give these numbers out,
they lay them out in a chart. I'm looking at
the chart. Now this comes while she's going to the border. Yeah,
question is how do you reconcile these numbers with someone
who says, when I was a prosecutor, before I was
vice president, before I was a US senator, and I

(08:09):
was a prosecutor, I went after these cartels. What are
you doing now? Do you see these numbers? Are you
accountable for any of this chaos and these people coming
across or are you just gonna just say I'm in
the middle class.

Speaker 4 (08:20):
It's amazing.

Speaker 1 (08:21):
Now the Democrats quick to respond to this today they say, well,
you didn't break it down. How many came in here
illegally under Donald Trump? And how many came in illegally.
I'm ready under Joe Biden. I'm ready to do that.

Speaker 7 (08:32):
You're ready to do that?

Speaker 5 (08:33):
Thank Yeah, I mean you come on.

Speaker 2 (08:35):
We just common sense tells you that not securing the
border at all versus securing the border, your numbers are
going to be weighted to those with an empty border
that's not patrolled or enforced. So those numbers, a herculean
portion of those numbers are if any of those numbers
are Trump, most of those numbers are the Biden Harris administration.

Speaker 1 (08:54):
Well and then Greg and Donald Trump has brought this up,
and he said this on the campaign or a trail
a couple of days ago. If he can, I'm not
sure if a president, if he has the power and
if he has the power to do this, if he
is elected, and he would do away with sanctuary states
and sanctuary cities. I mean, if you think about this,
let's say one of these criminals commits a crime. Let's

(09:15):
say and like San Francisco. Yeah, they will be treated
by local authorities there. They will not under a sanctuary
city rules as far as I understand them. They will
not notify ICE and say, hey, we got a bad
guy here, come get them and get him out of
the country.

Speaker 4 (09:29):
Doesn't that happen?

Speaker 5 (09:30):
They need to get rid of those.

Speaker 2 (09:31):
And the sad part is now, if you're not a
sanctuary state and you call ICE, they probably won't show
up anyway. Yeah, I mean, they're just not right now
like they used to. So not to the Trump administration.

Speaker 4 (09:40):
A lot to get to.

Speaker 1 (09:41):
On this Friday edition of The Rod and Gregg Show,
we'll be going to Arizona and talk with a reporter
down there and what she's hearing about Kamala Harris's visit
that's coming up on the Rod and Gregg Show on
this Friday afternoon. Remember what was it several months ago?
She told Lester Holt, why do I need to go
to the border? Why do I need to go I
don't go to Europe, So why do I need to
go to the border. They make a lot of sense,

(10:01):
did it?

Speaker 8 (10:02):
No?

Speaker 2 (10:02):
I didn't know, And so she's trying to check that box. Folks,
we got eyes and ears down there for you wait
this interview. We are going to be watching this. We're
monitoring this in real time so that you can hear,
you know, from those that are on the ground to
see this amazing transformation of a borders are and a leader.
It's going to somehow now, you know.

Speaker 1 (10:23):
Well, let's find out what's going on on the border
right now. Joining us on our Newsmaker line is Ana Garrettelli.
She is a homeland security reporter at the Washington Examiner.
She knows this subject very very well. Anna, thanks for
joining us. Exactly what is she hoping to get out
of this border or this visit to the border today?

Speaker 4 (10:39):
Do you think Annah, I think.

Speaker 9 (10:41):
She's trying to say, listen, I am familiar with the border.

Speaker 10 (10:44):
I have been there. Certainly, what this gifts her going
forward is.

Speaker 9 (10:48):
The opportunity to say, yeah, I've been to the border
more than once, and sometimes it's as simple as that,
and saying that she's heard from border communities, but she's
going to a spot it's pretty much deadsville. You're not
going to see people crossing like we've seen thousands coming
across in other parts of the border. So it really,

(11:09):
I think, is a thing to check off her list,
and it's something that you know, obviously, Irk's President Trump,
so certainly hits both boxes.

Speaker 2 (11:20):
So Anna the reported visit from the vice president that
people talk about June of twenty one, they said that
she visited Al Paso, but they said that the place
she visited was really seven miles from the border. Are
you closer to the border. You've already said that there's
not a lot of chaos or things that they might
be confronting that the United States is confronting. What's the

(11:41):
atmosphere and is it at least closer and more substantive
than the El Paso seven miles away visit back in
June of twenty one.

Speaker 10 (11:52):
Yeah, I mean we are. We're about two miles from
the actual border.

Speaker 9 (11:55):
Actually pulling into the college where this has taking place,
I could see miles and miles of border wall in
the distance in Mexico behind it. When she went three
years ago, she went to a processing center where migrants
are held. She I believe, went to a port of
entry where vehicles passed back and through.

Speaker 10 (12:14):
Today, she's just going to be to March.

Speaker 9 (12:16):
To our knowledge, what they've told the media is coming
here to do this event and then going to a
port of entry.

Speaker 10 (12:24):
So she still will not be actually going.

Speaker 9 (12:26):
To the border wall. Again, she won't be interacting with migrants.
You know, I don't know if she's going to be
interacting much with border patrol agents who are separate from
the federal police who work at customs and at the ports.
So again, you know, it's checking off that box and
saying I've been to the border, but it's it's you know,

(12:47):
it's like, how do you define the border?

Speaker 10 (12:49):
What is going to the border. I'm not going to
tail different things to different people.

Speaker 8 (12:53):
Ana.

Speaker 1 (12:53):
This is, without a doubt, maybe her most vulnerable issue
when it comes to seeking the White House is what
has happened on the board order, her being declared the
you know, the borders are and all that, and then
you have this story coming out today that I think
you're aware from ICE indicating that there are tens of
thousands of illegal immigrants with sex offenses and homicide convictions

(13:14):
who are loose on our streets today. I mean, she
is in a very vulnerable position if she goes to
the border and says, I've been here twice and look
at the success I've had.

Speaker 9 (13:25):
Yeah, And I mean the Biden administration when it took office,
the Biden Harris administration specifically prioritized who it was going
to have ICE arrest within the country and then bring
to court for deportation proceedings. And so they've prioritized the
worst of the worst. But if you've committed a crime,
even been convicted of a crime, it doesn't make you

(13:47):
eligible for arrest and deportation. They're only focusing on the
worst of the worst. And so I think for the
you know, the Harris Biden administration, we're going to be
asking today is why haven't you, you know, clapped down
on the border, clamped down like you did a few
months ago, and are focusing on it now? Where was

(14:08):
that for the past three and a half years and
what do you say, you know, to people who are concerned.

Speaker 10 (14:13):
About all the people who have been released.

Speaker 9 (14:16):
Over five point three million immigrants who came over the
border illegally have been released, as well as half a
million who were flown in from outside the country applied
and came in.

Speaker 10 (14:26):
They're not refugees. You know, what is the end goal?
And how are you.

Speaker 9 (14:32):
Actually vetting people when you admit that you know you
only vetgancy information you have, but you don't have adequate information.

Speaker 5 (14:40):
Okay, hang with me on this question. Okay.

Speaker 2 (14:43):
Movie from the eighties National Lampoon's Family Vacation. Now Chevy
Chase is taking the film and they want to see
the Grand Canyon. They're dying to see the Grand Canyon.
He roars up to an observation platform for the Grand Canyon,
hurries the family together.

Speaker 5 (14:58):
They all get together.

Speaker 2 (14:59):
He puts his arm around him, He looks for a second,
he bobs his head and says okay, and then they
all run back in the in the into the station
wagon and drive away. My question, when she goes down
there and she bobs her head and says, yes, I
see it, does the media does the public do people say, well,
she's just crushed it on the border. She's ready to go.
We're ready to vote for now. That week issue has

(15:20):
now been resolved because she has been here and she
has looked at everything, ever so briefly, but she's been here.

Speaker 5 (15:26):
Does that fly? Do you think?

Speaker 6 (15:29):
I mean?

Speaker 9 (15:30):
From where we are today, the border is two miles
away in the distance. You can see Mexico's mountains from
where I'm sitting right now.

Speaker 10 (15:38):
Do I understand the border from sitting here in my car? Yeah,
I've been to the border.

Speaker 9 (15:42):
It's like when you drive through a state, but you
don't actually interact with the people and know a little
bit about what the culture is there and.

Speaker 10 (15:50):
Just get a feel for it.

Speaker 9 (15:51):
It's like going to JFK, you know, switching planes and
saying I've been to New York.

Speaker 5 (15:56):
Have you interacted the actually do you.

Speaker 10 (15:58):
Know what it's like?

Speaker 9 (16:00):
And I think that's with any political visit. You know,
it's you're not going to get a full experience. But
I think there's certainly much more in depth ways for
any candidate to be interacting. You know, Republicans will go
to the border and only interact with border patrol. They
don't talk to the NGOs and the groups helping people,

(16:20):
the community leaders. So I think there's a I think
it can be insulting to go somewhere for three four
hours and say I've been there.

Speaker 10 (16:33):
It's not it's not you know, sending. It's not a full, wholehearted.

Speaker 9 (16:39):
You know, attempt to say I really want to understand
this better.

Speaker 1 (16:43):
Yeah, all right, Dane, thank you very much. Anna, you're
a Telly, a homeland security reporter. They're the Washington Examiny.
You know, I wonder what people in these small towns
along the border where you know, like where a Kamai
is today Douglas, Arizona, what they think about this whole situation.
You know, you've got these visits from you know, members
of Congress, the former president, the current candidate coming down

(17:03):
to visit their towns, and nothing gets done.

Speaker 4 (17:06):
What they think?

Speaker 2 (17:08):
I think massive progress has been made because in June
of twenty one, she was seven and a half miles away,
and Anna's reporting that they are now two miles two
miles away.

Speaker 4 (17:17):
So that's progress.

Speaker 2 (17:18):
So there's there's your progress. They have closed the gap
on looking at it having nothing to say about it now. Again,
My question though, was, and she's like, you can't really
figure out a lot from it. The media tonight, I
think will report to the American people that now that
she's looked at it, we're good.

