The Rod and Greg Show: Legislature's Plans to Deal with Judge Dianna Gibson's Congressional Maps

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm rod Arquette, I'm citizen Greg Hughes.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
Would you like to add more?

Speaker 3 (00:04):
No, I think you got it up. I think we're
done here. Okay, we start the weekend earlier. Yeah, let's go.
Let's get out of here. See I'm see them seeing
the bar and I'm starting to run. I'm right, I
got nothing to say. Well, we pretty much said it, folks.

Speaker 1 (00:17):
There you have.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
That's it. That's it. We've got a lot to get
to today before we jet out of here. Let's see
what the big meeting took place just wrapped up about
an hour ago at the White House between Mom, Donnie
and Donald Trump.

Speaker 3 (00:29):
Yes, I know you know what this is. Let me
let me just explain to to some folks here here.
There's a difference between retail politics, uh, inside baseball politics
and an inside baseball policy making and things like that.
And what I mean by that is you we have
clear differences and people that are elected and the parties

(00:51):
they come from, and they're just clear differences. And you
can debate on the on talk news, you know, on
this program, we'll talk about it if you have talking
heads on TV, as you should, and then you have
and there's nothing there's nothing I would argue performative about it.
But it's more. It's more, I mean, we're just going
to be really striking to the differences. Yes, but then
you have a moment like when Mom Donnie the new

(01:13):
he's going to be the mayor of New York City. Uh,
And there there is a role there is that, there
is a there is a there's an overlap of that
where the city has to work with the federal government
to some degree or will. And as the incumbent or
the mayor elect, it's his job, no matter how uh,
you know, strident he was in his campaign as a candidate.

(01:34):
He will be a better mayor if he's talking to
President Trump than if he's not.

Speaker 1 (01:37):
So what does he do.

Speaker 3 (01:38):
He goes to the to the to the oval office,
and you see some you see some nice you know,
they're being nice. It was polite for a little bit. Yeah,
so they're being polite. I don't I wouldn't attach any
negative connotation to either the President or Mom Donnie. That is,
as much as they've said about each other that's been harsh,
that they were being respectful to each other in that meeting.

(01:59):
What goes on after that meeting is there's just some
simple blocking and tackling in governance generally that doesn't really
fall into party platforms. And to get that part working right,
you do have to have leaders that can be in
the same room with each other at the same time.
So there's actually some really funny soundbites from this, as
you have two guys that are from such far apart places.

(02:21):
But I think it Trump never gets to credit for
the people that he can bring in. I mean, his
cabinet has Democrats that were Democrats all their lives that
are in his cabinet. He does do what he's doing
today with Mom Donnie, but he does it all over
the world. He never gets credit for the way he
is able to bring people of different opinions together.

Speaker 2 (02:40):
Yeah, and you know what, you bring that up. He
can call you every name in the book, which he
oftentimes does, yes, but he'll still want to sit down
and talk to you correct And you have to understand
that's just kind of how he operates. He likes to
play the name calling thing. It's kind of entertaining. He
knows what he knows. It works with his audience. But
if somebody calls and says, hey, let's sit down and talk.
He'll say, come on, and.

Speaker 3 (03:01):
It's all water under the bridge. Can he can go?
He can roll asleep. Look at look at Rubio. That
was little Marco back in sixteen. Now I think he's
one of my favorite cabinet members is Secretary of State.
But not only is he can he let go of things.

Speaker 1 (03:14):
But we have this.

Speaker 3 (03:15):
Great clip where they ask, mom, Donnie, you called Trump
a fascist? That could That has the potential to be
an awkward moment.

Speaker 2 (03:22):
Yeah. After after they met privately, they met with the
with the reporters and the reporter pool, and I think
the White House corresponding for Fox News asked this question here.

Speaker 4 (03:32):
It is asked about your comment calmed President a fascist,
and your.

Speaker 5 (03:37):
Answer was President Trump and I can clear bet our positions.

Speaker 6 (03:40):
In our views.

Speaker 1 (03:41):
Are you a firmad that you think President Trump is
a fascist?

Speaker 6 (03:45):
I've spoken about Okay, Okay.

Speaker 1 (03:49):
It's easier. It's easier than explaining at yes.

Speaker 2 (03:54):
It's easier than.

Speaker 1 (03:56):
He looks. Is that's okay? You just say yes, and
you do not see the video.

Speaker 3 (03:59):
But he's like, yes, he's a facious just call it.
He said later, I've been called so much worse. That's nothing.
That's something fine.

Speaker 2 (04:10):
So it was a meeting. They met today. They came
together today talk about two opposing views and what needs
to be done. It was in that office and on
display today. But here we go again. President Trump willing
to sit down with anybody, hear what they have to say.
He'll share his views. And that's what we The one
group of people who have not forgiven Donald Trump are

(04:30):
the established Republicans.

Speaker 3 (04:32):
Yeah, you know, I don't think you could you ever
see a moment like this.

Speaker 2 (04:35):
The Bush family has never gotten over that Romney has
never gotten over the Cheney family.

Speaker 1 (04:40):
They were entitled, they were the heirs.

Speaker 3 (04:42):
It was their turn. They were supposed to. I'll tell
you though, Trump thinks about some things a little bit deeper.
While he's having this very cordial meeting. He is sitting
behind the desk the Builable office, and Mom Donnie is
standing by his side. And there there's a visual there,
you know. And even when he shakes his hand, he
doesn't get up to shake his hand. He reaches up
and he shakes, he lets some shake his hand. But

(05:03):
where he's sitting at behind the desk of the Oval office,
and and Mom Donnie is, you know, dutifully sitting standing
next to him. It isn't peer to peer, it's not
a shoulder to shoulder, and there is body language in that,
there is messages there.

Speaker 2 (05:15):
Well, I felt this meeting was like a well seasoned
guy sitting now with a young kids saying, come here, boy,
let me let me tell you about the truth about
the real world.

Speaker 1 (05:24):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (05:25):
And they're both New Yorkers and so he does know
that the city. And he did make an interesting comment
after they had met privately and said, I think some
conservatives might be surprised by some of the things that
Ma'm Donnie is looking to do. So you know, it's
it's governing is very very different than campaigning. It shouldn't
be bipolar, and it shouldn't be a lie. But sometimes
the responsibility of governing U does those little details don't

(05:48):
get into the campaign narrative as much. And so I
think there's probably some just basic things that he is
just gonna mom. Donny's going to have to do, whether
he affiliates with the socialists, the communists, the Democrats, that's
whatever he wants to say, is he's just he's got
to roll up his sleeves and do some work.

Speaker 2 (06:04):
Yeah, Yeah, he does Hey, one other good another bit
of good news today that we want to share. If
we start as we start off the show today, Greg,
we now are breathing clean air. Are that nice?

Speaker 3 (06:16):
I haven't noticed a marked different, But you tell, well,
how do you come by this information?

Speaker 2 (06:22):
The EPA apparently it's taken the wast Edge front off
the off the National Dirty air List airlist for inversion fog.

Speaker 1 (06:30):
Good. Well, that's good.

Speaker 2 (06:31):
We've been dealing with this for fifteen years. But they've
looked and said, you guys are just fine, don't worry
about it.

Speaker 3 (06:35):
And that's for the population growth. And population growth you
got more people, you got more vehicles.

Speaker 2 (06:40):
And I've got one of the reasons we don't get
as much snow on the ground here.

Speaker 1 (06:43):
What I I have thought, I've saw it.

Speaker 3 (06:46):
I remember warm or November is here along the wat
Hetch front that I've played golf. But I also remember
when my son was playing in you know, you know
the football conference, you know, Mighty Mite and all that,
and there was snow. You had to plow the yard
markers on the field, but snowplow or the snow blower
because there was so much snow, so no snow in November.

Speaker 2 (07:06):
So far well, the Environmental Protection Agency has now determined
that the Salt Lake Provo areas have reached attainment for
twenty four hour National ambient Air Quality standards for fine
particular pollution. First time we've done it in fifteen years. Well,
there that we breathe is now much much better.

Speaker 3 (07:23):
I'm sure that's from something I did when I was
in the legislature. I probably did that.

Speaker 2 (07:28):
You did.

Speaker 1 (07:28):
I probably pressed. There's probably something like when you were in.

Speaker 2 (07:31):
The legislature, you were telling us not to drive.

Speaker 3 (07:33):
Man when I was in the When I was in
the legislature, I'd walk out on a February day and
see that blue sky in the sunshine. A look, look
what we did since we were in session. Look out,
Look how clean the air is. Look at that I
can see the sky. I don't see a cloud and
skat the sunshine was shining. It must because we're in session.
We're doing something right.

Speaker 2 (07:47):
Well you took credit.

Speaker 3 (07:48):
Yeah, no inversion there when you were in session. There
was never an inversion there.

Speaker 2 (07:51):
I don't know. Yeah, you would have been here, Yeah,
I think there were years ago. There was I think
it was a January, an entire month where you couldn't
see your hand in front of your face. Yeah, there's
been some there, There have been some like the entire
month was now when I was on the clock though,
when I was on the clock. Oh yeah, blue sky sunshine.
Oh yeah, yeah, sure you're welcome. All right, more coming up,
we're gonna get into this question this word of the day,

(08:13):
maybe word of the year, affordability exactly what is it.
We'll get into that coming up on the Friday afternoon
edition of the Rod and Greg Show right here on
Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine.

Speaker 3 (08:23):
Okay, n rs, I know I hate those b YU
plays a late one. Those eight to fifteen games are awful. No,
this can't be late because they're going back to Ohio.

Speaker 2 (08:31):
No, they're playing tomorrow night. They're playing at night, tomorrow night,
six six. Yeah, that's not yeah, you those eight to
fifteen starts.

Speaker 3 (08:38):
Come on, guys, I think it's I think yeah, it's
not the college football I grew.

Speaker 2 (08:44):
Up with every Saturday of noon college with.

Speaker 1 (08:48):
That's the clock.

Speaker 2 (08:48):
That's it. So at least we'll get some decent weather,
all right. By the way, Uh, their story out. The
Salt Lake Tribune has the story out today Greg, You've
been talking about this on this how this redistricting plan
is splitting houses and a half. Yeah, well apparently the
judge said, oh, I didn't know that, let me fix
it for you. I'll t hought she wasn't into drawing maps.

Speaker 3 (09:07):
Yeah, Now, who does the judge go to inside that
that courthouse to say, hey, who wants to draw maps
with me? Like you know how the legislature has done
it since statehood? Who wants to draw them with me?
Because I need I need geo maps. I actually have
to have the we can't split houses. It turns out
we can't have it splitting houses. We actually have to
follow the city boundary. Who knew she did? And she
was just picking like it was a you know, she

(09:29):
was picking her favorite candy.

Speaker 2 (09:30):
By the way, State represent Matt McPherson, who wrote a
terrific up at Peace today in the d News, will
join us in the five o'clock out. Yes, I'm talking
about his efforts. He's a good guy, all right. Now.
This word affordability, as I mentioned, is now the word
of the day is buzzing all around the country. H
mem Donnie and President Trump talked about for affordability today
but what is unaffordable? I mean, what happens there? Joining

(09:53):
us on our newsmaker line to talk about that is
Richard Lyons. He's an author a contributor at American Great
and it's Richard. How are you and what become to
the Rodding Great Show? Thanks for joining us.

Speaker 6 (10:02):
Great to be with you, guys.

Speaker 7 (10:03):
Thank you, Richard.