Speaker 1 (17:34):
Yep, everything solid, Like she knows she can't make their
argument anymore.

Speaker 11 (17:37):
You know.

Speaker 2 (17:37):
Yeah, she's from the middle class folks. She we got
this fixed.

Speaker 4 (17:41):
Yeah, we do all right.

Speaker 1 (17:42):
More coming up, Rod and Greg with you here on
Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine can arrests live
everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.

Speaker 5 (17:50):
It's a It's around.

Speaker 1 (17:50):
I'm looking at you and see if you have an
I don't have an answer. I do, of course, Well, yeah,
you don't have a venue. Do you have answer?

Speaker 2 (17:57):
Yes, I have the answer I have. I don't have
the luxury of opinion. I know why that sounds. If
you want to delve into it now.

Speaker 4 (18:03):
No, we won't get into it now.

Speaker 1 (18:04):
We will in the five o'clock cower because I want
to hear from people out there. You know, what issues
or what topic are they afraid to talk about for
afraid of fear they may offend somebody even though they
really think it, or if they've ever found themselves in
a situation where they do express what they really think
and no one gas in the room.

Speaker 2 (18:26):
It gets awkward. It's like, oh, what did he say?
Before we go to the guests? Can I just do
the scoreboard here? Our last guest we talked about kamin
Is coming down to the border. This is my prediction
tonight in the media. What you're going to hear. You're
going to hear that she just did famously, that she's
got it all covered, she knows what's going on, she's
all over it was. She was an attorney, you know,
prosecutor in California that went after these cartels and all

(18:50):
is good. But here's the score. Thirteen ninety nine murderers
have been vetted by the ice and left into this
country that came across illegally, fifteen eight hundred rapists, eight
hundred and eleven rapist, four hundred and twenty three hundred
and thirty one convicted criminals. At on top of that,
the two hundred and ninety thousand children that cross the border,
as per the Inspector General for Homeland Security, that are

(19:12):
unaccounted for today. There is no math, There is no
sense that you would ever want four more years of
what this administration and Kamala Harris personally has done on
that border and tonight the media is going to tell
you that she is ready to go, which is a
giant problem.

Speaker 5 (19:28):
And why I am looking forward to our next interview.

Speaker 1 (19:31):
Well, joining us on our news record line right now
to talk about it is Mark Judge. Mark is a
journalist in an author He's got a book out there
called The Devil's Triangle, Mark Judge and the New American Stasi.
He's talking about liberal media and he thinks it needs
a new name. Why do you think it needs a
new name, Mark.

Speaker 8 (19:47):
Well, I call them the Stassi or the American Stassi,
which is named after, of course, the famous East German
secret police. The USU harass and threaten and violently control
people that population, because I think language needs to be accurate,
and I think the media is a dangerous, malevolent force,
and calling them propaganda press or liberal media just doesn't

(20:10):
cut it anymore.

Speaker 2 (20:12):
So Rush Limba used to call them the drive by media.
I saw somewhere read once the regime media trying to
do as you're I think you're what you're saying is
exactly right. We just can't use the generic term media
any longer. It's deeper and more sinister than that. But
if you use Stasida accused of Nazi references or is

(20:32):
there something that throws you into a vulnerability in terms
of the cancel culture and all the left if you
use that. In other words, is that the exact name,
because I do think we need a name, we need
to anoint this media with some absolute warning label.

Speaker 12 (20:48):
Yes.

Speaker 8 (20:49):
Well, I don't use Nazi because I think it's overly
used and I want to be sensitive to Jewish people too.
And I think Dustasi also the Nazis were against modern
art and jazz and modernist man. Dustasi worked with artists
and entertainers, and I think it's yeah, I think it's accurate.
They are different from the Nazis. I think it's a
better term. And I also let me just quickly say,

(21:10):
you know, your listeners might not remember this or not,
but I was wrapped up in the Brett Kavanaf fiasco.
I was his friend from high school, and I wrote
a book about it called The Devil's Triangle.

Speaker 4 (21:19):
Oh yeah, that's right.

Speaker 11 (21:21):
Yeah.

Speaker 8 (21:21):
And when I got a call from Rodan Pharaoh about this,
the way I survived that was I mentally said, language
is important here. You are dealing with astase. These are
not reporters, and if everybody in America was that cognizant,
they would not get harmed by these people.

Speaker 1 (21:39):
Mark, I want to ask you about this. There's no
doubt we have a very compliant media in this country today.
Does anything go in modern America anymore? I mean, can
those on the left say just about anything they want
and get away with it because we have such a
compliant media.

Speaker 8 (21:55):
They accused us of drugging girls and gang rape. I mean,
I mean people don't remember this, and I mean.

Speaker 7 (22:05):
Yeah, so yeah.

Speaker 8 (22:06):
The answer to your question is yes. And I'll give
a quick example. Let's say you've got a phone call
from a local paper or something and they want to
do a story about, you know, your dog or something.
This guy's an interesting dog. If you mentally are thinking, Okay,
this is a reporter, this is the press, you get
happy and excited. It's going to be good coverage. If
you mentally say, okay, this is Dystocean. This person is
out to hurt me, your reaction is completely different. And

(22:30):
I see people A guy from Jim VandeHei, who works
at Axios, submitted to an interview from a guy at Politico.
I said, Jim, you've been in this business twenty years,
you're about to get burned. And lo and behold, well
the reporter seems very nice, and loah, behold he wrote
all these scathing, awful personal things about me. And I said,
how long have you been on planet Earth?

Speaker 11 (22:51):
Jim?

Speaker 12 (22:51):
I mean.

Speaker 8 (22:53):
So so, I mean they need a different term because
theologians and religious people always say to it attract a demon,
to exercise a demon. What always happens in every movie,
the priest has to know the demon's name. It will
not work unless they know the demon's name. And once
the priest knows the demon's name, he can control it.

Speaker 5 (23:14):
Well, I hate scary movies, so that's news to me. Okay,
so I know.

Speaker 2 (23:18):
But here I heard this saying, and I actually have
been repeating it since i've heard it. Someone said, we
all swear off the media that we don't like. We
don't trust them. The polls show as much. But our commentary,
our conventional wisdom, is really the moon to the media's sun,
meaning that we reflect, even if we don't intend to,
this sentiment that they push our way. I believe that's

(23:41):
the case. How do I think what you're talking about,
where we really give them the name they deserve the
warning label that they are so that we understand and
we don't accidentally even reflect their sentiment ourselves or legitimize it.
But my question is, can we break that relationship? Every
time I read a small some poll that says we
don't trust the media, here we go with the narrative,

(24:02):
national narrative, and it's the one. It's like Kamala Harris,
she had twenty eight percent before she was the nominee.
The media said love her, and she's at fifty at
least fifty percent today. So how do we break this
horrific cycle, this battered wife syndrome we'll all find ourselves in.

Speaker 8 (24:16):
I'll give you a simple answer. We become lead dogs.
And I had a piece and power line a couple
months ago where I expressed a lot of anger that
there were a lot of conservative outlets, not all of them.
There's a documentary about me on Fox Nation called Judge
and the Justice, But a lot of conservative outlets did
not cover my book. They didn't review my book. It
got great reviews on Amazon and everywhere else where. Did

(24:37):
it get a mediocre review in a place called The
American Conservative. And we have to be we have to
be the lead dog. My book The Devil's Triangle exposes Avenatti,
it exposes Kamala Harris. I have a piece abou Kamala Harris,
and she was behind the Cavanaugh thing. Lawyers were telling
Christiane Blonzieport you have to drop this ridiculous nonsense. Who

(24:58):
kept it alive? You know, like vampire Kamala Harris. And
I've been the lead dog on this. I wrote a
book about this. Fox Deuce interviewed me. I have a
gofund me by the way, if you want to contribute
to that. But the thing is, we let the liberals
be the lead dogs, and instead of supporting and encouraging
people like me, although I do have a lot of support,

(25:19):
we'd let them do it and we just react to them.
And my father worked for National Geographic for thirty years.
I've been in journalism since I was a college kid.
We are capable of being the lead dog, at least
people like me are. If you let us, if you
support us, if you say go get that story, I
mean very quickly. I have a a piece in Chronicles

(25:39):
recently about I worked at Amazon for a while, and
I also used to write for the Washington Post, and
I said, well, Bezos has to treat the Post like
he does Amazon workers and Amazon workers.

Speaker 12 (25:49):
Like he does the most.

Speaker 8 (25:52):
Because Amazon's very strict and tough, and you get points
and get fired if you don't perform. If Bezos did
that with the Washington Post, they gave them points for bias,
they'd all be gone. But I'm digressing. But the bigger
point is stop letting people like Jake Capper in the
Washington Post and the New York Times be the lead dogs.
Find people like me, support them, and say go get them.

(26:13):
You're our guy.

Speaker 5 (26:14):
Well, Mark Judge, you are my dollars. I'm gonna tell
you right now.

Speaker 2 (26:17):
We have you on the show as often as you
would like to come on this show because we want
you to for us.

Speaker 5 (26:22):
We need this commentary.

Speaker 1 (26:23):
Mark, final question for you, what happens if they continue
to be the lead dog after this election? What happens
if she is elected and they're allowed to run wild
and free because they'll feel even more powerful because they
basically have created her. What happens in that regard.

Speaker 8 (26:40):
I'm gonna be just brutally honest here, and people don't
like hearing this, but it's true. Lives will get destroyed.
People will get apa researched, they'll get the Avenati treatment
because he was very high and he still represents what
they're all about. And let me just be very frank here.
They don't care whether we live or die.

Speaker 13 (26:58):
They don't.