Speaker 2 (10:04):
What is this? You know why when we talk about
affordability rarely does the issue of federal spending come up?
Why not?

Speaker 6 (10:12):
Hut no? And that you know that's a great question
because that creates inflation when they throw money into the system.
Let's go back to Biden's the beginning of Biden's term,
when he strangled the energy industry, there was a spike
and energy cause of thirty eight percent. At the same time,
he flooded the country with a trillion and a half

(10:34):
dollars for green energy investments. And so what did that do?
It created inflation throughout the whole country, an inflation of
twenty percent. So that if you had, if you had
saved up until twenty twenty one hundred thousand dollars in
twenty twenty four, when he left office, that was worth
eighty thousand because of what you can't afford anymore. So,

(10:56):
and it's it's always the Democrat playbook that they always say, well,
well there's a there's a part of our economy that's
unaffordable because of free enterprise, and then they invade that economies.
And when they do so, it becomes the institutionalized in
the Fanny and Freddie mac and in interest rates through
the Federal Reserve that are that are undeservedly low, which

(11:20):
jacks up the prices of housing from in twenty ten
the average house was two hundred and twenty thousand. Today
it's four hundred twenty thousand.

Speaker 3 (11:29):
When that sounds like a bargain in Utah, sadly.

Speaker 6 (11:34):
No, I know it, guys. And here's another example, Well,
healthcare is unaffordable, so they invaded healthcare with Medicare and
Medicaid and instead of instead of paying what is the
average developed countries per year per capita of seven three
hundred and ninety three in America, that figures thirteen thousand,

(11:55):
four hundred and thirty two, it's double, literally double. So
what do they say when this is a crime, Well,
it's no longer affordable, so they create Obamacare. Since Obamacare
was created and instituted. In twenty fourteen, their premiums and
deductibles have tripled and they're about to go up another
twenty six percent next year. So this is how democrats

(12:18):
afford it. They take over more of the sector until
they say, we have to take the whole thing over
or it's not going to work.

Speaker 3 (12:26):
You're so right. So housing's not affordable, so let's be
housings ours. Healthcare is not affordable, so let's let's socialized medicine.
Grocery prices are a lot, so let's give snap food
stamps to more people. When so the logic with leftists is,
you know, here's the government money and they're delivering a service.
Well it doesn't work, I know, give it more money. Okay,

(12:47):
it's still not working. And how we how are we
doing It's terrible? Oh we're doing terrible. Yeah, just need
more money. And when do we get off that merry
go round?

Speaker 1 (12:56):
It ever get off?

Speaker 3 (12:57):
You know?

Speaker 6 (12:57):
Their aspiration is to fail so well that it demands
more and more money and eventually, and this is the point, guys,
they don't care if the economy explodes because if it does,
they can take it over. That's the socialist game. They
want to blame. They want to blame free enterprise for

(13:18):
the problems they are causing.

Speaker 2 (13:21):
That's a good point. How do you combat this? I mean,
what needs to be done? Or can you fight this now?

Speaker 6 (13:26):
Well? You know, it just needs an education, I think,
and your show is a great example of what can
be done. People have to familiarize themselves with Adam Smith
and the Wealth of Nations and what a gift it is.
What free enterprise is. I hate to call it capitalism
because what it is actually what free enterprise is, it
is the democratization of the economy. It's where everybody has

(13:50):
a vote on what they're going to spend their money on.
It's where everybody has an opportunity to create whatever they want.
Nobody tells them what they can or can't create. That's
the old system of monarchy and dictatorship. Uh. Free enterprise
is that it's a keystone of our countries founding. The
Wealth of Nations was written the same year as the

(14:12):
Declaration of Independence. And instead of vilifying people who succeed
like Elon musk we hones say these guys are Euros.
Look at what they're doing, look at what they're creating.

Speaker 1 (14:24):
So Richard, we don't do that.

Speaker 3 (14:25):
I agree with you. So here's here's what's troubling me.
So we have just like what Ron Reagan dealt was
with Carter, having to dig this country out of an
entire mess.

Speaker 1 (14:35):
We have. We have the numbers. You've proved.

Speaker 3 (14:37):
You've shown that eighty if you had one hundred grand,
it's worth eighty when you get you know, by the
time Biden was done with it in his in that term.
So we have some work to do, and we see
good signs from this president, but people aren't feeling it
necessarily at the grocery store, at you know, or in
their bills, whatever it may be. I don't know why
the the instinct or the recoil would be to go

(14:58):
back to the nightmare that you had before. But it
is said that if we don't start to see the
corner turn and we start seeing affordability or seeing the
economy do better, Republicans could lose and Democrats could win,
which I would argue at the source of it. So
my question is just crystal ball, do you think of
all the things that you've mentioned and the way that
the government wants to socialize and take over all these

(15:21):
different segments of our economy. Does this president, do we
have enough time by the midterms to show an upswing
to give the voter's confidence to elect Republicans in the
House Senate in the midterms.

Speaker 6 (15:34):
I very much think so, but it has to be
marketed well, such as on your show and others. And
because the traditional media is not going to do it,
they're almost hiding the fact that this quarter they're prognosticating
that we're growing at an annual rate of over four percent,
and that's with the government shutdown. The government shutdown, it

(15:55):
was the Democrat's answer to this economy about to take off.
They wanted to you know, they wanted to kneecap it.
So next year, I'm particularly in the second quarter, you're
going to see all the value. And I look at
it two ways, the taxes that you're not paying going
back into the economy and the deregulation that's been in

(16:16):
the works of the past almost a year. And that's
going to have a great effect on the economy.

Speaker 2 (16:21):
Yeah, it's going to be and we're looking forward to that.
Richard has always great chatting with you. Thanks for your
thoughts and enjoyed the weekend.

Speaker 6 (16:27):
Okay, thanks guy.

Speaker 2 (16:28):
Thank you all right, that's Richard Lyons, good guy from
American great instant. He's right. The issue is greg I mean,
Steve said this, Steve Moore said this yesterday on the
big beautiful bill, and all the tax cuts haven't gone
into effect yet. They don't go into effect until January.
So that's when you're going to start seeing things pick up,
or that's what people are counting on.

Speaker 3 (16:49):
I think they will, are you too, But I'll tell
you I see some more just on narrative. I think people, ultimately,
it's not how we explain it, it's how they're going
to experience this. At the end of the day, it's
going to be a little bit closer to home. But
I do think that we've got a couple narratives out there,
even from our friends Stephen Moore sometimes where he says, oh,
this young cloud, they have it so good, they don't

(17:10):
know how good they have it. I'd be careful. I'd
be careful of that narrative. We've heard that from the
the from Biden. Even if our quality of life in
many ways in twenty twenty five is better than it
was in nineteen eighty five, just maybe the things we
have I would caution anyone from saying that our younger
generation doesn't know how good they have it. I think
that's a trap, and so I think we can't dismiss

(17:33):
it or even get into that which we used to
scoff that it's so good and you're not smart enough
to get it. We can't say that. We have to
really it has to really be hit home from.

Speaker 2 (17:43):
The pudding, roof from the pudding. All Right, more coming
up the Rod and Greg Show with you on this
Friday and Talk Radio one oh five nine knais, tons.

Speaker 1 (17:49):
Of playlists even podcasts.

Speaker 2 (17:51):
Well, we need illegal immigrants in this country because they'll
do the jobs that Americans won't do. And you and
I both say to that.

Speaker 3 (17:58):
We scope yes, yep, the elitist attitude that doesn't exist
in real life.

Speaker 2 (18:03):
Well, before we get to that, there are two job
reports that came out a year ago. They're separated by
one year. You had the September report coming out in
twenty twenty four from Joe Biden, and then the September
Report coming out in twenty twenty five with Donald Trump.
There's a slight difference this one. In September this year,
Right reported that jobs were created an increase of one

(18:25):
hundred and nineteen thousand jobs, with most of them being
created in the private sector. Imagine that now. A year ago,
Joe Biden's report said that there were ninety seven thousand
new jobs, almost well more than half government jobs.

Speaker 3 (18:42):
Yes, so if you take the job growth, but you
were to look at the number of government jobs that
are shrinking, it's the job growth in the private sector
to overcome the less the fewer jobs that you're seeing
in the Fera garnment. They're slashing jobs on the federal side.
So you see those jobs, that job loss number be
pretty big. So when you see a net gang or

(19:04):
you see those jobs that are private sector being being more,
they're overcoming even the job loss in the government. In
the government sector, which is appropriate, it grew too fast,
it's too much. I think minimum wage for a federal
workers one hundred thousand.

Speaker 2 (19:18):
Dollars, I think it is anymore.

Speaker 1 (19:20):
I think that's what you start.

Speaker 2 (19:23):
Yeah, didn't.

Speaker 3 (19:24):
Maybe that's what they give the interns. I don't know,
but that's it. That is it is literally so over
the top.

Speaker 2 (19:28):
Well, we've heard this debate about illegal immigration in this
country that we need them here because they won't do
the job, or they will do the jobs that Americans
won't do well, let's stag into that. Joining us on
our Newsmaker line right now to talk about that is
Jamie Wilson, an executive director at the Conservatorian Press. Jamie,
thanks for joining us. You've taken a look at this.
What have you found out about the jobs that Americans

(19:51):
won't do?

Speaker 8 (19:52):
There is not a single job that Americans it's just
too good to do. It's all about the price point.
You're going to hire somebody at two dollars to do
a really crappy job, then you're not going to give
an American. That's what it comes down to. You're going
to have to find somebody who's willing to do it
for that, and probably it's going to be nobody, and
that's your own fault.

Speaker 2 (20:13):
Jamie. You share a wonderful story about growing up and
you witnessed the changes that took place in the job market.
Can you briefly describe the various waves that you saw
happen in your own community?

Speaker 8 (20:27):
Oh? Yeah, I grew up in Kentucky, and in Kentucky,
it's really all about two things. It's about tobacco and
it's about building things, and my dad was involved in
both industries. We had a tobacco base, so you know,
as a child, I started working on tobacco farm, first
scattering the seeds and then you know, pulling the good

(20:50):
seedlings and loading them up in a container. And then
we'd go down the rows and we'd set the little
seedlings and let them grow and then you know, later
on in the fall, you chop them down and it
was dasty, dirty, just backbreaking labor, it really was. So

(21:11):
you know, when I went to high school, the kids
in my high school would usually go out every fall,
and we started school a little bit late because of this,
and they would get you know, ten dollars fifteen dollars
an hour to cut tobacco and hang it in the barns.
And back then that was really good money and a
lot of the kids made a lot of money just

(21:31):
to say for college. And now they can't do that anymore.
The other thing is my dad built houses and that
was great when I was very young, but then they
started bringing in illegal labor, frankly from Mexico and Central America.
And what started happening is the builders who were hiring

(21:56):
illegal immigrants to build their houses, were able to underbid
everybody else. So of course, if you're going to survive
in an industry, you have to be able to underbid
your competitors. You can't do that anymore unless you hire
a legal labor, and that put a lot of small
contractors out of business, including my father. He wound up

(22:18):
basically just doing his own thing, and he had a
handful of regular customers who knew he did really good
work and they would hire him regardless. But everybody else
they just went out of business and they wound up
doing something else, and illegal labor took over the entire industry.
Did the same thing with tobacco. You know, you could

(22:39):
hire a high school student at fifteen dollars an hour,
or you could hire illegal immigrants at seven, put them
up in an old trailer, you know, eight or nine
to a building, and they would happily do the same
work because they could send all that money back home,

(22:59):
you know, So you wound up destroying industries.

Speaker 3 (23:02):
You know, this is not unique to Kentucky. I grew
up in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the seventies and eighties, and
I the story that you share is the story I
lived and I watched there is an honor in work
and in labor. And I never lived at a time
where people were not proud of the job they did.
The people that that didn't weren't very proud or maybe
even embarrassed for the people that were freeloaders, loafers that

(23:25):
didn't work at all. And so we didn't have There
wasn't a stigma to any kind of job. If you
had a job and you worked hard, that that would
that defined you as a good person. We saw in
Pittsburgh that the same type of a situation that you
described where steel mills shut down, closed for good, industry
went away, and by the time I live in Utah,

(23:46):
there was the joke and it wasn't a funny joke.
Was last one out turned the lights off because everybody
was leaving southwest Pennsylvania because there was no economic opportunity.
So fast forward to today, we see a president that's
looking to bring on sing We have sociology degrees that
get taken nowhere and put you on hundreds of thousand
dollars in debt, So there's not really a job prospect there.

(24:08):
What's your forecast for the maybe our manufacturing sector in
America work again and the pride of being able to
work and work for a wage that you could raise
yourself in a family. Is that going to come back
in this country.

Speaker 8 (24:24):
We've got a really complex situation because it's not just
about bringing the jobs back. It's also about automation and
AI and robotics. A lot of a lot of jobs
are just never going to come back. You know, we're
going to get we're going to bring it back on shore,
but it's going to be taken over by a robot,
not by a human being. However, I think we've got

(24:45):
a really good chance here. I think Americans are incredibly flexible,
incredibly smart, and we're going to learn how to deal
with this. We're going to find ways to create new industries.
We're going to find ways to work with the robotics
and you know, find new jobs that makes sense that

(25:05):
will increase increase output from our factories and other industries.
I think it's gonna be great. But we've got to
get a handle on both the illegal takeover of the
low the low level jobs and the way we handle
education today. But that's a completely topic. We've got to

(25:27):
get people used to the idea and this is something
I'm going to write about this weekend. We've got to
get people used to the ideas that they're going to
have to be re educated on a regular basis during
their lifetimes instead of you know, going to school and
just you know, thinking, Okay, i've graduated, I'm done. We're

(25:49):
going to have to get people used to the idea
that they're going to have to learn new things as
they go along in their life.

Speaker 2 (25:53):
Jamie, thanks for joining us. And I think she makes
a very good point, Greg that unlike, you know, you
get a job, now, you're going to have to be
re educated throughout your career because things are changing so quickly,
and that's a little bit different from what we're used to.

Speaker 1 (26:07):
Would you agree, well, kind of.

Speaker 3 (26:09):
I think learning how to learn is what we all
unless you're getting into a specific, very narrow trade, and
even even if you're going to college, uh, if you're
going to be a if you're going to be an engineer,
if you're going to law school, maybe there's more specific curriculum.
But learning how to learn, taking new concepts, absorbing and
being able to apply them is really what any kind
of learning experience is. And yeah, I think it might

(26:31):
be a little more broader in terms of his technology changes.
But I think we all have to stay up on
our toes and you have to change because time's changed.
So I don't think it's drastically different, but I do
think that you have to know that's what you're walking into.

Speaker 1 (26:44):
You have to learn. You better get the skill life
skill of learning how to learn.

Speaker 2 (26:47):
Well, I'm just thinking about my years in this business.
I mean we used to play records.

Speaker 1 (26:51):
Right, think about what think about the difference.

Speaker 2 (26:54):
Yes, we played, then we went to uh, then we
went to carts okay, and then we went digital or
we went CD. Then we went digital And in front
of me now are nothing but screens, all digital now.
And so you you're right. You have to learn to learn,
and hopefully that's what you do in college, that they
teach you how to learn.

Speaker 3 (27:11):
And the saddest part was the clearing out of our
of our manufacturing sector and our and our actual jobs.
And as I see people today complaining saying that our
business owners or farmers that say I can't find anyone
to work, well, I'm going to tell you if you
were getting away with low than lower than market wages,
that should have never happened in the first place. But
I'm going to tell you that the people will work.

(27:33):
They need to make a living. And the scariest thing
we can do is say, on one side, the Americans
are too good to be able to know their jobs,
they won't do. But then all these h one b
one visas and say you're not smart enough to do
the other jobs. So that pretty much leaves the working
class in this country worth nowhere to go. That's not
that's sceptible.

Speaker 2 (27:52):
No, it is all right. We've got a lot more
to get to, a lot more to come. On the
Route and Greg show the Friday edition on Talk Radio
one oh five nine can Or Protection Servitary's John Duffy
yesterday wants to bring civility back to flying, starting with
your clothes. He'd like you to dress a little bit
nicer when you fly.

Speaker 3 (28:11):
I have the perfect answer to that, okay, idea first,
and you'd say it on the radio.

Speaker 1 (28:17):
I can, but I want to hear his idea.

Speaker 6 (28:18):
Well.

Speaker 2 (28:19):
He thinks, you know, just being dressing up a little
bit better than most people normally would do. I can't.
I can tell you one thing for your thought. Abby's father,
who used to come here all the time, always wore
a shirt and tie always did.

Speaker 3 (28:33):
Yeah, that's more than I would say for traveling. I
like to be a little more comfortable. But I'll tell
you what I read. I read one of these, like
you know, flight attendants secrets that nobody's supposed to know.
Oh yeah, and the flight Big the Big Life hack.
Do not wear shorts, Do not wear sandals. Do not
take your shoes off on a plane. They're dirtier than

(28:54):
you think. Wear long pants, long shirts, and wear socks
and shoes because it's already. When I heard that, man,
I was ready to put a snowbollbill suit on to
get in on that plane.

Speaker 1 (29:05):
That sounds disgusting, so I won't.

Speaker 3 (29:08):
Do it for decorum purposes. But you tell me that
that's that filthy man I am dressing. I'm not letting
any of my skin show. That's gross.

Speaker 2 (29:16):
Well, I wipe down everything anymore, the handles, the back.

Speaker 1 (29:20):
I don't where do you carry that stuff? Krista does that?

Speaker 3 (29:22):
Queen Be doesn't. Okay, because Queen Bee has that stuff,
but I don't count carry it.

Speaker 2 (29:27):
Did you have you ever listened to the Joe Rogan podcast?

Speaker 1 (29:30):
I have you?

Speaker 2 (29:31):
I never have? Is it any good?

Speaker 1 (29:32):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (29:33):
Of course it's long. I mean I probably listened to
parts of it. I haven't listened it from the beginning
of them. But I have friends who listen and they'll say,
you got to listen to this, and so they'll.

Speaker 2 (29:42):
Send me, send you a clip. I've listened to clip
longer than a clip I've listened. Well, apparently he is
now the king of the podcast.

Speaker 1 (29:49):
I thought he was for a long time.

Speaker 2 (29:52):
Experience has Detroit. He is number one according to Apple's
annual rankings. He has dethroned The Daily, which is done
by The New York Times.

Speaker 1 (30:01):
I didn't know. I always thought he was a king.

Speaker 2 (30:03):
Yeah, but he's the king now well of the podcast.

Speaker 3 (30:08):
A massless deal with Spotify. Yeah, I think he's got
a pretty good deal.

Speaker 2 (30:12):
Making some good choint.

Speaker 1 (30:13):
I think we could take him on. There's nothing.

Speaker 2 (30:20):
All right, Uh, State Representative Matt McPherson is going to
be joining us. The judge had done some interesting things
today and that redistricting caves. We'll talk about that as well.
Stay with us. I want to hear one more time,
right and there is there we go. It's dirty Diana. Well,
apparently she has to little a little clean up around
the office. Yeah, yeah, boundaries you think the way they

(30:46):
should be.

Speaker 3 (30:46):
When you're a judge and you said this whole legislative
branch thing, what does that mean? I want to pick
And it's like a kid in a candy store and
you're just going like any meani miney mo oh, I
love that one. Well, turns out it doesn't. It splits, howls,
it splits. It doesn't follow boundaries of cities. It doesn't
do anything. So then as we were staying on the show,
then you go to the courthouse and say, hey, who

(31:07):
wants to draw maps?

Speaker 1 (31:08):
Like, does anybody know how.

Speaker 3 (31:08):
To do this? You know how the legislature did it
since statehood? We should do it here? So who wants
to help me draw this? It is that insane. I
don't even think that's an overstatement.

Speaker 2 (31:16):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (31:17):
But in case i've you know, got out in the
thin limb, we have our next guest. Yes, who knows, Yes,
he knows.

Speaker 2 (31:24):
Fate Representative Matt macpher So. We tried to get him
a couple of weeks ago. He was in India. Yeah,
but he's back now and we appreciate it coming in.
Pare wrote a great editorial today about talking about judicial
accountability and why it is so critical to Utah's democracy.
Talk about it a little bit more and what what
you see happening right now, Matt.

Speaker 4 (31:42):
Great, Yeah, thanks for having me on. I appreciate this
opportunity because I did. I actually presented that to the
Desert News several days ago, and then if you saw,
there was an open letter that was written by Burgess
Owens that kind of echoed a lot of the statements
I'd made, and perhaps that pushed them. I'm not sure,

(32:03):
but yeah, the concern I've had all along is the
judicial conduct here. It's more than just the overreach, is
more than just the decision as well. There's actually two
parts of this that's interesting. Is we have the case
itself and how the outcome played out and the remedy

(32:24):
that the judge offered. The remedy is inherently unconstitutional. The
process by which the court went through, but also the
work that the court did throughout this process created two
different problems. One is the legal issue, and we have
to handle that through an appeal, and that's the appropriate
way to handle that. In fact, it's really the only

(32:44):
way to handle it. We're going to try to deal
with it. Also, legislatively, we could look at perhaps a
constitutional amendment to protect us in the future, but we
have to resolve this through the legal process still, and
that's where appeal comes in. But the other issues here
that are the part that I think is being lost
on most of the media is is that there's also
an abuse of the actual system and the process. There's

(33:05):
this separation of powers issue, there is this unconstitutional remedy.
These can't be resolved through an appeals process, and in fact,
that's the reason why impeachment exists, which is why I
wrote this editorial was to try to or I'm sorry,
this op ed was to try to get more of
the facts out that this isn't retaliatory, this isn't about

(33:28):
specifically the outcome.

Speaker 1 (33:31):
Of this case.

Speaker 4 (33:32):
I actually wrote these before we had an outcome, and
I was pressured by our attorneys not to file anything
until we had a decision because it would look like
we were influencing the court, where now it looks like
it's retaliatory.

Speaker 1 (33:45):
And I know there was.

Speaker 2 (33:46):
Just I can't win.

Speaker 1 (33:48):
So what do you say?

Speaker 3 (33:49):
I think our listeners clearly know where I'm at on
all of this, but I think something you're going to
hear from the apologists of the judiciary is this legislature
is just arrogant and they don't like the outcome and
they're just mad that it didn't go their way. So
now they're trying to abuse their powers by being retaliatory.
Maybe you could share some specific examples, because I know

(34:10):
they are out there where this judge acted so far
outside of her scope or put the legislative branch in
a place where it could not act as a separate,
equal power.