Speaker 8 (26:58):
They wouldn't have cared to find minute suicide or not.
And I said, because the pressure was so great during
the Kavball thing, and I seeing films like the lives
of others and having a father who had been to
communist countries, I said, I am not giving them that.
But if Kamala Harris is elected, lives will get ruined.
People will get destroyed. And we are on a frog

(27:19):
march t socialism, which means, you know, which means the
demon wins at that point.

Speaker 1 (27:24):
Yeah, oh, the demon wins on the like hearing that,
do you no?

Speaker 2 (27:28):
I do like Mark Judge, Thank you Sarah for yours.
Hey Mark, the good info. I like American Stazzy Friday.

Speaker 1 (27:34):
It's a great day. It is end of the work week,
head into the weekend. Absolutely love it, love it. Great
to be with you. It is the Rod and Greg
Show right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine,
Canna rest Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.

Speaker 5 (27:47):
I'm rod Arquette, I'm citizen Greg Hughes.

Speaker 1 (27:49):
All right, we have you and I have seen this
story for several days, Greg, and I'm glad we now
get a chance to talk about it because I would
love to hear people's opinion on this as well. There
was a a poll put together by you gov. It
was sponsored by a think tank called Populous. I've never
heard what Populace does or what they do. I didn't
get a chance to dig into it, but the survey

(28:11):
came up with some really interesting things.

Speaker 4 (28:13):
It said.

Speaker 1 (28:14):
A new poll, Now this is of twenty thousand adults,
so this is a pretty good sized poll, Greg, you
don't see polls with twenty thousand people participating found that
a majority of Americans fifty eight percent, think that most
people cannot share their honest opinions about sensitive topics. More

(28:35):
than six of ten respondents say they have avoided saying
things that they believe because others might find them offensive.

Speaker 4 (28:44):
Surprised why that.

Speaker 2 (28:47):
No, I'm not surprised about that at all. I think
that there's a couple of things in play. One is,
you know, my grandmother taught me you don't talk about
religion and politics and MISCO mixed companies. So there's some
taboo discussions that you just don't lead with in an
open discussion with people you might not know, and so
you've got that variable in Utah. I think that being

(29:09):
polite and agreeable is a very very high priority, maybe
more so than being honest. Being honest would be received
potentially in a negative way. Being agreeable and kind and
nice it has as far as is more prioritized, So
you don't so you lack maybe some of the candid
discussion that might happen there. But then you add to
all that the censorship and the and the feeling that

(29:32):
I get from the you know, from the deep state
and from tech that that they watch what you're saying,
they are going to look to censor what people say.
If it wasn't for Elon Musk buying Twitter and making
it X, we would have very little, very little dialogue
going on in this country right now. Save it for
that in truth, social and maybe rumble, uh, the you know,
the contemporary to to YouTube.

Speaker 5 (29:55):
But yeah, so I.

Speaker 2 (29:56):
Think you have a I think all those all those
things are in plain twenty twenty four to quiet people's
opinions and their thoughts. Funny part is the left doesn't
have any of that problem. They are actually I feel
that they're louder and they are more willing to express
their pointed opinions without pause.

Speaker 1 (30:15):
So they aren't afraid of social pressure on the left
what we are on the right. No, they're not, say
and in fact, even our media in Utah they will.
They will harald a leftist opinion in the front page
of the paper under the banner of maybe being open minded,
but they would never herald the same if it were
a right of center opinion in their paper. I find

(30:36):
that the Democrats get a far better shake by this
media in Utah, and clearly and obviously they get a
better shake nationally. And so you got that, you get
it just builds on itself. Yeah, well here there are
a couple other really interesting statistics on this. And here's one.
College graduates and political independence are the least comfortable sharing

(31:01):
their private views in public. College graduates. Now, I would
think that college graduates, we would think are well educated.
They have you know, they understand the various sides of
the issue. But why are they so afraid? I mean,
as I'm just reading here, across demographic groups. College graduates
and political independence self silence themselves with double digit gaps

(31:25):
between public and private opinion on thirty seven of sixty
four issues, So they self silence themselves. Greg and the
majority are college graduates are independence independence I can see
because I think if they expressed an opinion, someone would say, well,
you're not independent anymore. You're really a Republican or you're
really a Democrat. The college graduate one kind of throws

(31:47):
me a little bit. Why college graduates wouldn't be more
willing to share their really deep opinions on something. I
don't understand that one is because they weren't allowed to
do it during their education.

Speaker 5 (32:01):
No, I think they feel they have something to lose.
I think that.

Speaker 2 (32:04):
I think that Let's take Hollywood for instance, and I
have heard, and I believe, and I've heard from people
that have worked inside that industry that if you are conservative,
if you are right of center, yeah, you will never
express that openly because it would it would change your
job prospects, your opportunities, the roles you get to play.
Because there is a severe recoil against people that that

(32:28):
that believe that are right of center, that or that
would vote Republican. I've noticed this. I've no union people
that are retired union members that said if they were
in their union this is a while ago, But if
they were in their union and they said, I'm not
voting for that Democrat, I'm voting for the Republican, it
would have changed the trajectory of their employment and their
and their promotion within that job. So I think that

(32:49):
if you have a college educated person and they feel
like they can't get on social media and like something
that's conservative, because what if their boss or what if
their customer is one is someone that would be with
take offense? And what's that is that as you become
more polarized there, they're bleeding politics into everything. And the
place I hate to see it the most is sports,
where sports, you know, are sportscast our teams have to

(33:11):
have opinions now about politics.

Speaker 5 (33:13):
I don't want that.

Speaker 2 (33:14):
I want to be entertained, but but yeah, I think
that there's a there is. I think people feel like
there's a consequence to having an opinion about this, at
least right of center, and I and I keep going
back there because if you're left of center, you've got
the media, you've got big corporations, you've got big government.

Speaker 5 (33:31):
You've got education. You got you got a yeah, you
got that, you got the higher institutions. I hire learned.

Speaker 2 (33:37):
You got everybody on your side. This is this is
everybody's going this direction. You push against that grain, you
feel like you're pushing against that grain, and so it's
like it's better just to avoid it.

Speaker 1 (33:47):
What what subjects And we were talking about this during
one of the breaks a while ago. What subjects out there?
What are sensitive subjects that people are afraid to share
an opinion on they're deep seated feelings on. You can
go down the list. I think, I think, not me.
I'm not afraid there's some race. Are people willing to

(34:09):
really share their opinion on race? I don't think they are.

Speaker 5 (34:14):
I don't either. I'm not afraid. Hotel, we can talk
to that right now.

Speaker 4 (34:19):
That's why we do this, That's why we do this.

Speaker 1 (34:21):
Show lgbt Q issues, transgenderism. Now I do want to
ca Yeah, yeah, okay, I caveat this.

Speaker 2 (34:31):
If you have friends, or if you know that people
have say a child that's that's gay, or you have something,
I think there's good form in mutual respect that you
may want to share with people where you don't want
to lead out on an issue that it might cut
a little deep or be a little too personal for someone.

Speaker 5 (34:47):
But that's it.

Speaker 2 (34:47):
That's assuming that both sides have that mutual respect for
each other. If they came out because of their life
experiences evangelizing it or saying how good it is, I
think your I would be obligated in my own mind
to retort, but I wouldn't bring that up if I
thought it was a particularly personal issue for someone in

(35:08):
that audience.

Speaker 1 (35:08):
Here's another issue, religion.

Speaker 2 (35:11):
Yeah, that's well, yeah you went there because you know
I went. That's when I'm not I'm not. I'm not
all that comfortable talking about I mean, I believe in
God and I am I am a member of the
Church Christ and I will never from any of that,
and I never will. I don't like that becoming some
big debate. If I have an evangelical Christian friend or

(35:31):
did and I just couldn't, it just gets to a
point where I'm not. And there's certain schools that have
a lot of fan base that are religious bigots, and
you go to the rivalry game and they bring up
your religion constantly.

Speaker 5 (35:45):
The whole football.

Speaker 4 (35:45):
Game, wonder what you're talking about.

Speaker 1 (35:48):
Totally agrees with that Holy war and everything right, all right,
now we want to open up the phones. There could
be an interesting discussion as people head home tonight. Are
you reluctant to really say out loud what you really think?
And if so, why and are there certain areas that
you just do not want to go there? What do
they say on Thanksgiving? Don't politics and religion? But how

(36:12):
do you get away from that in this world in
which we live. Love to hear from you tonight eight
eight eight five seven o eight zero one zero, triple
eight five seven o eight zero one zero, or on
your cell phone dial pound two fifty and simply say hey, Rod.

Speaker 2 (36:26):
So let's go to our great callers, our insightful callers,
and start with Robert and Sandy. Robert, thank you for
joining the Rod and Greg show you your comments this Friday.

Speaker 7 (36:37):
Yeah, I got to talk about how the immigrants are
getting ship shipped to like New York and other places
that are pretty much we call Democrat states and the
blue And what I'd like to see it happen is
if it's okay to share my opinion without getting in trouble.

Speaker 1 (37:01):
You sure can on this show, Robert, go ahead, good.

Speaker 7 (37:05):
I'd like if you know, if we send them to
say Atlanta, Georgia, where they you know, it's a swing
one swing one the governor Abbott, would you know, say hey,
we're gonna send send them, send them to the place
like yours where you know, might persuade a few more votes,
you know, with a few would change change it. I

(37:26):
mean they had the chance, and that they set the
states for the Senate for the last two years because
putting the two Democrats in there and you know, make
things a lot different for us.

Speaker 1 (37:37):
So you're saying, let's send some of these refugees or
these illegal immigrants to some of the real important swing
states like Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin. I think Arizona,
Nevada probably have had their fill, but there are some
states who haven't. And that's what you're suggesting, Robert.

Speaker 7 (37:54):
Yes, that that would make a huge difference in the
way they were.

Speaker 1 (37:59):
Going to Yeah, sure would. Sure didn't make a difference
in Martha's vineyard. Remember what just sentence did that was great?
Are any of them still there or do they ship
them all out?