Speaker 4 (34:19):
Yeah, thank you. You know, the biggest issue here is
the manipulation of the timing process here. So this case
was remanded from the Supreme Court back to this judge
thirteen months prior, and this was before the twenty twenty
four election.

Speaker 1 (34:35):
And this was an urgent case.

Speaker 4 (34:37):
It wasn't very complicated actually of a matter, it's clear
constitutional language. The Supreme Court made it a little more complicated,
and there was some initial few months of arguments back
and forth, but essentially after a few months of this,
the judge even said that she would deliver a ruling
because it was so time critical, within two weeks. But

(34:58):
more than eight months went by without any movement, without
any discussion or conversation from the judge, and when it
finally came time that she made a ruling, she was forced.
She had forced us, i should say, into a position
where she ordered a thirty day process to do what
normally would take a much longer amount of time, and
created a new rule structure because there wasn't enough time,

(35:21):
based on her own manipulation of the process to follow
even the prop four language. So instead they threw out
the entire process and said you're gonna do You're gonna
draw maps according to my rules and set these new boundaries,
and the boundaries and the rules that she established were
almost impossible to meet. In fact, we did our absolute
best to follow that process. And in fact, the judge

(35:43):
herself stated in her arguments when she complained about Map
C she called it an extreme outlier. But what that
means is is that the map did follow the process
that she outlined. It just happened to be the result.
Is what she was upset about. And so this was
kind of part of this. The problem is she created
a scenario in which we had a no win solution.

(36:04):
She didn't provide that same problem on the plaintiffs. They
had all the time in the world to establish maps
however they wanted. In fact, they didn't follow any particular process.
And then when we presented these to the judge, the
judge then took that and then sat on it. And
we knew that the LG had told us that we
had a deadline for her to begin the map certification process.

(36:25):
She extended it out even further to the tenth and
the judge was told straight out that she had to
make a decision by then, and the judge sat again
on that decision for a very long time weeks.

Speaker 2 (36:37):
Matt, is there a way are you, as I'm listening
to this, are is there an approach to that you're
going to have to take to somehow show and maybe
you don't have to show it in this regard the
judge here, what's her name again.

Speaker 1 (36:49):
Gret Diana gis not Debbie Gibson.

Speaker 3 (36:52):
That's a whole different person, not Debbie Gibs, Diana Gibson.

Speaker 2 (36:55):
But that she somehow, through her actions, deliberately slow walked
this and she could, like you said, she could have
had a decision anytime this year, but she waited until
the very last minute almost to do this. Do you
have to show that that she deliberately did that.

Speaker 4 (37:12):
Well, keep in mind, impeachment is a political process, it's
not a legal process. And we've already established a pattern here.
She waited multiple times, and even at this final decision,
we have asked now twice for a stay, and the
stay would be the appropriate move at this point because

(37:32):
of the outstanding legal issues, because of the constitutional issues,
because of the timing, and she has refused that and
then to issue the final ruling nineteen minutes before the deadline.
It just so happened that since I was in India,
it was the middle of day for me, so I
was able to jump on it and work on it
for several hours at the time, where neveryone else was asleep.
But this decision came out in the middle of the night,

(37:54):
and it really left the legislature and even the LG's
office with no alternatives. Think about it, that the judge
is ordering the Lieutenant governor to violate the constitution as well,
and that's a pretty that's a pretty difficult position to
put themselves in.

Speaker 3 (38:09):
So here's here's you know, she said she'd do it
in two weeks. She took eight months even when and
then when the hearing was held, and then she said,
I what's what's my deadline? Lieutenant governor Elections chief says
November first. She demands her once to the tenth of November,
end of business on the tenth. You basically have not
made that date or that deadline, I'd argue, But but

(38:31):
there's a there's actually just a practical application of how
an election happens, how maps. When when I was part
of redistricting in the decade prior, you had to have
these maps. They had to be geoprinted, you had to
there was so much information that had to go to
every county, twenty nine counties election clerks so they could
do the precinct, they could get everything right. I don't
think that's even been done yet.

Speaker 1 (38:51):
Has it?

Speaker 6 (38:52):
No?

Speaker 4 (38:52):
And in fact, on the thirteenth, the LG let us
know that the court had still not submitted them the
map to three days after the deadline. And then when
they got the map, it wasn't in fact complete as
we'd mentioned, and it's been sent back and it's now
been no, as far as I understand, today's the twenty
first and we still don't have a finalized finished.

Speaker 3 (39:14):
Now there's a practical consequence to that, isn't I mean,
how are they going to get those things done? Because
again we were told dates that if you're going to
have and I think people have to know a people
start filing for elections in the first week of January.
You need to know what your district looks like. You
need to have a jurisdiction. You need to know who
you're going to sell. You already have to know ahead

(39:34):
of time before people even file for office, where are
the ballots? Who's going to be on the ballot for
every citizen in Utah, they have to know who they're
voting for today. As of right now, there is no
understanding of any of that, at least on the congressional
map side. That's the part that I think, especially when
you're considering impeachment, this is pushing a process, but not

(39:55):
just for the legislative branch. This is now interrupting the
executive branch. It's up interrupting elections and counties, twenty nine counties.
I don't know how that goes unresponded. I don't know
how you don't respond to that, because I'm afraid, and
we've talked about this before, you'll get whatever you put
up with, you're gonna get more of I'm afraid of
this judiciary and how it's been acting towards the legislay branch,

(40:15):
but now even towards the executive branch. If there's not
a response, we're going to get more and more of this,
which I don't think is as good for the people.

Speaker 1 (40:23):
People don't know anything about judge. We didn't vote for him.
We don't know.

Speaker 4 (40:29):
Yeah, the the issues with the judiciary are going to
take some time. I mean, we did some judicial reform
recently in the last two sessions. We've changed how we
select judges. That was really boxing us in. Judges were
effectively selected by the bar.

Speaker 3 (40:47):
I'm embarrassed I didn't know that, but that the bar,
the Utah Bar Association, which I would argue is left
of center. They're the ones that would prefer up the
choices for the governor to choose frus and they would
they pick one with leprosy, one with camp terminal cancer,
and then the one they want. And basically we're just
running judges for a long long time in this.

Speaker 4 (41:05):
And that's been changed now, but it's going to take
a long time. We've got over one hundred judges. It
takes time to change that. So we need to make
some additional reforms and changes, and I think you'll.

Speaker 2 (41:15):
Expect a lot. Let's take a break because I've got
some questions. I've got more questions about this. I know
you do as well. Greg. We're talking with State Representative
Matt McPherson talking about the judicial accountability in Utah's democracy
that's coming up on the Rowden Greg Show and Talk
Radio one oh five nine o kN RS. He wrote
a great oup ed today and then has read news
about judicial accountability and why it's so important to Utah's democracy.

(41:38):
Of course, talking about the ruling made by Judge what's
her name again, dirty Diana, Dirty Diana Gibson. Yeah, thank you,
Dirty Diana Gibson. And you know you brought up earlier.
Burgess Owens yesterday wrote an open letter to the judge,
raising a lot of questions about the timing. Even the
governor today I saw an article he says, I disagree

(41:58):
with the decision, but I have questions about the timing
as well. The question I have raised, Matt, and I'm
not sure if you can respond to this. Why couldn't
or why didn't Lieutenant Governor Dietra Henderson say wait a minute,
this map is coming in too late. This map does
not follow the Constitution. I am not going to accept it.

(42:19):
I mean, could she have done that?

Speaker 4 (42:21):
Well, I would argue she still can. Okay, Now this
is a tricky situation. I mostly blame the judge here.
Oh yeah, the judge has put the Lieutenant Governor in
a tricky spot where she has to choose between following
the constitution the plain language of.

Speaker 2 (42:38):
It, plane language is it.

Speaker 4 (42:40):
Or violating a court order. And she has made statements
that she doesn't have the authority to violate a court order,
or she could go to jail. Now I think that's
a little bit silly of a statement, because the executive
branch controls who goes to jail, and I think she

(43:00):
probably knows someone that could pardon her if.

Speaker 1 (43:02):
It really came to one with it. But I also so.

Speaker 4 (43:06):
I sent her a letter yesterday and in it I
included a quote from Abraham Lincoln from his inaugur inaugural
address where he was talking about the dread Scott decision
and he stated he wasn't going to.

Speaker 1 (43:20):
Accept it as binding across the nation. He just wasn't
going to do it.

Speaker 4 (43:23):
And he made a comment in there that if we
are just going to allow the Supreme Court to rule
the nation. Then the people have effectively given up their
ability to govern themselves. And I sent that to her saying,
you know, this is your Lincoln moment. You know you
have an opportunity here. I hope that she still will
and she could. But again I put most of the

(43:44):
blame on the judge here for putting her in this position.
But I think that the constitution is clear that she
has the ability to tell the court just very simply,
I cannot accept a remedy that doesn't follow the constitution.
If you would like to provide me a new remedy
that is constitutional, I will follow it. And that might
be a compromise that she could try.

Speaker 3 (44:05):
Here's as you're walking through that scenario. I agree, and
we have an elections chief that is the lieutenant governor.
But if you read what the governor said and his
opinion about what's happened, he is the governor. She is
a lieutenant governor. I don't see the daylight between these two.
They're a ticket, they run together. He invited her on
that ticket to be the lieutenant governor. Does she tell

(44:27):
him to climb a tree? And I'm doing what I want.
It doesn't seem to be the relationship as I've understood it.
So if we're to believe that the governor is supportive
of protecting the legislative branch and you're separate and equal
powers and has said so publicly, why would the executive
branch of Utah, and it's our lieutenant governor not be
consistent with that that message.

Speaker 1 (44:48):
I know it's an opinion, I know, but and I
don't know. I don't know the answer.

Speaker 3 (44:51):
I smell a rats what I'm trying to say, Let
me ask you. So if I don't know even practically
how we talked about it before the break in the
last say, I don't know how practically this can be
pulled off because of how late everything is and how
much work the county clerks have to do. So I
guess my question is, do you think in your deliberations

(45:12):
with your colleagues, but as you're talking to legislative attorneys,
is there a state can all of this continue in
whatever Snail's pace she's created and let that go? But say,
until that's resolved, we're just staying with maps.

Speaker 1 (45:26):
That we have.

Speaker 4 (45:27):
So it's a really interesting conundrum because the court has
really painted not only themselves but the whole state into
this little corner where we have this Map one, which
is obviously unconstitutional. They've already enjoined map see, but also
are twenty twenty one maps. So the only legal maps

(45:49):
that are currently available are the twenty eleven maps, which
at this point, if we had no choice, if we
ran out of time and we don't have a legal
map in front of us, may be our only option.
So it's kind of a pile of chaos that the
Court has created. And I would say it's not really
our job to find a solution for the court for

(46:11):
the chaos of cause that's true. So I'm not sure
the best way forward other than to simply reiterate that
there's a reason why the legislature has the authority to
draw the maps. It's to prevent these types of chaotic
outcomes that we're in right now.

Speaker 2 (46:27):
I cannot believe, Matt, that Mormon Women for Ethical Government
and the League of Women Voters drew this map. I
just I do not. I mean, and we had one
on the day of the ruling game out or the
day after, and asked her, I said, how can you
look at Map one and say there's no German Jerromandarini involved.
This is a blueberry in the middle of some tomato soup.

(46:48):
You go, oh, but it's fair and it represents the people.
That question went right over her head. She couldn't answer it.

Speaker 4 (46:54):
It's actually really interesting to notice that if you looked
at the map see that the legislature put forward, it
was not a very good map for Republicans, and in
fact it probably showed that there would be at least
two seats that would be very vulnerable and competitive over
time probably become more and more competitive. Now, what the
map one is created is a map where we have

(47:16):
three Republican districts that are so packed that they almost
could never In fact, we would get the most right
wing candidates imaginable in those seats. Yes, and in our
one Democrat seat, we're going to get our most left
wing candidate. There is no competitiveness, there's no opportunity for
anything but a fully gerrymandered district in in CD one

(47:38):
and two through four.

Speaker 3 (47:39):
Really quick question. But one of the things that one
of the sentiments we hear from our listeners a lot
is they just want to know that the legislative branch
is fighting to preserve this because the constitution is it's
not yours, it's not anyone on the clock today. This
is our state constitution, this is our legislative branch. They
want to know that you're out, you're protecting it, you're
trying to restore those powers taken are Do you feel

(48:02):
confident that you're doing that?

Speaker 1 (48:04):
I would say yes.

Speaker 4 (48:05):
There's obviously I'm trying to trying to lead the charge
on in the impeachment front. But we have multiple paths
to try to resolve this, and we're exploring them all simultaneously.

Speaker 1 (48:16):
Some of them take time.

Speaker 4 (48:18):
There's some complaints recently about some recent comments have come
out from the legislature about not pursuing an immediate appeal.
There are multiple appeal paths, and we're really just talking
about the emergency appealed path. We are pursuing appeal, we
are pursuing impeachment. We're still pursuing multiple other routes through

(48:38):
legislative fixes, going potentially into a special session right away
to make some corrections, adjusting the courts, their jurisdiction, maybe
even their size.

Speaker 2 (48:48):
Who knows.

Speaker 1 (48:49):
There's a lot of ways we could try to tackle
this moving forward.

Speaker 2 (48:52):
But you're right.

Speaker 4 (48:53):
The most important issue right now and the most urgent
issue is to fix our maps before the election.

Speaker 2 (49:00):
Well, stay representative. We appreciate you swinging on by on
a late Friday. Go enjoy the weekend. Appreciate you, enjoy
the weak joining us in studio. State Representative Matt McPherson
here on the Rod and Greg Show in Utah's Talk
radio one oh five nine k n RS. Rod our
keat along with there he is. He showed up. You're
you're outside tug to Representative McPherson.

Speaker 1 (49:20):
I had to give him last pep talk.

Speaker 3 (49:22):
Okay, I had, I had, I got a plan and
I'm just now here in the cheap seats. I can't
do anything about it. So I had to just tell
the good representative, you.

Speaker 2 (49:29):
Know, yeah, that's what you need to do.

Speaker 3 (49:31):
This is this is you know, for what it's worse,
but yeah, you know.

Speaker 2 (49:35):
The concern I have Greg and hopefully they'll address this
fairly quickly is there are a lot of different opinions
among state lawmakers on the Republican side of the aisle
who have different opinions about what they need to do.
They all know they need to stop this. The approach
is different and I hope they can come together with
a plan. This is what we're doing, This is what
we're gonna do, This what we're going to do, because

(49:56):
I think that's critical. They can't go into this without
a real dedicated plan. In my opinion, that's right.

Speaker 3 (50:02):
In fact, anything that's going to be subsident, you've got
to get two thirds, which means out of seventy five
members of that of the House of Representatives, you need
fifty votes. They have sixty three Republicans out of seventy five,
they need fifty votes. I'll just say this, everything should
start with jealously guarding the separate and equal powers of
that branch. Yes, they all serve in a branch that
existed before they were born. This is not their legislature,

(50:24):
and they don't want to be the legislative body where
history will say this is where you saw a different
legislative body that lost its power to its separate and
equal power to draw the congressional districts. They should feel
the pressure and they should jealously guard that separate and
equal power. And if you look at all you have
to do is look at Washington, DC and see what

(50:45):
that Congress is allowed to happen where they don't pass anything,
they debate nothing. That's so much of that budget, that
federal budget's on autopilot and is just just every year
on entitlements and everything else just automatically gets funded. They
have lost that separate and equal power to such a degree.
That's why you see so many executive orders Republican or Democrat,
because Congress really can't get a thing done. The heck,

(51:07):
the heck. They can't keep the lights on. Yeah, they
can't keep the government open. There's no muscle memory, there's
no institutional memory. And our our you know, our federal
legislative branch, nothing we see in the swamp should Utah
ever allow to happen here. But it will happen if
you allow for that legislative branch to be stripped down,

(51:28):
and it's separate, equal powers taken from it. And that
is exactly what's happened.

Speaker 2 (51:31):
You know what surprises me is this story here in Utah,
because of our conservative nature, is not getting more national
attention on this story because it is and I tell
you why, and I think because of what California did
with Prop fifty and now just coming across tonight, the
state of Texas is now appealing to the US Supreme
Court to overturn or to stay the ruling that came out.

(51:53):
What was there a couple of days ago from a
judge down there, sat Texas, you can't create these five
districts because it's not fair.

Speaker 6 (52:01):
You know that.

Speaker 3 (52:01):
What frustrates me is that the federal nexus for the
Texas redistricting is this the anti discrimination or on racial basis?
Because we're stuck inside of a state process where I
don't our state Supreme court is left of center. We've
been fed bar Utah Bar Association candidates for nomination that
have just not been conservative in any way, so we

(52:24):
don't have the equivalent of the US Supreme Court to
go to. I would love to get that federal nexus
and get something that could get to the federal It
would take them ten seconds to review Utah's constitutional crisis
and solve it, because it's not hard. No, I mean,
you kind of have a legislative.

Speaker 1 (52:41):
Branch draw the maps. It's just it. There's nothing you
can say other than that.

Speaker 2 (52:47):
It is plain as the nose on your face. Read
the Constitution, folks, and it says they're right there.

Speaker 6 (52:51):
Now.

Speaker 2 (52:51):
The interesting thing about what's going on in Texas is
Sam Alito. Justice Alito has asked those who were opposed
to this to be in this court room on Monday,
and he wants to hear from them. Good.

Speaker 1 (53:01):
Yeah, you see, that's that's been so jealous.

Speaker 2 (53:04):
But I go back. What Here's what frustrates me is
Dietro Henderson. I think if she would have had the courage,
could have stood up to this and said, I'm not
accepting this map because it's not approved by lawmaker.

Speaker 1 (53:14):
And let me tell you something.

Speaker 3 (53:15):
It is funny business when you have a governor who
Governor Cox has come out in strong support of our
state constitution, the legislative branch, it's separate, equal powers, but
his lieutenant governor is there should be no daylight between
the governor and lieutenant governor none.

Speaker 1 (53:31):
I mean, it's it's I've not seen it.

Speaker 3 (53:33):
I've never seen a lieutenant governor go rogue on a
governor before they are they are they were on the
ticket together. He invited her on a ticket. Some states
will elect their lieutenant governor separately. That is not the
case here.

Speaker 1 (53:45):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (53:45):
And so there for the sentiments that our governors made,
it should be reflected in the lieutenant governor's administration of
our election law. I mean, she's the lieutenant governor, he's
the governor. There shouldn't be any any contradiction between the two,
and so I don't I think there's a huge problem,
big problem.

Speaker 2 (54:03):
Yeah, there is. All right, We've got a lot more
to say on this Friday edition of the Rod and
Greg Show right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh
five nine. Can Arrests Representative Matt McPherson joined us in
the first two segments of this hour, talking about impeaching
what's her name again.

Speaker 3 (54:17):
Diana Gibson judge and there we go, dirty Diana. We'll
never hear the Michael Jackson version. We just enjoy your
version of any name.

Speaker 2 (54:25):
Over Michael jacks a couple we're catch thank you the
judge in this case. What was her name again? Dirty?

Speaker 9 (54:34):
And uh.

Speaker 1 (54:36):
Gibson?

Speaker 2 (54:37):
Diana Gibbs said, well, she apparently is tidying up the
congressional map. Apparently when she made the map, or whoever
made the map, she didn't take into a fact that
in some cases, Greg, as you have pointed out, and
we've talked about divided a house in half lest some people,
where are we so she's tidying it up today. Let's
go to the phones and get your reaction to what
we're talking about. Eighty eight eight five seven o eight

(54:59):
zero one zero, or on your cell phone dalbound two fifty.
Leave us a message on talkback as well. Let's go
to the phones.

Speaker 3 (55:04):
Let's go to Raquel, who's been waiting from Salt Lake City. Raquel,
Welcome to the Rod and Gregg Show.

Speaker 5 (55:11):
Thank you for having this subject. I think it's so
important that we understand the division of powers within our government.
I think it's really interesting that the legislature and the
governor are just up in arms about a court taking
over their.

Speaker 7 (55:26):
Decision to.

Speaker 5 (55:28):
District and create that map. But it's not much different
than what the governor and the legislature has threatened to
do with cities if the cities don't comply with what
they want for high density housing ADU, so on and
so forth. It's really just usurping the power the local powers.
And it's not just you start to fill this in

(55:49):
all the areas of the state of Utah, and whenever
the legislature or governor doesn't like something, they start to threaten, well,
we'll just take that power away. For you, so I'll
just hang up and go from there.

Speaker 3 (55:59):
Well, thank you, Rakay. I appreciate the sentiment. I've heard
this before. There is there is a real distinct difference.
So I want to share and this isn't I will
before I even explain it. I want to say that
the premise is that we are democratically elected republic. Whatever
level we're talking about, state, county, city, the people decide.

Speaker 1 (56:16):
The people are the boss. That's the way it's supposed
to work.

Speaker 3 (56:18):
And so any any whether it's a state, the counties
are the city. People that are elected to represent the people.
If they fail to do so, they need to be
voted out. And that is kind of the that's the
that's the checks and balances we have. The difference between
are the constitutional separate and equal powers of the executive branch,
legislative and judiciary versus when a city, When a legislature

(56:39):
is working with a county or a city. Is that
that because Utah's this gets a little more complicated. And
if you go back east, where maybe some townships or
boroughs were pre dated Earth, well they predate the Revolutionary
War and they've been around longer than our We've been
a country. But if you're if you're a state and
you are a territory, then you became a state. All

(56:59):
of our counties and all of our cities are creatures
of of the legislative body of laws of statutes. So
you have counties of six classes, and so there's all
these different laws that show how they You have some
strong mayor full time mayorage, you have a part time
mayor with a full time city manager. All of these
versions of counties and cities are products of state law,

(57:20):
which is the legislative purview. So when working with those
cities and those counties and cities, they do have a
very different relationship with the legislative branch and the executive branch,
then are separate and equal branches of government in the
state have with each other. So there is a bit
of a difference. But I will say to Raquel's point,
when you feel like it's been heavy handed, when you

(57:41):
feel like your voice hasn't been heard, that that is
where the voice of the people have to be felt.
And people lose seats and they lose that they will
not win if they feel if they're not listening to
those that they've been elected to represent. And if you
feel like that's Pollyanna. I promise you it's not. I
know the pressure that can be felt, and you'd be surprised.
Lawmakers hear a lot from special interest groups and lobbyists

(58:03):
and organizations and state agencies. Let citizens and constituents they
don't hear as much from and when they do, they
they listen.

Speaker 2 (58:13):
Okay, My question is do they respond to that? Because
you're right, the lobbyists, the special interest group, we're up
there with them all the time. They're chummy chummy with them,
kind of you know, we.