Speaker 2 (38:09):
Martha's are they that they all got, They all put
on their jeans and their their tennis shoes and they
went out and helped for about a day a week
and then they say you need to go now, you
gotta get out of here.

Speaker 4 (38:20):
Yeah, yeah, don't disrupt our night's little empathy.

Speaker 5 (38:23):
Is an incredible teacher.

Speaker 1 (38:25):
That is all right, back to the phones we go
on this, Uh, thank g Rod is Friday. Let's go
to Carl in provo tonight. Hi Carl, how are you?
Thanks for joining us?

Speaker 7 (38:34):
How you doing? I always like your Rod and Greg?
Free for all Friday?

Speaker 4 (38:39):
Good car?

Speaker 7 (38:42):
Now is Rot greg Or? Greg and Rod?

Speaker 5 (38:44):
It's g Rod Well g Rod. It is Friday.

Speaker 1 (38:47):
But the show is called Yeah even though he even
though he's begging to be the lead no name, Yeah,
he wants to call it.

Speaker 4 (38:57):
Let's call it Greg Rod. What do we call it?

Speaker 13 (38:58):
Rod?

Speaker 4 (38:59):
Greg?

Speaker 7 (39:00):
You always save the best He'll last, don't you know?

Speaker 4 (39:03):
It's okay? What's on your mind?

Speaker 7 (39:08):
Girl?

Speaker 4 (39:08):
What's on your mind?

Speaker 13 (39:09):
I am.

Speaker 7 (39:10):
I'm not afraid to bring up race, religion, and politics
to people. However, when you go into these conversations, you
have to come up with one particular ideology that needs
to be mutually agreed upon. Everyone is a child of God,
and from this premise springs our conversation. The problem that
reduces down to this, it's kind of a matter of

(39:33):
culture and moral values. And some people have different moral values,
and some people have different cultures that are grown up
in a certain way to believe certain things. And some
of these things are not correct and some are. And
you have to mutually respect each other's opinion, not fail
into some sort of an argument to fight over it.
And that really bothers. I know where Greg's coming from

(39:54):
talking about religion, because I've been there. I talk to
people that have different values and they attack certain religions
and uh one being ours of course, Greg, you know,
we feel like but you know, I give these people
a little permission to be that way. I don't mind.
I'll have an intelligent conversation with him.

Speaker 5 (40:12):
I've tried, but it doesn't work.

Speaker 7 (40:15):
I know, I know, I totally get adress.

Speaker 5 (40:19):
Thanks, Carl's right.

Speaker 2 (40:21):
I really appreciate Carls that comment call and observation. If
you have a common denominator, truly, if you start with
that premise, there is a place to build out from,
and I do think that that's where you actually can
communicate where if you're not doing that, then you're just
it's just a tenants.

Speaker 1 (40:39):
How do you set up that common denominator? What do
you have to say in a conversation, Like.

Speaker 2 (40:43):
I liked his example that we're you know, if you're
delving into if you're delving into religion, you start with
we're children of God about higher power. We start there
and we move up from there. And I think he's right.
And I think on look on on sanctity, life, or
if you're talking abortion, you're talking whatever issue. There are
some things I think if you went and said what
limit I just think there are ways you can get
into these touchy topics where you're coming from the same

(41:06):
place of wanting to do it right. You want to
do right by people, You want to you want people
to be treated fairly, you want all people and so
if you have if you can identify what those commonalities are,
I think you can have a conversation on some of
these tough issues from there.

Speaker 5 (41:22):
That's hard, it's hard to get.

Speaker 4 (41:23):
It is very difficult to do.

Speaker 5 (41:24):
I think a lot of.

Speaker 2 (41:25):
People jump head first into why so and so is
crazy and nuts and why I'm always right and that's
what it works.

Speaker 1 (41:31):
Well, that's you know, that's a great way to start
the conversation. Rig I'm going to you use how you
do it. I'm going to a new conversation and tell people. Look,
I'm right. I'll just say it right from the beginning.
I am always right. So if you have any questions,
just listen to me because I'm right.

Speaker 5 (41:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (41:45):
Well, I don't actually always tell everyone that I don't
have an opinion. I just know I don't. I don't
let everybody in on that secret. So I let them
go for a while.

Speaker 1 (41:53):
Let them go, all right, eight eight eight five seven
O ege zero one zero eight eight eight five seven
O age zero one zero, or on your cell phone
dial pound two fifty and say hey Rod, back to
the phones we go on this, Thank Ge, Rod Is Friday.
Let's go to Sandy in Bountiful tonight. Sandy, how are
you welcome to the show.

Speaker 7 (42:10):
Thank you.

Speaker 14 (42:11):
I've got really a question for you guys that I'd
like you to talk about a bit. So we talk about,
you know, election interference and how how bad that is
and how bad that can be, and how important that
is not to have. And I'm wondering with this whistleblower
on the whole debate thing on ABC, how they they
fed them the questions ahead of time, and how they

(42:32):
were just fact checking on Kamala's side. If there's any
sort of ground for prosecution for some sort of election interference, I.

Speaker 2 (42:42):
Honestly, I will tell you that if you took the
basis that they have attacked Trump, there is plenty you
could do criminally on this level, even to the point
where they there are some liberals and leftists that wanted
to go after Trump for handing that woman at the
grocery store one hundred dollars to help her help her
grocery bill. And they said that's a crime. It's an
elections crime. He's paying for a vote. He should be

(43:04):
charged for that. So they the left thinks there's plenty
of basis to do things like that, but in reality
they that they don't allow the same space for us
to take any of that to a court of law
and say that's electioneering. That's an undisclosed campaign contribution to
promise to fact check only Donald Trump and not you.

(43:25):
And here's all the questions are the topics that you
can expect, and Trump gets none of it. That is
not a debate, that's a campaign event. Yeah, but they're not.
Another example. Here's another example. Look what they did with
Zelensky this week. I mean Zelensky's in town. Obviously, Kamala
Harris wanted to use him to campaign and to show
that if people voted for her and to let him

(43:45):
know that they would be the US would be supporting Zolensky.
Now he met with Trump today. I didn't pay much
too much attention to the conversation. But isn't that election interference?

Speaker 5 (43:57):
It is?

Speaker 1 (43:57):
I mean, he was a cure the Russians, he said
somethings about Putin and all of a sudden all action interference.

Speaker 4 (44:03):
How dare you do that?

Speaker 2 (44:04):
Well, here, it's two things. One, did you know the
only military weaponry that's ever made for Utah would be
shocked by this is in the battleground state of Pennsylvania
right now at the end of September. That's the only
place they could have taken him to show him those weapons.
But if you're a Zelenski and you're trying to get
more funds, how do you say?

Speaker 13 (44:21):
No?

Speaker 2 (44:22):
Okay, maybe he's pressured by that campaign to play ball
because he probably wants what they're offering by way of
you know, funds and weapons and everything else. So yeah, no,
it's it's completely wrong. What they're doing is completely wrong.
And if it the shoes on the other foot, they
would go after they would impeach Trump for electioneering on
the same exact grounds that they just carded Zelenski around

(44:44):
in Pennsylvania.

Speaker 1 (44:45):
All right, more of your calls and comments coming up
right here on the route on Greg showing Utah's Talk
Radio one zero five nine can arrests eight eight eight
five seven oh eight zero one zero triple eight five
seven oh eight zero one zero. If you want to
join in on the program today, Well, you've had friends
in the is it New Zealand or Australia.

Speaker 2 (45:01):
Australia, Melbourne, Australia. We have loyal listeners probably to the podcast. Yeah,
but then we have listeners in Pittsburgh, PA and down
in Washington County.

Speaker 5 (45:10):
I have some friends too. Good for you to the show.

Speaker 1 (45:13):
Let's go to the phones. Let's go to Lee in
provo tonight here on the Rotten Greg Show. Hi Lee,
how are you?

Speaker 7 (45:21):
Hey?

Speaker 15 (45:21):
Guys, Good to talk to you. Okay, So part of
your conversation was about having conversations on disagreeable topics. We
talked about this a little bit earlier, and I know
right now I'm going to say something that is going
to make ninety percent of your audience mad and one
hundred percent of the hosts mad. But I think when
it comes to our interpersonal conversations, Spencer Cox is on

(45:43):
to something in that we can have disagreeable conversations agreeably. Now,
don't mind if politicians fight it out, let them get toothnailed, bloody.
But when it comes to my neighbor, I want to
preserve a relationship there. And so I want to recommend
a book that I finished probably six months ago that
is really helped me steer some conversations. Well, do you
mind if I recommend that?

Speaker 4 (46:04):
No?

Speaker 5 (46:04):
No, sure, go ahead.

Speaker 6 (46:05):
No.

Speaker 15 (46:06):
It's called I never thought of it this that way.
It's by a liberal Seattle journalist who was raised by
Trump voting Hispanic parents, and she really presents some good
tools on how to stage these conversations so that you

(46:27):
can disagree, but you can part not hating each other.
And it's really been a big boon. Just you grab
a couple takeaways from that book and suddenly you find
you can have these conversations and you can still part
respecting one another rather than you know, Hatfield and mccoying
on the across the sense from you.

Speaker 2 (46:45):
Lee, I have a question because and I mean this
and this isn't your hosts are agreeing to one hundred
percent of disagreeing. This really is a genuine question. So
I I really I have seen I've heard you know,
I've heard this and this. We all aspire to have,
you know, lofty discussions on politics and everything else. But
when I watch Mitt Romney, I find him to be
one that can really disparage question someone's character, but do

(47:09):
it in a way where people are not believing that
he's not that he's disagreeable, or that he's not nice.
He's getting away with this even yeah, and then even
Governor Cox he's he supports Trump now, but there was
a time where he was very critical. I mean, when
the baby in the cages thing came up, he wanted
to punch somebody. Is what he what he put on
social media. So my question is, are some people is

(47:31):
everybody being felt being disre agreeable without regard to the
side of the political spectrum they're taking, or is or
is there some confirmation bias going on in uh in,
Utah or anywhere else.