Speaker 1 (58:23):
Get to know each other, You know each other's information information.

Speaker 2 (58:26):
To call a state representative who may not who they
are from, you know, from anywhere, will they be heard
and will that lawmaker pay attention to it.

Speaker 3 (58:34):
Here's a life hack to test. And if it doesn't work,
I want you to call a show and tell me
because it used to work.

Speaker 1 (58:39):
If you feel.

Speaker 3 (58:40):
Comfortable putting your and I wouldn't send it to seventy
five House members. I would go and look up Eli
dot Utah dot gov. I would look up your member
of the of the House. And I can't speak for
the Senate. They're the they're the House of Lords. I I
don't know what they do over there. I think they
got a gas leak over there. Frankly, they're a bit docile,
but in the house still, I will tell you know.

(59:00):
But what I'll tell you is, if you feel comfortable
putting your address, can put in the subject line constituent
and you put your address house. Districts are small enough,
they'll know where you live. They'll they know their district,
and that has a weight to it. If it doesn't
have a weight, call the show, because I think that
has a strong, strong weight to it. I'd answer your
question by.

Speaker 2 (59:19):
So you're putting the subject line, yes.

Speaker 3 (59:21):
You email your representative and you put in the subject
line constituent, and you put your address, and you're in
your phone number. If you want to be called or
replied to by email your email, they'll have your email address.
I think you'll get a reply and I and those
aren't just shots in the dark. Those conversations are meaningful
to lawmakes.

Speaker 2 (59:38):
So it's not like some form email no that they
put out no, or some staffer nope calling you. I mean,
I don't know how many lawmakers have staffers, but I
think they have.

Speaker 1 (59:47):
Interns during the session, not during not not right.

Speaker 2 (59:50):
Now, how many if if one of those lawmakers would
pick up the phone and call you, yes, they will,
you say, you say they will.

Speaker 3 (59:57):
They will Yep, lunch on that one. I'm telling you
it's not even hard. If you now, if you send
a blanket email to one hundred and four lawmakers, soy
five House members and twenty nine senators, it's not going
to come back. It's not going to ping back. If
you send it to yours and you put constituent, and
you put your address, especially in the House where those
districts are smaller than Senate districts, they have walked They've likely.

Speaker 2 (01:00:18):
Walked your street. They have to get elected to them.

Speaker 3 (01:00:21):
That's how they know. And I'm telling you they don't
want to blow that off. They don't because they because
they don't get enough of those out outreach like that.

Speaker 2 (01:00:29):
And all my year's wife's lived, I've never had a
lawmaker come and knock on my door.

Speaker 3 (01:00:33):
Have you ever put your name and the phone number?
Have you ever put your address and constituent in the
subject line of an email? Try it out, tell me
how it works. I guarantee you, well, I might guarantee
you because you know you're you're rod Arquette.

Speaker 2 (01:00:45):
You know that a different ruy any weight? Yeah, all right,
We've got a lot more to come and our number three, Yeah,
I believe that already of the rotting Greg show right
here on youtuh, let's talk rady old one all five
nine K and are I.

Speaker 1 (01:00:57):
Stay with us?

Speaker 2 (01:01:03):
There was a story out Greg, you and I I
think you've shared this with me as well. We were
not excited about taking.

Speaker 1 (01:01:10):
Math no in school.

Speaker 10 (01:01:12):
No it it wasn't our favorite subjects, right, But there
was a story that came out about I think it
was what you see San Diego where they found.

Speaker 2 (01:01:22):
That students couldn't even do simple addition and subtraction, yet
they were getting into college.

Speaker 3 (01:01:27):
There were medial math courses for college. Students had to
go down to the elementary and middle school level level,
which if I mean that's I would say, then whatever
they were learning in public ed K through twelve wasn't
working If you have to go down to the elementary
and middle school level in college. Something got missed along
the way.

Speaker 2 (01:01:44):
Well what happens when grade stopped meaning anything? Joining us
on our Newsmaker line right now is Kelsey Piper. She
is a contributor Right Argument magazine. She wrote about this. Kelsey,
thanks for joining us this afternoon. What was your reaction
to the story that surfaced about UCC and Diego.

Speaker 11 (01:02:00):
So we have been talking a lot about how post
COVID and with screens in classrooms, kids are doing worse.
And when I first heard this story, I thought that
was what was going on, like, oh, our kids, you know,
they can't do algebra. But the more I dug into it,
that's not exactly what happened. The problem is that since
you see San Diego no longer requires a test, these kids,
they were admitting just off grades, and some high schools

(01:02:23):
just chose, yeah, what if we give everybody a day,
then they're all college ready, So that it was a
different story than I was at first expecting.

Speaker 3 (01:02:31):
Do you suspect that one of the one of the
culprits that's been thought of is a discovery math common
core math. There was a massive reform in how we
deliver education the kids in math and science. Is the
changing curriculum part of the problem.

Speaker 11 (01:02:48):
So I think there's a bunch of things that have
gone wrong in math education. One is absolutely trying to
change the curriculum, and sometimes in ways that have been
out of step with how kids actually learned best. There's
been a move away from stuff like drilling your multiplication tables,
but you do need to drill your multiplication tables in
order to do well in advanced math. Then part of
it is a lack of talent. There are very few

(01:03:09):
people who have the skills to teach calculus to high
schoolers and want to teach calculus to high schoolers. You know,
you have those skills, you could probably go make a
lot more money doing something else. So that's part of
the problem. But then the other thing that's like magnified
in this case is just a lack of accountability. Why
would you bother teaching calculus to high school students If
there's no test, there's no checking whether they learned it

(01:03:31):
or not. Why would they bother learning? And why would
you bother you know, the grind and effort of really teaching.
If instead you give them an A everybody's happy And
the only problem is that down the road they don't
actually know math.

Speaker 2 (01:03:44):
Yeah, Kelsey, I know you talked to some math teachers
about this. What were they saying about this and what
they face every day in high school?

Speaker 11 (01:03:52):
So I was so confused by this, and I went
to some math teachers and I said, how could you
possibly be teaching a calculus class where nobody knows any calculus?
Explained to the problem. The problem is these kids are
coming up from lower grades missing like very basic stuff
like fractions. You're supposed to learn fractions in third, fourth,
fifth grade. The kid gets to high school and they

(01:04:13):
still can't do any operations with fractions. The math teacher
is actually not allowed.

Speaker 7 (01:04:17):
To help them.

Speaker 11 (01:04:18):
Under like all of the current guidelines, it is not
appropriate for a high school teacher to be teaching elementary
school material. That's well intentioned. They don't want to hold
kids back, but if the kids don't know fractions, it
is a waste. There are time to lecture them about
into girls and derivatives, but that's what the teachers are
required to do. So they're standing there explaining calculus. They

(01:04:38):
know the kids aren't getting it, or they know that
very few of the kids are getting it, and then
they don't want to fail the entire class, so they
give as to you know, the ones who turned in
all their homework. But none of these kids know calculus.

Speaker 12 (01:04:50):
You know.

Speaker 3 (01:04:51):
The irony is they don't want to they don't want
to teach fractions in elementary or middle school math curriculum
to their high school kids. But it looks like that
the end result is that we're living it a higher
ed to have to go down to do remedial classes
down to the elementary and middle school level just to
try to get students to the high school. Then the
college level math isn't that isn't that kind of the

(01:05:11):
consequence if you don't, if you don't teach it to
them at some point in public heid.

Speaker 11 (01:05:16):
Yeah, Well, and that's what you see San Diego found,
and you see San Diego as a very competitive school,
and you cannot be admitted with having at least gotten
a good grade in Algebrick two. And many of these
kids had gotten good grades in pre calculus or in calculus.
But when they went and they tested where the kids
were actually at, yeah, they found they had to place
them into elementary school math because that was how far

(01:05:37):
behind they were. You can't just keep kicking the can
down the road, because you know, by the time they're
attending college, we are paying or they are paying tens
of thousands of dollars to be in that classroom. It
would be a lot cheaper to teach them fractions when
they're supposed to learn fractions than to be trying to
make the difference for them later.

Speaker 2 (01:05:57):
Kelsey, do you fear what has happened that you see
San Diego is actually taking place all around the country
and nobody has brought it to anybody's attention as of yet.

Speaker 11 (01:06:06):
So I think, you see San Diego is an unusually
extreme case. They compare notes with the other University of
California schools, and the other University of California schools were like, yeah,
we've seen something of an increase in kids needing extreme
remedial programs, but you know, we went from fifty kids
who need it to one hundred kids who need it.
At you see San Diego, they went from thirty two
kids who needed it to more than a thousand in

(01:06:28):
their most recent regment class. So they, you know, certainly
are getting hit harder than everywhere else, And that's partly
about them changing like which schools they recruit from and
stuff like that. But I do think this is not
just a California problem. There are high schools all over
the country that have sort of decided to slide by,

(01:06:48):
and there are teachers in this position of being told
to teach material that the kids aren't ready for, and
then you just kind of have a like farce of
a class where they teach knowing nobody will understand them,
and then they don't fail all the kids, because what
will be the point. If you're a parent, I do
think you should be a little bit worried that your
kids school might even if they're getting good grades, they

(01:07:08):
might not have mastered the material and they might be
in for a rude awakening at some.

Speaker 3 (01:07:13):
Point, you know, whether it's a public public school or
an institution of a public education, institution of higher learning
the taxpayers pay. At some point, it doesn't seem like
the right trajectory to have these kids completely unprepared and
then going into state schools of higher learning where they're
going to there's going to be taxpayer dollars for remedial
classes to then try to catch them up. Is anybody

(01:07:36):
caught that this is a problem now or a problem
later and we ought to deal with it earlier then later.
I mean, is there a change in how the curriculum
and the and the mastery of math is happening, or
any of these topics is happening in our public schools.

Speaker 11 (01:07:50):
Yeah, well, we have to turn things around. And I
think part of the answer is that you have to
expect those results in elementary school, or you're not going
to get them until the point where you test for
them and actually have some accountability. There's a lot of
problems with like some ways we've tried accountability that just
punished teachers for having poor kids or for having kids

(01:08:11):
who started out behind. But you have to do something
to ensure that you can tell which kids are actually
ready to move on to the next level. And you
can't just let kids move on to the next level
without learning, because as soon as you do that, a
lot of schools will be like, well, what do we
have to lose, We'll just stop teaching and they'll all pass.
Everybody wins. So I think it's unfortunate that there's been
a bit of a movement away from mandatory tests to

(01:08:34):
graduate from high school, mandatory tests to move on from
lower grades. You want to do that thoughtfully, but if
you don't do it at all, you sort of lose
the one thing that was keeping the system honest. And
without that, a lot of the systems won't be honest.

Speaker 2 (01:08:48):
I'm wish I would have had math teachers which said, hey,
he showed up, I'll give them an a.

Speaker 3 (01:08:52):
I know this whole you know, social promotion. I did
not live in a time like that. I'd have been
an Australia student.

Speaker 2 (01:08:58):
Yeah. Isn't that funny how teachers are afraid to hold
students back anymore or give.

Speaker 1 (01:09:03):
Them a failing No, I heard it. Educated tell me.

Speaker 3 (01:09:05):
Once they have these stats they have to make, so
they just basically reverse engineer from the stats. Whatever the
stat is, whatever there's ratiows or whatever they had to do.
They didn't want to change it, so they would just
do it exactly how they were supposed to say, their
you know, their formula.

Speaker 1 (01:09:19):
Yeah, I'm being interrupted.

Speaker 2 (01:09:21):
Wow, all right, more there routing Greg show coming up
on this Friday and Talk Radio one O five to
nine can arrests. All right. Well, one of the issues
that I think people really turned down to support President
Trump in the last election was this issue of trans
athletes allowing you boys into girls bathrooms, common sense, fair
minded americans. Greg looked at them, went, now, this isn't
going to happen. It was a big, big issue. But

(01:09:42):
here we go again. The Democrats being out of touch.
One hundred and thirty Democratic lawmakers have now asked the
Supreme Court to side with trans athletes in an upcoming
case and joining us on our newsmaker line to talk
more about that, it's Catherine Hamilton. Catherine, thank you very much.
He's from bright bart by the way, give us a
background on this, how this all got started and who's
behind it.

Speaker 9 (01:10:01):
Yeah, so thank you for having me. The background is
that the Supreme Court is hearing two cases on January
thirteenth about the laws banning males transgender identifying males from
playing on female sports teams. So one is at Idaho
and one is West Virginia. Both of those states are
asking the Court to back their laws after they were
challenged by transgender athletes and they've been blocked by lower courts.

(01:10:23):
So they're a little bit different, and that's why the
Supreme Court agreed to take up both. Idaho is asking
if their law violates the equal protection cause of their
fourteenth Amendment, but Virginia's asking the same thing, but they're
also asking if it violates Title nine, which bar sex
discrimination as a condition of receiving federal funding. So that's
the background. On those two things, and then this week

(01:10:45):
these Democrats, one hundred and thirty of them, basically asked
the Supreme Court decide with transgender athletes, which I would
say is not shocking, but their reasoning is, you know, I.

Speaker 3 (01:10:54):
Hathorne, I'm surprised that this is still a thing. I
guess you got to adjudicate it. But these hundred and
thirty Democrats have signed on and are asking the Supreme
Court's consideration. But at the same time, you're seeing the
Olympics saying that they're going to hold their games and
by gender and by chromosomes, they're not They're not going
to let people choose. You're seeing the kind of the

(01:11:15):
pendulum swing back the other way. Is this just maybe
a last holdout or do you see this as a
resurgence of this issue. Is this going to become controversial
and unknown again, or do we think we're going back
to normalcy at this point.

Speaker 9 (01:11:29):
I think it's a push from the radical left wing
of the party. I mean, out of the one hundred
and thirty onemakers that signed this Friend of the Court brief,
it was AOC the King, Jeffrees, ilhan Omar, Chuck Schumer
was noticeably absent, and you know that wing of the
party is trying to push him out right now. So
I think they're holding onto the issue. But I would say,
like you're saying, Poling is not with them, There's been

(01:11:51):
a large reversal in the sports world. There's been a
large reversal overseas in Europe, in the Netherlands that started
pushing these type of things first, and just think about
a Trump victory. Do you remember that abbot came out
that said, you know, Harris is for they them, I'm
for you. That was a huge, a huge moment in
that campaign. I mean, people are tired of it because
most people don't agree with gender identity over a biological reality.

Speaker 2 (01:12:14):
Catherine, you indicated a moment ago that you weren't surprised
that they did this, but you said the reasoning behind
it was a little shocking. Can you explain that a
little bit more?

Speaker 9 (01:12:23):
And you know, it's shocking to me. I mean, I
guess it's not shocking to me as a reporter, but
it's shocking that this is this is what they believe,
and that people really believe this. The irony of this
is that they want the Supreme Court to view rejecting
a transgender identifying athlete as discrimination on the basis of sex.
So democrats are simultaneously denying the importance of biological sex

(01:12:45):
while demanding that laws designed for biological reality, the reality
of male and female, that they be warped to cater
one subjective sense of self, which they call gender identity.

Speaker 3 (01:12:57):
You know, the simple test for me would be just
I think that he can be a good teacher. I mean,
if you had a kid, if a child or a grandchild,
and it was a girl and they had to play
a sport against a boy, how would you feel as
a parent or a grandparent? And I think the answer
would be pretty quick, It's pretty intuitive. Do why is
that just basic standard not being applied? Do you think

(01:13:20):
in this issue? How could any do all these people?
Are they childless and or not have any grandkids? I mean,
can't they put the shoe on the other foot?

Speaker 9 (01:13:28):
You know, a lot of it's ideological when it's coming
from up top, when it's coming from DC. But when
it comes to regular people, I think a lot of
people get tied up into the empathy of oh, how
would I feel if my child told me? You know,
they believed they were a different gender. How would I
feel if they couldn't play on that sports team. I
understand that, you know, issues where people's feelings are involved,
they're always tricky. But when you look at what's happening

(01:13:51):
on a broad scale, when you look at what happens
to girls that have had to go up against boys
who say they're girls. The why spinning out has not
been good, and there have been different ways that people
have proposed addressing this. They said, hey, let's do a
league that has people who abide by the gender identity
concept that they compete against each other. But they're trying

(01:14:12):
I think the ideological push outside of what we're talking
about with oh, parents or empathy or whatever, is that.
I think some of these lawmakers, some of these ideological people,
they don't they want us to be confused about basic things.
If we can be confused about what a man is
and what a woman is, we're easily controlled as a
society because we don't believe our own eyes. And I

(01:14:34):
think that's the reason why some Democrats are still trying
to push this.

Speaker 2 (01:14:37):
Catherine, you hear a lot of people talked about you know,
this issue is an eighty twenty issue, an eighty twenty issue.
I think this is like a ninety nine to one
issue in my opinion. Yet here you have the rep
the Democrats pushing for this again. Is this just, you know,
another illustration as to how out of touch they are
with what the American people, common sense, fair minded Americans

(01:14:58):
think about this issue.

Speaker 9 (01:15:00):
You know, A part of me also wonders if they're
afraid of their base a little bit, because you have
the transgender coalition that's now joined with the pro Palestine
coalition that's joined with the Antifa side of things, and
all of these people are under a big tent, even
if it doesn't really make any sense, and maybe they're afraid.
They're afraid, hey, we back down from this issue, maybe

(01:15:21):
they won't support us anymore, or maybe they'll put in
people who will support them. And so I do think
it is political. We have the midterms coming up, and
that might be why the more radical left wing that's
kind of seizing on this post shutdown moment maybe why
they're standing standing up and trying to do this. I
would say so from my perspective, if I were them
with a six streme majority Supreme Court that has dealt

(01:15:44):
major blows to transgender activists here. It might not be
the best time for them, but it's a better time
for conservatives.

Speaker 2 (01:15:50):
On our Newsmaker line from Bright Bart Catherine Hamilton talking
about this case. Supreme Court will hear it in January.
We'll get a ruling by what I think the end
of June.

Speaker 1 (01:15:59):
Yep, we always do.

Speaker 3 (01:16:00):
I'm think I think we've cracked the code on this one.

Speaker 1 (01:16:04):
I think I think the pendulum is going the right way.

Speaker 2 (01:16:06):
Yeah, I do too, all right, our listen back Friday
segments coming your way next right here on the Rotten
Greg Show and Talk Radio one oh five nine kN rs.
And I know earlier this week, well I was gone.
You had the opportunity to talk one of our favorites,
Kurt Schlickter, who writes for town Hall.

Speaker 3 (01:16:20):
We failed, man, very mysterious man. You never know what's
on his mind. You have to kind of unpack what
he's saying and read between the lines.

Speaker 6 (01:16:27):
Not at all.

Speaker 3 (01:16:29):
When we had Kurt on the show, his column that
we just had to get more explanation of, was it's
time to purge the GOP of these backstabbers, sissies and narcissists. Kurt.
The question is who should we start with who are
the big problems in the GOP when you talk backstabbers,
sissies and narcissists.

Speaker 7 (01:16:47):
Well, look, we have a problem in our red states.
And you guys in Utah know it. Well. You can't
get anywhere effectively in a deep red state unless you
join the Republican Party. So people who normally become Democrats
become Republicans, and they become lousy Republicans, soop Republicans, hitsy Republicans,

(01:17:08):
Republicans who can't make it happen. I call them the
electile dysfunction caucus. All right, It just it just doesn't work.
And they certainly don't satisfy. These these folks, and there
are plenty of them, and a lot of them are
these loser backbencher. You know, I'm a I'm an Iowa

(01:17:30):
State senator. You know as if that, You know, I
can't think of anything more pathetic than someone chiseling that
into his headstone. But you know, they have this inflated
sense of their own importance and they don't understand that
they are part of a movement. It's not about them,

(01:17:54):
it's not about their moral narcissism. It's not about getting attention.
It's about working together to keep these damn communists from
ruining our country. And there are a lot of them,
so narrowing it down is kind of difficult.

Speaker 3 (01:18:09):
You know, you've described the frustration of our politics, and
we've got a lot of it. And we've actually got
a really hostile substate Supreme Court. We've got a judge
that's redistricted a plus twenty four percent Kamala Harris congressional
district of our four we only get four, you know,
with a candidate who couldn't win a single swing state
in America. So we're dealing with this, these sissies, these fredocons,

(01:18:33):
you know as you call them. Here's here's my question.
Do the people that are rhinos call them whatever you want.
Do they know they're useful idiots for the left or
are they just they're just trojan horses and Democrats to
their core?

Speaker 1 (01:18:44):
What is it?

Speaker 3 (01:18:45):
Are they just are they just being used or they're
used or they know they've embedded themselves in a party
they don't belong.

Speaker 7 (01:18:52):
Well, they know that, but they also they've got the
Mike Pence crawl, right, yeah, and you know it's Mike
Pence the most ostentatiously Christian guy you'd ever meet. And
I do believe Jesus had something to say about the
guys who are ostentatiously holy. This is the essence of

(01:19:16):
these guys. I'm you know, you know when I do
things that happen to h support my own agenda, why
it's from the deep. I'm drawing deep from the well
of morality. When you people do things that support your
interested well, you're selfish and bad. So I'm a good person.

(01:19:37):
By denying the majority its will, No, they're not good people.
They're jerks, and they should be treated accordingly. And we've
got to start getting ruthless about it for two. And
I'll tell you who's fault it is. Okay, just like
it California, where I come from. Most of the time,
the problem is California's we didn't get out there and say,

(01:20:00):
hell no, we're not going to take him. The prom
in Utah is Utah's who put up with these guys.
The problem in Indiana, for instance, where they won't redistrict
is Indiana's who voted for these clowns and keep reelecting
them because well, he's a good guy and he's the
local buick dealership. You know, he's a swell guy. No, no,

(01:20:24):
hold them to standard, hold their feet to the fire.

Speaker 1 (01:20:29):
In Indiana is Utah.

Speaker 3 (01:20:30):
We've got our challenges here, But you mentioned Indiana Mike Pence.
He went in there and he persuaded members of that
legislature to not redistrict. He's also have you noticed he's
not found anywhere in the Operation Arctic Frost. I don't
see his name with all the other ones. I don't
know if that's a coincidence or what. But the vim
and vigor I'm hearing from Kirk Schlicker right now, which
I love and that's why I read everything. You're right,

(01:20:53):
How do we get that kind of enthusiasm in these midterms?
We don't have Trump on the ballot. He's a guy
that's a no nonsense guy. He calls it as he
sees it. But we need maybe what you call the
non high propensity voters or the non high propensity votes,
people that really like to vote for Trump, but they
don't really trust politicians or like politics. How do we

(01:21:13):
get people out in twenty six and really do what
you're saying. The people have to address the people that
are undermining this country and the everyday people.