Speaker 5 (47:46):
Here's the thing.

Speaker 15 (47:46):
And the two people that you brought up were politicians,
So realize, okay, when it comes to talking to your neighbor, Yes,
your neighbor has a confirmation bias, and so do you.
And if you realize that, going in and just do

(48:07):
a few things to help build bridges, help try to
see a different perspective, and know when your conversation is
lost traction and it's no longer fruitful, you can have
some really good conversations with people who you really fundamentally
disagree with.

Speaker 5 (48:23):
I agree.

Speaker 1 (48:24):
That's the name of the book again, Lee, we want
to make sure we've got it that way.

Speaker 15 (48:27):
It's called it's called I never thought of it that
way by Monica Guzman.

Speaker 1 (48:33):
Okay, okay, we'll have to take a look at it.
Lead thanks for calling in and making that suggestion. We
really do appreciate it, because we all want to get along,
don't we.

Speaker 5 (48:41):
Yeah, we want to be outlooked. I actually like it.

Speaker 2 (48:45):
I like the battle of ideas as I call it
that that word can be used as a pejorata of
the battle part. But I do like no one wants
to be misrepresented or misunderstood, and how you get to
a place of understanding each other and not and and
representing each other's side even if you don't agree with
it in a respectful ways.

Speaker 5 (49:03):
That would be the great place to land.

Speaker 1 (49:05):
That would be all right, Let's go to Chris, who's
in Sandy to night here on the Roden Greg Show.
Hi Chris, how are you.

Speaker 3 (49:13):
Well?

Speaker 11 (49:13):
I'm great, Thanks for taking my call. I just wanted
to quickly share an observation. I was the next p
officer as a career. I'm now retired, and oftentimes I'd
have couples commit or not couples that families signing, and
I always have to determine who's the mother and who's
the daughter. And with white people I could always tell,

(49:36):
but with Hispanics or Black people, I couldn't tell. I'd
have to get their ida and I'd make a joke
of it. I go, you know what that is your
black privilege that you look so young that when it
comes to us, you can tell who the mom and
daughter is. It goes without saying, and they would laugh
and laugh, and then the realtors of the long officers,
the white women would just be appalled to be Oh,

(49:58):
how dare you say that? Get the people themselves. They
thought it was hilarious and it was very bonding, and
they thought I was great, and so to me, sometimes
I think this fear is not based on the people
that are the different race. It's these white liberals around
that just want to act all shocked if you say

(50:20):
something lighthearted and somebody receives.

Speaker 1 (50:22):
It, well, yeah they feel that their response, Yeah, it's
their responsibility to protect others. Right, I always get that
sense that they have to protect people. But you know,
think you know about this is you. You shared your story, Chris,
first and foremost, you were just being honest with people.

Speaker 5 (50:36):
They all look young.

Speaker 11 (50:40):
It's amazing.

Speaker 2 (50:41):
It's a compliment, all right, all right, Chris, thank you,
thank you for sharing your story.

Speaker 4 (50:48):
She's being honest.

Speaker 2 (50:49):
And here's what I here's to that point. I sometimes
I've had friends of different race color creed I have.
I really do have a lot of different friends. I
grew up where I've spent my time, and the conversations
I've had with people that are black, for instance, are
not the ones you have with white people that want
to talk about black people. Okay, those conversations sounds like

(51:10):
someone's looking in an aquarium at the colored fish and
talking about them like that, and it is almost condescending.
And to the point that was just shared. If two
people are communicating and people are laughing and they're having
a good time, the person that's offended by it is objectifying. Yeah,
the person you're speaking to and putting assumptions there that
aren't there. Yeah, And that's and they are the ones

(51:31):
that are out of line, not not our caller or
the conversation that they're having.

Speaker 4 (51:35):
That's for sure.

Speaker 1 (51:36):
All right, more of your calls coming up here on
the Rod and Greg Show eight eight eight five seven
oh eight zero one zero triple eight five seven oh
eight zero one zero, or on your cell phone dial
pound two fifteen and say, hey, Ron, if you just
joining us, why are Americans afraid to say out loud
what they really think? Eight eight eight five seven oh
eight zero one zero. We also start on Monday are

(51:56):
one thousand dollars Christmas Quick Cash giveaway where we'll get
listeners a chance to win one thousand dollars in cash
between nine am and five pm at five past the hour,
every day, every weekday for the next several weeks. You know,
as tight as money could be, with extra thousand dollars
in the pocket would.

Speaker 4 (52:14):
Be just fine.

Speaker 1 (52:15):
And then on Tuesday night we've got the VP presidential debate,
so we got a lot going on.

Speaker 2 (52:20):
I really like Jady Vans. I think they love the story.
I think I just think he's living the American dream
and I think he can eviscerate this Timmy Walls and
Wall little Timmy.

Speaker 1 (52:30):
All right, let's go to the phones. Let's talk with
Jefferson in Ogden to night here on the Roden Greg Show. Hi, Jefferson,
how are you?

Speaker 5 (52:38):
Hey?

Speaker 8 (52:39):
Guys? Pretty good?

Speaker 4 (52:40):
Good? What's on your mind?

Speaker 8 (52:41):
I really love the topic you guys are on.

Speaker 4 (52:43):
Thank you?

Speaker 8 (52:44):
Yeah, little discourse, common ground, that kind of thing. My
daughter she actually started the club at her high school
where her friends they get together and they pick a
topic and it's kind of like a debate, except all
their goal is to find as much as many perspectives
as they can, just to practice sharing and you know,

(53:07):
hearing things you disagree with and you know, moving on
and hearing basically all you can about that topic.

Speaker 1 (53:13):
What kinds of topics have they explored, Jefferson? Where have
they gone with their discussions? Has she shared that with you.

Speaker 8 (53:22):
She's not actually here right now, so pretty wide range.
So we've gone all the way from like Palestine and Israel.

Speaker 7 (53:31):
That one.

Speaker 8 (53:32):
Wow, we actually had you know, a Muslim girl in
that class where she was, you know, very pro Palestine.
We had one student that was very pro Israel. But
surprisingly the club's set up with you know, certain rules
and they were able to keep it really respectful and
everyone learned it and enjoy it.

Speaker 5 (53:51):
I love it.

Speaker 2 (53:51):
I love I mean, it's sad that our institutions of
high learning are not places where battles of ideas, that
debates can happen in a civil way. But you know,
you be passionate. That doesn't mean your voice you're a
robot and you don't have any passion to what you're
conviction to what you're saying. But I do think that
that is where you learn the most. Look, that's where
I confronted and had to really explore my beliefs is

(54:12):
when they were challenged, but in a way that was
more academic than it was just you know, just arguing.

Speaker 1 (54:18):
And these are kids that just get together and have
a discussion. Jefferson, is there any formal gathering or dates?
How does she make it work.

Speaker 8 (54:28):
Yeah, so she just started it up. It just went
every couple of weeks. And yes, you started from scratch
and just got a following. There were some people that
were kind of wary about it at first. They said, hey,
I'm they don't want to hear my opinions. They're they're
like way out there and stuff, and but they got

(54:48):
talked into coming to one meeting and they stayed. They're like,
holy cow, this is this is kind of fun.

Speaker 4 (54:53):
That's great idea.

Speaker 1 (54:54):
I love it, and everyone I don't care if your
ideas are way out there. You have a right to
express them and right to share them. And there may
be some understanding that you gain if you share your
quote wild ideas.

Speaker 5 (55:07):
I've learned a lot.

Speaker 2 (55:08):
I mean, when the Clarence Thomas trials, we had some
associate English professor from BYU. She had a group called Voice.
They were actually a feminist group on BWA campus. She
was the sister of my roommates, and they came over
to our place and we would debate the Clarence Thomas
confirmation hearings. Anita Hill Wow, and they were wicked smart.
I had to know what I was talking about. I
found that to be some of the most greatest stretching

(55:31):
I had to do in terms of my thoughts and
how to articulate them and really hear what they were
saying back to me and be able to agree or not.

Speaker 5 (55:38):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (55:39):
Interesting, how about I have those open discussions. I think
it's very, very important. All Right, A lot more to come.
In our number three of the Rod and Greg Show
on this Friday, we're going to be talking about Kamala
who is begging for yet another debate. It's a sign
of weakness. We'll talk about setting the record straight on
Project twenty twenty five.

Speaker 4 (55:56):
Yes, we'll talk about that.

Speaker 1 (55:58):
A whole lot to get to back friding segments are
also coming your way. Stay with us hour number three
of The Rotting Great Show.

Speaker 4 (56:05):
It's coming up.

Speaker 2 (56:09):
Yeah, this fight with the poles say, and we'll keep
talking about this. She's not ahead and she knows she's not.
And there's only one reason why someone wants to debate,
and it's that they're not not winning.

Speaker 4 (56:18):
When they're not ahead. That's true.

Speaker 1 (56:20):
Well, joining us on our Newsmaker line right now to
talk more about that is Eddie Scary. Eddie is a
DC columnist at the Federalist Eddie. Always great to have
you on the show. Let's talk about why you think
Kamala Harris wants to second debate Eddie.

Speaker 6 (56:33):
Well, she pretty much immediately or her team did, as
so much of her communication does not actually come from
Kamala Harris. It comes from people who speak for her,
who often remain nameless. But I believe it was even
before the debate was over that her team had been
telling reporters that they wanted to have another one. I
truly believe that was because they felt that that debate

(56:56):
had gotten you know, as well as you know possibly could,
and they knew that they were going to get very
very positive, you know, raving media after that. They knew
that they could count on that, so you know, there
wasn't there wasn't really any downside to a debate.

Speaker 9 (57:15):
Uh.

Speaker 6 (57:16):
I am of the opinion and have been for some
time because Trump has been so adamant that he's not
doing another debate, and not because not because he had
a poor performance. I don't believe he had a poor performance.
I wasn't impressed by it. I wasn't impressed by his
first first debate either, But I think that his team
has told him there was really no need for us
to do this debate. It's not going to change anything.

(57:36):
We're not really going to get anything out of the
next debate. We're going to win all of our all
of our data, all of our information. Now this is
not again, this is not firsthand information that I have
from the Trump campaign. I just think Trump is a
person who likes being on TV. He likes confronting his
his opponents, he likes confronting his enemies, he likes the
back and forth. And for him to say I'm not

(57:58):
doing one, I I watched the same debate as anything else,
the media relying when they tried to make it seem
like it was this massive failure on his behalf and
this great win for her, which is why we see
that the polls haven't really done anything. They haven't moved
whatsoever in either direction. In fact, I think you saw
Independence even kind of shifted towards the former president. But
you know, I think the opposite is true for Kamala's team.

(58:21):
I think they have told her we need another one
because it looks like we're losing, and that's our best shot.
Our best shot is to get you in another debate,
because we know that we can count on the moderators
to run interference on your behalf. They can do the
quote unquote fact checking, and we know that we're going
to get a bunch of positive media after it. That's
our best shot, because otherwise it looks like we're losing.

Speaker 2 (58:41):
So I agree with you and I and honestly, campaign
and elections one oh one, I've never ever seen on
any whether a government cubernatorial race, a US Senate race,
a congressional race, down to your state legislative races, the
candidate that's winning is never calling for more debates. It's
the candidate that needs to make up ground that's asking
for that. So I think that's tell My question is

(59:02):
when they walked away from the Presidential Commission or the
one that established three debates, and that had been the
tradition or precedent, and it was Biden who just said it,
said we're not going to do this, How on earth
is it that she would get to pick yet another
left of center venue to hold another debate when Trump
has already agreed to CNN and ABC. Does it come
into the equation at all that if they were to

(59:23):
even consider a second debate, that it would have to
be on his terms or more on his terms. Then
the debates he's had to endure the last few times.
Why does that not come up? How come it's always
just Trump won't debate on CNN.

Speaker 6 (59:38):
Well, the assumption here in your question and your line
of question is that this is somehow fair.

Speaker 5 (59:47):
So true.

Speaker 6 (59:49):
Imagine imagine the Teamsters got to endorse as the person
that their own polling showed that they supported. Imagine Imagine
that this was that Trump even had forty five percent,
not not even half, not even a slight majority, forty
five percent of the media at least at least somewhat.

Speaker 13 (01:00:09):
Fair to him.

Speaker 6 (01:00:09):
Imagine those were the circumstances we were dealing with, instead
of the press that's constantly acting like Kamala Harris, who
everybody in Washington all posted right up until she until
she was annointed to the nominee. Every everyone knew that
she was a joke. Everyone made fun of her. You
could read the stories, even the straight news stories that
were clearly just making fun of her as someone who

(01:00:30):
was in over her head. Uh, these ceremonial things where
she's given she's given supposedly responsibilities like voter rights and
stuff at the border you would then read the reports
in like the New York Times, it's like, well, the
her office hasn't indicated exactly what she will be doing
other than going on a tour and giving a few speeches.

(01:00:51):
That's clearly the New York Times making fun of her
because they knew it was all just a show. And
yet now now that it's an election here, now this
is she's a statesman, She's no one has ever been
more respected. You know, she's her. She's more popular than
sex at pg's home.

Speaker 13 (01:01:07):
Like, this is not fair by any.

Speaker 4 (01:01:12):
Stretch, Eddie, what about you know?

Speaker 1 (01:01:15):
Could they have looked at this debate her handlers and
I think they were probably telling her inside. I agree
with you as well that she didn't do as well
as she expected. But boy, the media just was all
over her saying it was a great debate, she did
a wonderful job. Could she have looked at this say,
if I could get a second debate, I could put
another nail in his coffin. Do you think that's part

(01:01:36):
of her thinking?

Speaker 6 (01:01:38):
I honestly Kamala thinking. And I don't think she's a
dumb person at all. I don't think she's stupid. I
just think this isn't her thing. I think that she
does relatively well in front of cameras, you know, just
in terms of like talking person. She's an attractive person.
I just don't think she cares about issues or politics.

(01:01:58):
I don't think she understands and painting every every every
office she's pretty much secured, has been just more or
less handed to her. She she's like kind of picked
by the Democrat machine as someone that you know, especially
because again she's an attractive she's a woman of color.
You know that all the things that Democrats are trying

(01:02:19):
to promote and elevate, so they shove all the money
behind her. She ends up the nominee. So without getting
a single vote, she ran for president, never got earned
a single delegate, didn't make it past the first contest
of the race in twenty twenty. So I don't I
don't know that she understands this whole thing. I don't
know that she gets it. It would be kind of
like you know, if you give, if you give your

(01:02:40):
kid everything. They don't understand the value of anything. They
don't understand the value of money. They don't understand how
you get something by work for I honestly don't believe
she understands how this, how this whole thing work. So
the idea that she might say, oh, like you know,
she's cracking her knuckles and stress, I can do this
one more time, one more time, will be got it? No,

(01:03:00):
I really think it's her, And you know I'm a
sick and Democrats, oh my goodness, there's nothing is not
like calculating evil geniuses. As for these campaign people, they're
all over from Obama years, and they are good at
what they are. They do know how to read UH
numbers and they are granular with the So are Trump's people,
by the way, to his credit, to his campaign's credit.

(01:03:22):
I think they're telling her this is not looking good
for us. This is you know, no matter what the policy,
you can tell me that this person suddenly is as
he erased, every single advantage in every single swing state
on every single issue that Trump was winning on, just
because the Kamala Harris is now the nominee. I don't
believe it. So I think that they're telling her, you know,
our internal polling data, which is always stronger and more

(01:03:44):
sophisticated than public polls, like but from the New York
Times or see or whatever. The internal data is not
can we get out there and do another day we need?
You know, the interviews don't work. The interviews do not work. Uh,
you know, even even when they have a sympathetic interview,
I do think they're telling her, let's let's get you
another debate, let's try to get another wind heading into

(01:04:04):
the election, especially now that early voting has started. So
I don't think she's thinking about it. I think she's
she's hearing what her team is saying, and she's she's
just going with it because I don't think she gets it.

Speaker 1 (01:04:13):
On our newsmaker line Eddie Scary, he is with a
federalist talking about Kamala Harris's desire to have yet a
second debate. More coming up on the Friday edition of
the Rod and Greg Show right here on Utah's Talk
Radio one oh five nine knrs. Democrats keep online about
this Project twenty twenty five. They lie, they lie, they lie.

Speaker 5 (01:04:34):
It's the Big Boogeyman.

Speaker 1 (01:04:35):
It is the Big Boogeyman, is it well? Project twenty
two twenty five is what about a nine hundred page
I guess book or document put together by a number
of conservative groups around the country, led by the Heritage Foundation.

Speaker 2 (01:04:47):
Right, Yeah, conservative thinkers people have worked in different presidential administrations,
not just President Trump's, but other Republican administrations, showing how the.

Speaker 5 (01:04:54):
World ought to look or could look.

Speaker 2 (01:04:56):
Yeah, it's and it's it's everyone has it and it's
not unique to one pla cider.

Speaker 1 (01:05:00):
From the Heritage Foundation. Right now, we're being joined by
Hans von Spakowski, is a senior legal analyst there, a
manager of the election law reform there at the Heritage Foundation.
What is the big deal, Hans about Project twenty twenty five.
I mean, the Democrats keep on saying that Donald Trump
had a lot to do with this, but he hadn't.

Speaker 13 (01:05:19):
Donald Trump had no role whatsoever in are putting this
together now. People point to the fact that there were
some folks who had served in the Trump administration who
helped write portions of what we call Mandate for Leadership,
which is basically our nine hundred page policy book that
describes how every executive branch department should be run. But

(01:05:42):
they failed to mention that we had like four hundred
people working on this and who do we go to. Well,
if you're going to write a chapter on how the
US Department of Justice should be run. Don't you want
to get somebody who has actually worked there. So we
got people from the Trump administration, the Bush administration, the

(01:06:06):
Reagan administration too.

Speaker 16 (01:06:08):
I I if they wanted to use that saying, oh,
Donald Trump wrote this because some people from his administration
were among the writers, well then why aren't they saying
that George W. Bush actually put this together? You know,
it's just a ridiculous claim, like a lot of the
claims that are being made about this.

Speaker 2 (01:06:30):
You know, it's factually incorrect to say that this is
his plan. And I've been back to Pittsburgh recently in Pennsylvania,
and they're pushing that out in commercials. It's supposed to
be this draconian, scary plan of which he's the devious
author of, on and on. Factually it's incorrect, And I
appreciate that you're drawing that bright line. But it must
be a powerful and persuading document that you have put together,

(01:06:52):
because it is scaring the Democrats to their core. Governor
Paulus from Colorado during the Democrat National Convention quoted something
like Paige four hundred and twenty two says this. It
didn't say a word that he said in his speech.
He paraphrased or made up what they were saying. Why
do the Democrats and the swamp why are they so
afraid of Project twenty twenty five.

Speaker 13 (01:07:15):
Well, I'll tell you why. It's very clear, because the
whole point of Project twenty twenty five is to bring
the government back into defenses, you know, in other words,
have it doing what Congress authorized it to do with
the various laws that it's passed, which is not the

(01:07:38):
status of what's happening right now. You have all these
federal agencies, all these bureaucrats who are acting far beyond
their power to interfere in Americans everyday lives, in their professions,
in their businesses. I mean, it's like, you know, the
federal agency that is now out there saying, oh, or

(01:08:00):
we're going to ban gas stoves and kitchens. The federal
government doesn't have any authority to do that. It doesn't
have that at all. And yet that's the kind of
thing that the left doesn't want, because they want an
all powerful federal government that can not only tell us

(01:08:20):
all what to do, but can override what state governments
want to do.

Speaker 1 (01:08:25):
Hans, you yourself are taking a lot of heat for
a chapter that you wrote in the project as a
matter of fact, concerning Federal Elections Commission, what did you
recommend that it's so awful?

Speaker 2 (01:08:36):
How did you come Where did you get the black
cat that wename Hans Hans from Diehard to movie?

Speaker 5 (01:08:42):
I think that's where they're going misunderstood.

Speaker 13 (01:08:47):
Yeah, I know I've heard that before. Well, look for
folks who don't know what the Federal Election Commission does,
it's the independent federal agency that enforces our federal laws
that govern the raising and spending the money in federal
campaign So basically all the political money that Donald Trump
and Kamala Harris right now are raising and spending. And

(01:09:10):
what did I say that was so anti democratic? Well,
the president doesn't have a lot of control over the FBC.
But what he does do is he nominates and picks
the six people, the six commissioners, who will run that agency.
They have to be confirmed by the Senate, but he's
a person who choose them. And what did I say, Well,

(01:09:32):
he should only nominate people who won make sure that
the FBC doesn't act beyond its statutory mandate, which is
what we're just talking about, right, construes confusing and ambiguous
provisions of the law against the government and not the
candidate and the public. Because look, if a reasona look,

(01:09:55):
if the law is so ambiguous or confusing that an
average person can figure out whether what they're doing violates
the law or not, obviously they shouldn't be prosecuted. And
the third thing I said was, and oh, this is
a no no for the left. They SHOULDN'TBC shouldn't take
actions that if infringe on protected First Amendment activity. Boy,

(01:10:17):
that doesn't that just make me the devil?

Speaker 1 (01:10:19):
What a scary thought, Hans, What a scary thought.

Speaker 5 (01:10:21):
Wow, just terrifying, terrifying.

Speaker 4 (01:10:24):
Huh.

Speaker 1 (01:10:25):
This this Project twenty twenty five, these are just recommendations, right,
you should do this, you should do this. This is
stepping back various groups taking a look at what the
federal government is doing today and saying, hey, we should
change this, we should do this, we should re examine this.
That's all the Project twenty twenty five is, isn't it.

Speaker 13 (01:10:43):
Hans, Yeah, No, that's exactly it. And you know, it
tells you a lot about these critics that first of all,
they have to lie about what's in it, but second
that they when they actually criticize things like what I
just talked about. Boy, that's very revealing about that. Can
I tell you just another one? And again this tells

(01:11:04):
you what the other side is like. Look, one of
the problems in this area is that the FEC, under
the law, has civil enforcement authority. That means they can
go after a candidate. He can then go after one
of you if you violate campaign finance law, and they
can impose a civil penalty on you. Okay, but they

(01:11:24):
don't have criminal enforcement authority. That's the US Justice Department.
And so I said in my article, I said, imagine
this nightmare. You have one federal agency telling you that
what you're doing is perfectly legal, but a second federal
agency says, oh, no, what you're doing is illegal. And

(01:11:48):
not only that, but we're going to criminally prosecute you
for it. So I simply said that the President, since
he's got control of the Justice Department, should tell the
Justice Department they should not prosecut cute individuals when the
FBC says what they're doing is legal. And I was

(01:12:08):
criticized because that's a troubling suggestion.

Speaker 2 (01:12:12):
So just quickly running out of time. But I have
to believe that the left of center, think tanks or
organizations have plans that they would present to a Democrat
administration if they win office. I'm thinking things like the
climate or other documents. What would be maybe the counterpoint

(01:12:33):
to a twenty twenty five project from the left if.

Speaker 13 (01:12:36):
You know, Oh, look at the website for the Center
for American Progress. All of these look the entire Biden
White House and many of its agencies are staffed with
people who left all of these left wing think tanks
like the Center for American Progress. You know what the

(01:12:56):
difference is, they weren't public about all of their plans.

Speaker 1 (01:13:01):
We are on our Newsmaker line and on this Friday afternoon,
our conversation with Hans von Spakowski from the Heritage Foundation.
More coming up right here on the Rod and Greg
Show and Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine. kN
Rs Creig and I look back at the newsmakers that
we've talked to the issue that we've discussed and select
a couple that you may have missed. Now, Greg, I

(01:13:22):
think you would agree. One of our most enjoyable interviews
this week was with a psychiatrist and a body language
expert on Kamala Harris.

Speaker 2 (01:13:31):
This is one of my most I enjoyed this interview
a lot. I mean it's just great on all levels.

Speaker 7 (01:13:37):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:13:37):
Well, we talked with doctor Carol Lieberman. She is a psychiatrist.
Like I said about Kamala Harris, and I first had
to ask her, what about this cackle? Why does it
bother everybuddy so much?

Speaker 17 (01:13:49):
I know it's not right to laugh about her because
because I mean forgot, if by some unfortunate circumstance she
actually comes our next president, it's not really going to
be something to laugh about.

Speaker 5 (01:14:08):
That's a technical term, doctor, and I love it.

Speaker 17 (01:14:10):
Yeah, No, I can explain it. I first of all,
I have to say I've never met Kamala. I don't
want to meet her, so you know, I haven't personally
diagnosed her, I mean diagnosed her in person, examined her. However,
from my professional knowledge, I say that she has imposter syndrome.

(01:14:35):
That imposta syndrome is when someone is in a position
that they don't really feel that they are capable of
doing the job of You know that that they when
they know that they're not really qualified. And so Kamala,
you know, she basically slept her way up in California

(01:14:57):
and then she was picked by Biden or the Democrats
to in general, to be vice president, not because of
any brilliance that she has, you know, or any special
uh political acumen, but because she was a woman and
a woman of color and they thought that that would
get more votes. So she knows that she knows that
it wasn't because of her intelligence or anything else. So

(01:15:20):
when she's in public, her cackle is a nervous laughter
because she's always worried that she's going to be found out,
that people are going to realize that she isn't qualified
to be vice president, no less president.

Speaker 5 (01:15:36):
Doctor.

Speaker 2 (01:15:36):
I always thought that that imposter syndrome was a phobia
that it didn't know. It meant that, you know that
people have these insecurities and they and they question themselves.
But in the case of Vice President Kamala Harris, she's right.
She is an impostor. This is a very accurate self,
you know, assessment she has made.

Speaker 5 (01:15:55):
So this isn't a phobia.

Speaker 17 (01:15:58):
Well it's not really a full I mean, there's anxiety,
you know, there's always anxiety being afraid of being found out,
but it's not exactly a phobia. Okay, but but yes,
I mean so That's what the cackle is. That's what
all of her hand movements are. You know, she's always
swirling her hands around like now you see it, now
you don't. She's just she's just all over the place,

(01:16:22):
trying to to hide that she doesn't know what she's doing.

Speaker 1 (01:16:27):
Doctor Lieberman, are knowing this about her or your assessment
of her? Are you surprised that she doesn't want to
do a news conference, that she does not want to
sit down with a journalist who she may not trust,
she may not know, who could ask some very hard questions.
Is this part of this imposter syndrome that she's dealing with.

Speaker 17 (01:16:47):
Yes, absolutely, you know she doesn't want the more the
more she doesn't really know how much that person likes her,
what she can get away with, whether they're going to
ask piercing questions that she really doesn't have answers for.
You know that that just she she doesn't want to

(01:17:09):
do that, and the Democrats are trying to hide her.
It's kind of like when they hid Biden in the
basement the first go around. You know that was they
were hiding him then because they knew he had maybe
they didn't know to call it dementia. But they, well
some of his family did. But but but they you know,
I mean, was supposedly because of COVID, but it was

(01:17:29):
really because they didn't want the American people to get
to know him too well or to see him, you know,
to see all his cognitive difficulties.

Speaker 2 (01:17:37):
So I have a question on Labor Day, and this
is just one small example. There were two Labor Day
events that Vice President Kamala Harris attended. One was in Detroit,
the other one in Pittsburgh. When they did the when
she spoke at the Detroit Union rally, her voice sounded
very different. She had quite an accent that would may

(01:18:00):
be mirror the audience in what she was speaking. And
when she came to Pittsburgh just hours later, Uh, the
audience did not look exactly the same. It was a
different audience, but they were union members and her cadence
and her voice completely changed. So what's that about? I mean,
why is why is someone changing so obviously and not
subtly the way they speak to people? What's going on there?

Speaker 17 (01:18:23):
Well, you know, it's interesting because it's interesting how she
doesn't realize that it's so obvious. You know that people
are gonna are gonna realize it themselves. You know that
that that there are all these differences, But it's kind
of like being a people pleaser. She tries. She takes
on the persona of whoever she thinks will please her

(01:18:44):
audience most you know, whether it's because of the accent
or what she talks about, or you know, she's trying
to get them to like her.

Speaker 2 (01:18:54):
Yeah, she's like Sally Fields and an Oscar. Okay, I'm
picking up what you're putting down.

Speaker 5 (01:19:03):
I got it, doctor, I got it.

Speaker 1 (01:19:05):
Will you know for voters out there who listening to
you talk about her right now, how do they use
this in making a final decision as to who they're
going to vote for?

Speaker 4 (01:19:16):
Run? I mean, what would you suggest.

Speaker 17 (01:19:22):
Not to not to think too much about it and
just vote Trump?

Speaker 5 (01:19:28):
Doctor Carol, you are my hero.

Speaker 17 (01:19:32):
People don't have to to spend too much time thinking
about I mean, here's the thing though, that's really you know,
like I have some friends, believe it or not, I
have some friends and some of them are planning on
voting for Kamala. And these are like smart people and
relatively sophisticated people, you know, knowledgeable people. And when I

(01:19:56):
ask them, why are you voting for Kamala. They they
don't really have anything to say other than well, Trump
is this and that. So people aren't really voting for Kamala,
just like they didn't really vote for Biden. They voted
against Trump. Now that is the that is the biggest mistake,
because you know, some people don't like his personality. They

(01:20:18):
think he's too cockey he's like a bull in a
china shop. Okay, but he's also the best one to
run this country and to bring it back to some
semblance of America.

Speaker 1 (01:20:28):
All right, final question for you, doctor, and to be fair,
now we've asked you to analyze Kamala for a minute.
Do you want to give us your quick analysis of
one Donald Trump.

Speaker 17 (01:20:39):
Well, I'll say, you know, he's not perfect, but but
he's the best one to count on, as I was saying,
to bring this country back. And I think with all
that he has been put through in this last these
last months, you know, all the law there, all the
two attempts to kill him, I mean, it is amazing

(01:21:01):
that this man is standing. Nolah's going around and an
incredible schedule to make these campaign stops. So when people
try to say, you know that, oh maybe he's maybe
he has dementia two or you know, whatever they say.
I'd like to see them go try to fight for

(01:21:21):
their freedom in court and also try not and pretend
that they don't care that you know that they almost
that someone almost shot him in the head.

Speaker 1 (01:21:29):
On our Newsmaker line and part of our Listen Back
Friday segment, doctor Carol Lieberman talking about Kamala Harris lacking
what she needs, apparently lacking belief in what she says.
That's what doctor Lieberman?

Speaker 4 (01:21:42):
Who knew? Who knew?

Speaker 7 (01:21:44):
All right?

Speaker 1 (01:21:44):
More coming up on the Rod and Greg Show. We've
been talking a lot today about illegal immigration, and there
is a new study out this week, and we talked
about it earlier this week as part of the Listen
Back fridaying segment you're hearing now. The study found that
the mass deportation of unskilled criminal anilllians would greatly reduce
America's national debt. We had a chance to talk with

(01:22:04):
Daniel D. Martino. He is with a university graduate fellow
at the Manhattan Institute. He did the study. Tell us
about the study and why you decided to take a
look at this.

Speaker 12 (01:22:14):
The thing that motivated me was that we had seen
a terrible border crisis for the last few years, and
you had seen a lot of numbers thrown around with
like the cost of this, or you know, they pay
taxes and what they pay taxes, and nobody had done
something that was comprehensive at the federal level at the
cost or on the benefits at the federal level all
different types of immigration.

Speaker 7 (01:22:35):
Right.

Speaker 12 (01:22:35):
There had been one study many years ago that showed it,
but they had some assumptions that I thought were wrong.
And then the CBO recently released this report saying that
actually the border crisis was good for the federal budget.
And I checked their assumptions and they didn't seem as credible,
and so I undertook my own study.

Speaker 2 (01:22:54):
You know, Daniel, I for many years I would come
across when I was in college, I came across people
that had through a student visa, through legal means, had
or ways had had been here in our country. I
would need that student visa, and if they'd like to
stay longer, there was a process and they would work
very hard. It's a very arduous process, I think, too arduous.

(01:23:15):
But I've always been supportive of those that come. As
you've described in your article that actually are a benefit
and bring this value. But I've heard recently that that
there's this narrative that if people that come here, even
through a work visa, stay for some prolonged time, they're
displacing even those that would work in those higher placed

(01:23:37):
jobs or higher compensating jobs. Tell me why that that
is or isn't the case.

Speaker 12 (01:23:43):
Well, if I'm understanding, well, you're saying that it may
not be as good if they come on a work visa.

Speaker 2 (01:23:50):
Yeah, just because well, your premise is that those that
come and they're educated, and they and they're they contribute
to the workforce and they're they're well come and say
they were using less, they're taking less public benefits there,
they're contributing to the economy.

Speaker 5 (01:24:01):
There are good things happening.

Speaker 2 (01:24:03):
But then I hear this other narrative out there that
there is still a net drag on our economy because
American workers have less options or they're displacing their jobs.

Speaker 5 (01:24:13):
Is that true? Is that a wives tale?

Speaker 12 (01:24:15):
You know, if more people meant fewer jobs. The United
States which still have a few hundred thousand jobs like
it did in seventeen seventy six. So right, like the
fact that the population grows doesn't mean a bad thing
or you know, otherwise the declining fertility would have been
the best thing for the labor market, right, and it

(01:24:37):
really isn't. At the end, immigrants or people just like
new people born't here. The question that does matter sometimes
on the labor market issues is the relative impact. That is,
if you get suddenly a huge influx of cooks, right,
obviously the price of cooking or really restaurant services is

(01:24:57):
going to fall relative to the rest of services on
the economy, and so the people in that sector will
be hurt, but the people in the other sectors will benefit.
Net is not much change when we think about high
skilled immigration. It's not on just one specific sector, is
on several. But you could say that lower skilled Americans
actually benefit from high skilled immigration because there's more engineers

(01:25:20):
that require homes, that require restaurant services, that require hotels,
And the ones that are hurt are really high income
Americans from that type of thing. But then there are
secondary effects from high skilled immigration that are more positive
and that are not usually accounted for and certainly not
on my study, which is the productivity. Right, when you
get people like Elo Musque, they create new things that

(01:25:43):
create new industries, they start new businesses, they make things
cheaper and are more efficient, and that's the kind of
thing that we want, not just you know, any country
really wants, right, because there are countries like Singapore that
allowed a lot of really high school people to come
and now they're one of the most rich countries in
the world. So that's the kind of thing. That's how

(01:26:07):
at least economies think about high school immigration generally.

Speaker 1 (01:26:10):
Daniel, you're an immigrant yourself from Weyer on Iron stand,
but you took issue with the CBO report and you
said it is flawed. What's wrong with that report? What
doesn't it take into account?

Speaker 12 (01:26:19):
Daniel? Well, the number one thing is because Congress only
cares about the next ten years and not the next
one hundred years. The report only focuses on the impact
over the next ten years. And over the next ten years.
Usually most people are really positive for the budget, right
because when a thirty year old immigrant gets here across

(01:26:41):
the border, they're going to keep working until they're forty
at least, Right, But if you take into account that
that person may stay until they're eighty and die here,
they're going to end up getting Social Security medicare, other
medical services they're going to get, other type of welfare
states are going to help them. So it's very important

(01:27:01):
to include the retirement period in any of these studies,
otherwise they're going to be biased towards the positive side.
Then they also didn't take into account what is usually
referred to as public goods. So more people also means
more cars on the road. It also means potentially more
people needing food obviously, and so more farmers getting farm
subsidies and these kinds of secondary effects.

Speaker 13 (01:27:24):
You know.

Speaker 2 (01:27:25):
So I'm very bullish on legal immigration, I really am,
and I appreciate your analysis and how you're pointing out
the obvious benefits of a country like America with it
that is a melting pot, and our legal immigration. Let
me just ask you this though, as I've gotten to
know some people who've struggled to be able to stay
in this country legally and to get if they were

(01:27:46):
a student and they want to stay here and get
a work visa, I've always felt like the process could
be so hard it almost lends itself to illegal immigration.
I'm all for a fence or a wall, but with
a wide gate. Do you think that our current immigration
system in the process it takes for someone to legally
reside in the United States is prohibitive and actually doesn't

(01:28:09):
work or does it work well in your mind.

Speaker 12 (01:28:12):
I totally agree. Look, I've been going in that process myself,
and it's taken a very long time. It's been very costly,
very complex, very arduous. I came to America eight years ago,
also a student from Venezuela. I'm completing my PhD in economics,
and it's very difficult. And I'll say I think that's

(01:28:32):
kind of what I proposed to my report is that
imagine if I had been from India and not from Venezuela.
If you were born in India and you applied to
obtain a Green cart today through any skilled category, even
if you got the Nobel Price, you will not be
allowed to stay in America. That's how messed up the
US immigration system is. And that is unacceptable. Right if

(01:28:54):
you are the Nobel Prize winner in chemistry and you
happen to have been born in India, you should be
wanted in the United States. And so that's what I'm
proposing to reform. And one of the ways I do
it is say that everybody with a stamp. Graduate degree
from the US college should be exempted from visa caps.
That would increase immigration annually by about fifteen thousand people,

(01:29:17):
which is really less than two weeks of border crossings
at this point, but it would have a huge impact.
Right We're talking about billions and billions of tax revenue.

Speaker 1 (01:29:32):
Yeah, final question for you, Daniel, what happens in your
opinion if we don't do anything, if we leave the
system the way it is, no attempts are made to
reform it, to change it. What happens if we don't
do anything, Daniel?

Speaker 12 (01:29:44):
In your opinion, I think the US is going to
find itself in a few decades with a lot more
illegal immigration people who are going to be here and
are going to be crossing the governmental law when they retire.
The budget situation is going to get much worse, and
we're going to us see that other countries are going
to begin to overtake America in the innovation race.

Speaker 3 (01:30:04):
There are companies like Google and an Apple that have
open headquarters across the border in Canada and Vancouver across
from Seattle, so that everybody who can't come here who
is high skilled, that you just send them to Canada
and Canada is in a free lunch, and I think
that it's just against the interest of the United States
long run.

Speaker 1 (01:30:22):
As part of our list Back Friday presentation or conversation
with Daniel D. Martino talking about recent study finding mass deportations.

Speaker 4 (01:30:30):
Real inpuct, real input.

Speaker 1 (01:30:32):
Right, Greg on the on the economy, all right, been
another fun week Greg, love it.

Speaker 4 (01:30:37):
It's been fun.

Speaker 5 (01:30:38):
Yeah, it's always fun.

Speaker 4 (01:30:39):
Enjoy the weekend, weekend.

Speaker 5 (01:30:42):
Greg Show.

Speaker 1 (01:30:43):
All Right, that does it for us here on the
Rotten Greg, Joe and Utah's Talk Radio one oh five
nine kN r S.

Speaker 4 (01:30:50):
Enjoy the weekend, everybody. We'll be back Monday at four.
Have a good weekend.

Speaker 5 (01:30:54):
See then,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Rod and Greg Show: Kamala's Trip to the Border; Liberal Media Needs New Name

Episode Transcript

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

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

All Episodes