Speaker 7 (01:21:21):
Look, we all have to get out there, we all
have to spread the message. We all have to make
sure that people are going to vote. It's going to
take a lot of hard work. But the historical trends
are against us. Okay, we've got I mean, the last
the mid term mid term just a few weeks ago
showed that our people aren't turning out. As you point
it out, well, we've got to go out and do it. It's
going to be hard. Historically, the out of party party loses.

(01:21:46):
So we're going against his free here doesn't mean you know,
nothing is written. We can go and we can change
those historical trends that in fact happened in two thousand
and two.

Speaker 1 (01:21:57):
So you're going, yeah, a good guy.

Speaker 7 (01:22:01):
You know, it's gonna be hard work. It's gonna be time,
it's gonna be effort, it's gonna be money, and we've
got to provide results. Now everything changes that Donald Trump's
economic policies come through. And I've been through this. This
is my third time. All right. We had Ronald Reagan,
uh took a couple of years to fix Jimmy Carter's disaster,

(01:22:21):
and holy cow, we went through the we went through
the room and Trump won. Took a while, but we
got through it and suddenly we were booming. Hopefully Donald
Trump could get things booming in the next twelve months.
If everything is booming, we're gonna do just.

Speaker 3 (01:22:36):
Find I agree with you. Let's say we get our
House in order. You've got characters like a Mom Donnie,
and you've got I guess someone that's a pal of
his is going to run against a Keem Jeffreyes. You've
got some real dysfunction I think on the Democrat side
on who's their leader, who's going who's going to claim
that leadership, that manal responsibility? And none of them look
very good or appealing. Is there a way in the midterms,

(01:22:57):
even with the House in order, that we can point
to these these this cli on Show and Go. Really,
is that going to compel people to not vote for
Democrats because they don't have a leadership and they actually
want to be Communists?

Speaker 7 (01:23:09):
Look, Montami is going to do terrible things. Democrats are
and we should point it out continuously while pointing out
our good things. Okay, we have a big advantage. Our
policies are correct, they're morally right, they're economically right, they're
politically sound, they're good for America, they're good for families.

(01:23:30):
We're in the right, so we've got that advantage. I
was a lawyer for a long time. You always don't
have that on your side. So that makes the things
kind of you know, it makes them a lot easier
than they could be. The Democrats have historical friends, but
they also have a problem. You mentioned Mondonna, it's terrible.

(01:23:52):
They're going to do terrible damage. Look, I survived California, Okay,
I know what these people do to a great state.

Speaker 8 (01:24:02):
Yeah, and if.

Speaker 7 (01:24:03):
We could transmit that message at the same time, say
hey and look at our unemployment orright, look at the
implation rate, look at the interest rate. You know, we're
gonna have a compelling case. If we can't do it,
we're going to get our clocks cleaned. And you know
what I mean, how can you argue that we shouldn't right,
if we don't perform, we don't deserve to win.

Speaker 2 (01:24:25):
Kurt Schlichter from town Hall, you know, I hear that
term backstandard were that old o J song, Yes, baas
great song good? So absolutely yeah, And it's true. You know,
they smile at you and then they stab you right.

Speaker 3 (01:24:36):
And he brings up a good point. I think it
and I think it should really sound familiar to a
lot of U times. There's a lot of Democrats out
there that look around and say, I can't get elect
it as a Democrat, so they run as a Republican
and they make they don't make a very good Republican.

Speaker 6 (01:24:47):
They do, they too.

Speaker 3 (01:24:49):
I agree with him, all right, there's a lot of that.
There's a lot of that.

Speaker 9 (01:24:52):
All right.

Speaker 2 (01:24:52):
Some big changes coming your way when it comes to
education in America today. We'll talk about that coming up
next on the rod In Greg Show, another segment of
our Listen Back Friday segments that we do. Linda McMahon,
who I think has faced a big challenge in taking
down the Education Department under the direction of President Trump,
announced plans earlier this week to start making some changes Greg,

(01:25:12):
giving more and more control. She's splitting up, sending some
to department. But the end result, Greg, is what giving
states more control about education.

Speaker 3 (01:25:20):
I agree, and I think that from this show and
from earlier discussions. If you have colleges for their remedial
math that have to drawback all the way to elementary
and middle school curriculum, to get a kid in college ready,
then what was that Department of Education doing in the
first place.

Speaker 1 (01:25:35):
I think it's an indictment of the whole thing.

Speaker 2 (01:25:37):
Well, we talked earlier this week with Alfonso Aguilar. He's
the senior director of Communications and government Affairs at Defending Education,
and we asked Alfonso his reaction to what the Secretary
of Education outlined earlier this week.

Speaker 12 (01:25:50):
Well, I think it's extraordinary. It's a first step to
begin reducing the federal bureaucracy on education, and that's going
to empower states to innovate and serve better their students.
They're going to have more freedom because you're going to
have less strings from the federal government. They're gonna have

(01:26:16):
the money. Money is going to continue to flow to
the states, but the process is going to be more streamlined,
less strings, more effectively so that states can use the
money and put it in the classroom for the benefit
of students. It means the federal government being less involved

(01:26:37):
or or creating or with the states creating less obstacles,
as I said, allowing them to have the freedom to
to focus on students. And so you know, the federal
government the education is the responsibility of the States Constitution
is very clear, and this is about reducing that footprint

(01:27:01):
of the federal government. So what Secretary McMahon announced was
six partnerships with four different federal agencies where different functions
of the Department Education will be transferred to the Department
of Labor, Department of State, Department of Interior HHS, and
they'll be responsible for administering, managing those programs. So the

(01:27:27):
idea is to show Congress that this works. It's kind
of like, as the Secretary says, it's a proof of
concept period, to show that we can do this and
that will be effective. And once Congress understands that this
is indeed effective, we can the White House can begin
working with Congress to pass legislation to finally dismantle the

(01:27:49):
Department of Education.

Speaker 3 (01:27:51):
You know, I'm really intrigued by the six offices that
are going to four federal agencies because I do believe
that within the Department of Education, you can have a
political agenda that kind of crosses over the different duties
or functions that the Department of Education would do. But
if you take specific services to students and you put
them into a different federal agency, that doesn't really have

(01:28:11):
any politics when it comes to public head. It just
does its job. The theory is you're going to deliver
services in a more efficient way, tainted less by politics
of education, which there seems to be a lot of.
Do you subscribe to that? What chance do you give
this experiment of taking these six offices and putting them
into four separate agencies federal agencies.

Speaker 12 (01:28:32):
Well, I think really very successful. The Department Education already
has a partnership with the Department of Labor. They had
transferred to Workforce Development portfolio. So now they're transferring the
primary education and secondary education portfolio as well the Department
of Labor as well as the post secondary education to

(01:28:55):
the Department of Labor. So I think this is going
to be successful. We don't need need a Department of Education.
During the shutdown, we saw it became evident to everyone
now we don't need a Department education. Schools continuing to operate,
children were going to school, teachers were being paid. Uh,
schools were still receiving federal money.

Speaker 11 (01:29:17):
Uh.

Speaker 12 (01:29:17):
So uh, you know, the federal government really doesn't have
a major role to play. The federal government does have
a role, but it's limited and uh it should you know,
it can be very well administered by different agencies. As
you say, if you break down that federal bureaucracy that

(01:29:38):
you know has shown that it has a political agenda,
and you have different agencies managing different portfolios, it can
more effectively manage those education activities that funding without imposing
any types of ideology or strings, allowing empowering the states
to you know, do what they want to do to

(01:29:58):
properly serve students, to ensure that they get a quality education.
Look dismantling the federal the parm education means at the end,
better education for our children in schools. That's what it means.
You know, we've seen every Republican pressident, with the exception

(01:30:19):
of one or two, since Ronald Reagan said that we're
going to do away with the Department Education. It didn't happen.
President Trump made a commitment and he's following through.

Speaker 1 (01:30:27):
Again.

Speaker 12 (01:30:28):
This is an administrative process. We do need legislation because
if we don't pass legislation, a future Democrat administration could
receive everything and reveal the Department Education. So, as Secretary
McMahon said, this is a proof of concept to show
Congress that this can work. That different departments of the

(01:30:48):
federal government can manage different portfolios of the Prime Education
and once they see that, then we can begin introducing legislation.
How long will that proof of constant perior last, you know,
given months, but hopefully we can start seeing some legislation
next year.

Speaker 2 (01:31:07):
Do you need to go through the process because I've
read some people analyzing this saying it's a little piecemeal.
They wish you would have been more aggressive aggressive. Can
you be more aggressive of you got to take these
steps off FUSO First?

Speaker 12 (01:31:22):
Well, I mean, it's such a massive bureaucracy that you
have to do it right. So doing it this way
on a piecemeal basis makes sense. Doing it first administratively,
you know, they've they've laid off over fifty percent of
the staff of the Department of Education. Some of the
staff has been detailed to the other agency. So they're

(01:31:44):
doing it very cautiously, doing responsibly so that everything works.
The idea is again to ensure that the federal programs
continuing because they're mandated by law, but that they're provided
you a more effective way. That money is delivered in
a more effective way so that states can use it

(01:32:09):
better to provide services to students. So again, it's not
eliminating the federal role on education. It's right sizing the
role of the federal government. It doesn't have to lead
under a constitution responsible for education. So it's sending back

(01:32:31):
education to the states. So states and everybody understands that
it's states who are responsible for education. The federal government
can support, can provide resources. But that's about it. And
the other thing with funding the funding will continue is
just that it will come from different agencies in a
more streamlined fashion, with less red tape, with less strings,

(01:32:56):
and again that that will be easier than for stage
to use that money to improve education at the case
of twelve level, at the university, college level, any other areas.

Speaker 2 (01:33:09):
Alfonso Aguilar from the group Defending Education, talking about changes
in the education department. We got Thanksgiving. You realize that
Thanksgiving is next week?

Speaker 1 (01:33:18):
Yeah? Are you staying at home?

Speaker 2 (01:33:20):
What are you doing staying home?

Speaker 1 (01:33:21):
Yeah? I'm too.

Speaker 2 (01:33:22):
We're the in laws this time around.

Speaker 1 (01:33:24):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:33:24):
I keep people keep saying, Oh, is it going to
get political or not? People want to talk about that
a lot. My family, we've kind of got it down.
We know kind of where everybody's at. Doesn't really come up, you.

Speaker 2 (01:33:33):
Know, doesn't.

Speaker 1 (01:33:33):
In our house, we're so good. A lot of football
comes up, A lot of football comes up.

Speaker 2 (01:33:37):
Cowboys play against Kansas City. They're as good as they
used to be.

Speaker 3 (01:33:42):
Actually, you're catching in Kansas City at the right time.
They're on a little bit of a downswing.

Speaker 2 (01:33:46):
And by the way, next week Greg and I will
be gone. We'll have great programming for my hard talk programming.
So we want to wish each and every one of
you a very happy Thanksgiving. And that does it for
us for this week and actually for next week. We'll
be back on Monday, December. Fore that sounds like a
long way away, it doesn't. Yeah, head up, shoulders back.
May God bless you and your family, This great country

(01:34:06):
of ours, have a great, great Thanksgiving week. Everybody

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

Stuff You Should Know

.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: Legislature's Plans to Deal with Judge Dianna Gibson's Congressional Maps

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;}Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes