The Rod and Greg Show: Necessity of Voter ID; Judicial Transparency; Plastic Surgeons Break Rank on GA Care

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The people up in the Capitol. Boy, when we talk,
they listen. I got some feedback trouble with the you know,
we talked about that whole home rerecord lobby that somehow
got Wyler's bill passed. Wyler's bill passed that, and then
we found out there was like a New York Post
article and a UK Daily mail. I got some centers
that are not happy with me because they're they significant.

(00:23):
Others are listeners to our program and they're like, you
know so. But I stand by the information, which is report.
We call balls and strikes here. That's all we do.
Also had another lawmaker who gave a pretty good answer
about why with private property and the Jazz or the
Delta Center. He made a constitutional argument why it is

(00:45):
within their right to prohibit guns even including concealed carry
permit holders, which if we want to get into that
layer in the show, I think the reasoning is at
least compelling enough to for your review, folks, for your review.

Speaker 2 (01:00):
Well, we'll talk about that. We've got a lot, like
you were saying, Greg, we got a lot to get
to today. John Thune is he from South Dakota. I
think he's South Dakota, right, right, he is waffling on
the Save Act like Greg like you wouldn't believe. And
we've got a SoundBite with that. We'll talk about that.
We'll also talk with State Center Chris Wilson. He has
got a bill, a couple of bills I think, up

(01:21):
at the Utah State Legislature on judicial transparency. The State
Bar held the news conference I believe on money. It
may have been yesterday up on the hill. They're basically
telling lawmakers to back off, and lawmakers going, eh.

Speaker 1 (01:35):
Well, the state Bar has got a lot of nerves.
They went and came the whole judicial nomination process where
they got to control it, and by law they had
a selection committee where only the people they liked did.
They give the options to the government to pick from
which call accumulatively has created this left of center court
that we have to deal with now. Yeah, so anyway,
the bar has some nerve to say leave us alone.

(01:57):
Because the bar didn't leave us alone, folks. They went
helped create this mess with this you know, Democrat district
that they went and made without the legislature having any involvement.

Speaker 2 (02:06):
So well, we want to start off today. More and
more Hollywood types are coming out telling other Hollywood tape
types shut up.

Speaker 1 (02:14):
It's so refreshing. It's just just about time.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
Who cares anymore?

Speaker 3 (02:18):
Right?

Speaker 1 (02:19):
Yes, Rich, we played the Ricky Gervais thing when he
said in the Golden Globes number of years ago and
he was ahead.

Speaker 2 (02:24):
Of his time.

Speaker 1 (02:24):
Were saying six years ago, you know nothing about life. Yeah,
you've you've went to school less than Greta Thumber. So
don't don't don't just shut up, take your award, shut
up and go sit down.

Speaker 2 (02:32):
Well, before we get into some of those comments, I
want you to hear that there is a reporter with
gb News and because of his act, and my guest
is it means Great Britain News. Well, this reporter decided
to go to Billy's home. Billy Eilish is home or
three or four eight million dollar estate on Native American
land and he wanted to get in. Listen to what happened.

Speaker 4 (02:54):
First of all, it's not ironic massive gates keeping people out.
I thought Billy didn't believe in borders. According to the Driveway,
Billy does believe in borders. She believes in massive gates
keeping people out. A couple of cameras up there as well.
The lights on, so somebody must be home. Let us in, please, Billy.

(03:17):
We are here because this is stolen land, Billy, and
we think we should be given access to your quite
lovely three million dollar mansion. And such is Billy's concerned
for security and privacy. It's surrounded by pretty decent security fencing,
very nice, indeed, massive security hedges as well.

Speaker 2 (03:35):
I just love it. The guy worked around the gate
and that gig grig must be ten to fifteen feet tall.
That's a high gate and he just tried to get in.
He said, Hey, if you're on stolen land, I want
to piece that land.

Speaker 1 (03:46):
And that's it. Of course, if it's stolen, then if
you stole something, return it if you think it's really stolen.
It is just a bunch of virtue signaling and they
mean not a single word of it.

Speaker 2 (03:56):
Oh no, no, they're just trying to get attention.

Speaker 1 (03:59):
Landing, I'd like to do a land acknowledgement. We took
your land. We really like it, we know it's yours.
We're not giving it back. We just want to you.
We just want you to know that we know we
ripped you off. Well, how in the world is that
a nice thing to say? I don't even that's not
even you don't. You don't say that in polite company.
That's not it's just not it's it's it's it's rude.
If that's what you think. I don't think it's true.

(04:21):
But if you think it's true, acknowledging it is just
rubbing it in and.

Speaker 2 (04:25):
Just give it back. Now, speaking of land, the Landman
to himself, Billy Bob Thornton has weighed in on all
of this. These are his thoughts on celebrity sounding off.

Speaker 5 (04:35):
First of all, unless you have really studied stuff and
really know about a subject fully, who the hell would
want to listen to an actor or a musician talk
about politics? You know what I mean?

Speaker 1 (04:48):
It's like, are we supposed to follow this?

Speaker 5 (04:52):
I mean if we are, what if they lead you
down the wrong road? And you know, and politically, I'm
not a I call myself a radical moderate. I'm like
very strong in my opinions. But my opinions don't belong
to any political party. And people would argue and say,
well no, because I have a voice, because everybody knows me,

(05:15):
this is a great platform for me to put this
out there. Well, how about this, if you have a
billion dollars and you want to save the badgers, save them.
I mean, you got plenty of money to save the badgers.
Trust me, that's barely going to cut into your budget.

Speaker 2 (05:34):
Save the badger could make you political statements.

Speaker 1 (05:37):
Yeah, just go do whatever you think that needs to
be done. Why don't you go do it?

Speaker 2 (05:41):
Yeah? Yeah, And not to be outdone, Bill Maher a
montage of hit thoughts on celebrities sounding off.

Speaker 6 (05:48):
And finally, now we're all on Memo and Democrats. If
you ever want to win an election again, the absolute
most important first step is stop doing this.

Speaker 7 (05:57):
We gather in celebration of the oscars on the ancestral
lands of the Tamba, Tatavium and Schumash. People's the traditional
caretakers of this.

Speaker 1 (06:05):
Water and land.

Speaker 8 (06:07):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (06:07):
I don't know if we're still saying cringe, but if
we are, that's this. That is before I'll say it again.
Either give the land back or shut them up. Look,
I understand the desire to right the wrongs of the past,
especially when you get to take the moral high ground
and then build an eight thousand square foot mansion on it.

(06:29):
And I'm sure Julianne Huff is sincere about her love
for the Tchumash people, but I doubt she drives to
work in a canoe scavengers for eight corns, or lives
in a dome house made of reeds and dried mud.

Speaker 2 (06:44):
That's what he Harrelson. So they're having a little fun
with this, I mean, and it is ridiculous. Her comment,
it's amazing, Greg, you know, so can't be illegal if
we're living on stolen land.

Speaker 1 (06:58):
Yeah, And I think it's I think they're just so.
They're so self important, and they live in such a
silo and an echo chamber. It's why no one watches.
I don't think anyone cares about these award shows anymore.
I mean, I think there was a time where we
actually could recognize the songs and the movies for these
types of shows or the TV shows. I don't think
anyone recognizes any of it anymore or cares. And so

(07:20):
they get up there, they prance up there and want
to tell you what they think the world looks like,
and we just don't care.

Speaker 2 (07:26):
We don't care.

Speaker 1 (07:26):
We rarely care about what their music or their TV
shows or movies.

Speaker 2 (07:30):
You don't know any of the artists anymore. You don't
know who these people are as a matter of fact, speak,
you know that the Grammy numbers are in greg The
audience for the Grammys this year declined by one million viewers.
That's a pretty good number. It's the second consecutive year
that the awards ceremony attracted a smaller audience. According to
experts at the Recording Academy is they feel the show

(07:54):
is slowly losing respect among the general public due to
their contraricial statements and picks. So the audience is the
audience said, you know, we always said the marketplace will
determine if it's going to be successful or not, and
the marketplace is starting to say no, not interested, don't care.

Speaker 1 (08:10):
And I'll tell you that that they don't have any
commercial success. So because I'm one of the reasons, I
think people just watch movies and television differently now than
they used to. You don't buy albums anymore. You don't
go and find an album, you know. I used to
there'd be a popular song of an artist. I'd buy
the album. Then I would listen to the album and
discover the songs from that album that doesn't aren't played

(08:33):
on the radio. We used to do it, and I
like that album now that you can stream any song
under the sun. You don't buy albums, You don't discover
music that way. You don't invest in an artist by
buying their records or their tapes or you know whatever.
So I just think that it's just a much more
shallow interest in entertainment today than it used to be.

Speaker 2 (08:54):
That certainly changed. All Right, We've got a lot to
get to when we come back. We'll talk about voter ID.
Wait to hear what John Thune had to say about it.
That's coming up on the wing Man Wednesday edition of
the Rotting Greg Show. Great to have you along for
the ride and Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine. Okay, nrs, Well,
welcome back, Good to be with you. Well, we want
to talk about Voter I D. Mike Lee has been

(09:15):
working tirelessly on this. John Thune indicated, what was there
a couple of days Greg, that he would try and
get this to the floor of the Senate and maybe
get some sort of vote on it, what they call
it a standing filibuster. In fact, he said that.

Speaker 1 (09:29):
He would bring it to the floor and with a
measure of it would only need fifty one votes to pass.
Is what he said. So we don't need to put
in the budget bill because we're going to go do that.
And I think he didn't say I don't think. I
thought he said it very matter of factly. But well,
it's I miss here.

Speaker 2 (09:42):
I don't know he's waffling a little bit. Listen to
this that.

Speaker 9 (09:45):
I've committed to that that we will talk about that
idea and.

Speaker 2 (09:50):
Determine whether or not they're what.

Speaker 9 (09:52):
The conference's views are about it, and whether how they
want to proceed. As I said, we will vote on
the Save Act. But exercising or triggering a talking filibuster
has ramifications implications that I think everybody needs to be
aware of.

Speaker 2 (10:08):
So we will have those discussions.

Speaker 9 (10:10):
But that obviously ties the floor up for an indefinite
amount of time with not only unlimited debate, but also
unlimited amendments.

Speaker 2 (10:19):
Clarification on what he just said, We're chicken and we
don't want to do this, so the Senate has so
many more important things to do. We just made up that.

Speaker 1 (10:29):
Might slow down the Senate. If I haven't heard the
more ironic statement in my life, it was that right there.

Speaker 2 (10:34):
Don't you love it?

Speaker 8 (10:35):
Well?

Speaker 2 (10:35):
Joining us on our news maker line right now is
John Finley, John as director of the National Election Protection Project,
joining us on our news maker line. John, how are
you welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 10 (10:47):
I'm doing great, Thanks for having me.

Speaker 2 (10:48):
Josh, could you understand what John Thune was just saying
kind of like, well, we may not have time to
get to this, it's not that important.

Speaker 10 (10:57):
I understood what he was saying, but I completely disagree
with Voter ID is a tremendously important issue that the
Senate should have passed a long time ago.

Speaker 1 (11:07):
So there's a lie going on out there, and it's
I heard it yesterday. Actually a caller called it and
said it, and I just heard it on the TV today.
The Democrats are saying, you know what, the problem with
this whole you know, save act is you have to
have a passport or you have to have your your
birth certificate in hand when you try to vote. Well,
you know how hard that'd be. Fifty percent of people
don't have a passport, twenty five percent have a difficult

(11:30):
time or can't get their birth certificate. I would argue, Josh,
that's a total lie, because every state has real ID
on their required for their state driver's license now and
you have to have either their passport or your per
certificate or a permanent resident card to get a driver's
license with real ID. So are you seeing that trend
where they're trying to tell everyone you have to walk

(11:52):
up to the polling place with your birth certificate in
hand or your passport or you can't vote. I'd never
heard it before yesterday, and now I'm hearing it a lot.

Speaker 10 (12:00):
Well, that's exactly what they're saying, and it's just not true.
This is more fear mongering by the left about how
hard it is to do things if you if you're
an idea is required. We know that you need an
ID to do everything in this country, from get on
an airplane to pick up a prescription to open a
bank account. The truth of the matter is is you
have to have an ID for every part of life.

(12:22):
If you're going to function, you have to have an ID.
Our most important civic duty is voting. To not require
an ID for that most important responsibility seems kind of insane,
and they're pulling out any lie that they can think
of to scare people about this.

Speaker 2 (12:38):
John, what's your reaction, Josh, I mean, what's your reaction?
Harry Enton, the data guru, they're a CNN had a
very interesting result of a polling the other day showing
that what ninety percent of the American people want this act,
even Democrats want it. But then he looked at the
minority vote, even Blacks, even Latinos want this Yet isn't

(12:59):
that the whole basis of the Democratic argument that you're
making it harder on minorities to vote by doing this,
yet they all seem to want it.

Speaker 10 (13:07):
Well, that's exactly what they're saying. Two interesting things about
this I thought I saw that poll from CNN.

Speaker 8 (13:14):
You know.

Speaker 10 (13:15):
The first thing was eighty three percent of Americans across
the board think that there should be voter ID.

Speaker 11 (13:21):
Ye.

Speaker 10 (13:21):
This number is actually up since twenty eighteen, when people
weren't paying attention to this issue. You'd think that after
twenty twenty this issue got politicized, it might be more split.
The truth is that since we've had issues with our elections,
people want more security and more transparency in the elections.
The second thing is, like you said in that poll, racially,

(13:45):
eighty five percent of whites thought we should have voter ID,
but eighty two percent of Latinos and seventy six percent
of blacks thought that we should have voter ID as well.
This is universal across the board. And the interesting thing
is we've also seen this in practice. If you remember,
Georgia in twenty twenty one passed a bill that Democrats

(14:08):
from Joe Biden on down called Jim Crow two point zero.
You'll remember the Baseball All Star Game was removed from
Atlanta because of this bill. But what they found in
elections afterwards was that minority turnout actually increased. And when
they did pulling there to minority groups that actually voted
under increased voter ID requirements, they said they had virtually

(14:32):
no problem casting a ballot with a voter ID.

Speaker 1 (14:38):
What do you do you think you're seeing it's a
you know, eighty twenty issue and the Democrats want to
burn capital on it. Do you think that the public
sentiment is this strong because, as you were pointing out,
that we're concerned about, you know, the integrity of our elections.
Or is it because you need an ID every single
day of your life if you go into it you've
pointed out in a bank, you go to the pharmacy,

(14:59):
you go to a hospital, go to the airport, you
go to a hotel, you go to a school. There's
not really a lot of places nowadays where you don't
have to present your idea, and they all are real ID.
If you got the star on the corner, the gold
star there, that is, you have to have a burst
of or a passport to get your driver's license. Are
we more comfortable with or expect our elections to be

(15:22):
have an ID because we use our ID every day
or is it really being driven by worry worrying about
the integrity of the election?

Speaker 11 (15:31):
Well, I think it's it's both. Actually.

Speaker 10 (15:33):
I think when it comes to our elections, showing an
ID to prove that you are who you say you
are when you show up to vote is just such
a common sense thing that it's absurd to people to
not require that. And then they know from their everyday
lives that having an idea is such a low barrier
to clear. But it seems like a common sense solution

(15:56):
to provide increased security to our elections. So I think
it's really both, And it's just such a common sense
thing that that if you're attracted to the security, this
is great policy. If you're attracted to the easiness, it's
great policy. Doing anything else just seems kind of absurd.

Speaker 2 (16:14):
Yeah, Josh. Final question is this do or die on
this Save Act? I mean, do we need to do
it now or we may may never have a chance again.

Speaker 10 (16:24):
I think that's exactly right. You know, this bill has
passed the House twice, It's got the support of the President.
When he brought Congress together a couple of weeks ago,
he said, we need to pass the Save Acts. Specifically,
it's to the point where in the Senate we've got
the Republicans support. We're relying on procedure and leadership right now.

(16:45):
Now is the time to get this done. We're at
the finish line. We've got to commend Mike Lee for
his work on this to get it this close. But
if it doesn't come now, it's hard to see it
happening in the future.

Speaker 2 (16:57):
That's scary. Josh, Thank you, appreciate your thoughts tonight. Thank you,
Thank you all right. Josh Finley, Director of National Election
Protection Project at the Texans Public Policy Foundation. More of
the Rodden Greg Show coming your way on this Wednesday,
Wingman Wednesday and Talk Radio one oh five nine. kN
ars Well speaking of the battle of ideas and mixing

(17:19):
it up. You know, our love for dirty Diana.

Speaker 1 (17:22):
Yes, yeah, the judge jobs Gibson, dirty Diana, Debbie Gibson.

Speaker 2 (17:26):
Well, the judge Diana Gibson. The Utah State Bar they're
a little upset, the Bar Association. They're a little upset
because lawmakers want to do some things to the judiciary
to make them a little bit more transparent. And they,
you know, they they went up to Capitol Hill yesterday

(17:47):
and said, hey, guys, back off. Well you sallomakers are
not going to back off, are they.

Speaker 1 (17:51):
They are not. No, they are not even come close to.
In fact, no, they're not back off.

Speaker 8 (17:57):
Well.

Speaker 2 (17:57):
Joining us on our Newsmaker line to talk about you
to courts is Senate Majority Majority whip state sender Chris
Wilson from Cash County. Yes, good man, he's on our
Newsmaker line. He's got some bills to change the judiciary
and how it operates up on the hill, sender, thank
you for joining us. Why is it so important that
the court is more transparent?

Speaker 11 (18:17):
Well, I appreciate that first, thanks so much to being on.
You know, Gregor rod I boy, quite an honor for me,
and I appreciate the invite. You know, it's interesting, you know,
the transparency is a big thing. In fact, last year,
one of my highest, if not my highest response to
my constituent was judicial transparency. So I think it's something

(18:37):
we've heard from constituents for, you know, for at least
a year and longer. And obviously we know that our
coolad of our Constitution, Section two allows the legislature to
decide number one, how many judges and also the funding
for the judiciary. And I I'm very very proud. I
feel very good about you know, second subsists centup Bill
one thirty four, the Court Amendment. We are able to

(19:00):
help with resources, basically system wide resources if we weigh
for the judiciary. So so I think this will help them.
The transparency piece is something that our constituents are asking
for and to be uphoti I just received an email
this morning from an attorney in my district and Cash Valley,
who thanked me very much for what the legislature is

(19:22):
doing and taking its role of the constitution to to
push back against the judiciary a little bit. We have
that right and the Constitution and so we do need
three branches of government, and it's it's it's it's healthy
to have friction between the three. And you know, our
constitution gives us this right, and that's that's what we

(19:43):
are elected officials. UH should do. It's good policy.

Speaker 1 (19:47):
You know, Senator, we've spoken a lot on this program,
Rod and I have about that this judge and how
she became a map maker and I and how she
asked this left of center group to help make it
completely outside of what our state constitution says that the
separate equal power of the legislative branch has who's accountable
to the people. So we've been very critical about that,
and you know, I think that as we've spoken about this,

(20:09):
one of the items that has come up that has
surprised a lot of people, including myself. Embarrassingly, I didn't
know this is that that state Bar association that's out
there saying, you guys, leave us alone. Somewhere in the
course of time, a law was made that said the
state bar will proffer up and only offer the judicial
appointments for the governor to appoint from who they want.

(20:30):
And they had a completely different litmus test of what
they wanted. If you remember the Federal Society, which the
Federal Society has helped President Trump look at nominees, you
wouldn't even be considered in the State Bar's selection of three.
So it sounds like bad, worse and terrible or something
like that that you would get to choose from. So
I think there's a collective, there's a that isn't transparent
to me.

Speaker 11 (20:51):
Let me ask you.

Speaker 1 (20:52):
I know that law has been changed, but don't you
think that that set this state up with having the
State Bar have such a strong hand on any appointment
to the judiciary coming from their recommendation pool didn't that
isn't that having kind of the effect where the judiciary
is maybe overstepping into the legislative branches separating equal powers.

Speaker 11 (21:12):
I completely agree. In fact, it's interesting and somebody you know,
and I'm not an attorney, and I don't know a
lot of judges. I do know the judges in First
Station Court and they do a tremendous job. But I
do know that, you know, Chief Justice Durant praise the
selection process of Justice John Nielsen and his selection. And

(21:32):
it's interesting because Justice John Nielsen, from what I understand,
had applied at least three, four, maybe five times and
had never been selected even from what I understand, even
for an interview to be a judge. So I think
it's it's it's evident that. Yeah, the process was definitely skewed,

(21:53):
and I I didn't notice till last year when when
one of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle asking about the Bar Association and attorneys and they said, well,
don't you know most attorneys in the Bar Association is
left leaning? And I just hit me and I went, oh,
my goodness. I never realized that. But I have had
a number of attorneys, the same attorney that sent me

(22:15):
yesterday has been has been sending me a number of
emails complaining about the Bar Association and him having to
pay fees and pay dues for what he called the
left leaning Uh, you know what, their their political views,
and yet he didn't agree with them, but he had
to send him dues that they're using, uh, you know,

(22:38):
for for for their their opinions, which were, in his opinion, uh,
far left to center.

Speaker 2 (22:44):
Sander Wilson, what do you think the public would like
to see or changes they'd like to see when it
comes to the judiciary branch? What changes do you think
they'd like to see?

Speaker 11 (22:54):
Well, it's interesting and I know Greg because obviously his experience,
you know what, what we go through up here. The parency.
I mean, we we are on record for every vote
I've done. You can go in and look at what
committees I've been on. We have that we have the
public that they come and participate in committees hearings. I

(23:15):
mean I've gone through an hour and what now and
a half hour and forty five minute community hearings on
one bill as people have had time to respond, and
you look at the judiciary and it's it's very very
locked up. There's I think it's fair to say that
we need to have more transparents in the judiciary and
that's what that's what my constituents are asking for. It

(23:35):
I think the people stay of Utah, and I think
it's only fair. I think that it's obviously the branch
of government that needs to have more transparency as the
legislature does. And then I said, everything's transparent here at
the legislature, and I think they need to have more
transparency with with with the judiciary and what the judges.
And I think I don't even know if you can

(23:56):
even go find what the you know, what the judgment
judges have, what some of their ruinings have been. And
I mean when I was doing the research for this bill.
I mean sometimes I'd have staff call and they would say, well,
the courts would say no, you need to talk to
the Court of Appeals. Then they talked to Court Appeals.
They said no, no, no, no, you need to go talk to
the courts trying to find information on a number of filings,

(24:19):
a number of rulings and those types of things. And
to me, that ought to be on a website. That
ought to be something that our constitutents can go and
research and look at.

Speaker 1 (24:28):
Do you know why I know you're one thousand percent
correct because in these retention elections, the one consistent question
I get asked more than any other, no matter who's
on the ballot is who are these judges? Who should
we be voting for? And these retention elections, and when
you see an election that has a ninety percent rate
of retaining or an eighty there is, it screams that

(24:48):
there has been no information provided and people are just saying,
I guess yes. There's no one to say yes or
no to. You either have to say no to them
all or yes to them all, because you wouldn't recognize
a judge or how they they made decisions. One from
the other and so it's almost insulting to the to
the voters to put them on a ballot with zero
information on why they would vote to retain or not.

(25:11):
So I think you're on the right track, Senator. And
I don't know what you would do in a time
of a retention election to make sure voters know, but
I would hope that part of that transparency is, Senator,
around a retention election where voters get to know do
we really want to retain this judge or not?

Speaker 11 (25:28):
And obviously we were held a hire bar here, I
mean the House representatives you had to go through every
two year elections I have to go through every four years,
and we are held accountable, uh, you know, for for
the votes we do and and back to the to
the arc to our constituents, constituents, and we have to
go have town halls, we have to reach out and

(25:49):
make sure that they're aware of our our our votes
and apologies for h I just think it's fair that
the judiciary is a little more transparent and they give
constituents an opportunity to know exactly how these judges are
ruling and a little bit more about them. I think

(26:10):
it's fair.

Speaker 2 (26:10):
Yeah, And it is fair. I think the public has
a right to know a little bit more about judges
a much more active role in our lives because lawmakers
can't decide on issues, so somebody takes the issue to
court and the court makes a ruling. They play a
more active role in our lives and than any other
time in our history. I think greg might that's kind
of my appeeling, and we need to be they need

(26:31):
to be transparent.

Speaker 1 (26:33):
So I feel like the judges are having they're they're
inserting themselves either way more aggressively than we've seen in
the past. And if you look at those retention elections,
I think we've just hit a tipping point where knowing
nothing about any of them and being expected to vote
to retain or not, it's offensive. It's offensive to a
to an election process to put those names up that

(26:53):
that you can't find out. Good luck finding is just said,
go try to find out something about a judge and
how they vote or how they rule. You can't. You
can't do it, and it's designed for you not to
be able to do it.

Speaker 2 (27:05):
And if you find information, it's in such legal eese
you don't understand.

Speaker 1 (27:09):
Mostly you can even buy their little search site, but
you don't even know how to navigate it to get
and that's even done by design. And then they have
this Judicial Conduct Commission with a bunch of judges that
appear before these guys, and they're most always saying retain them.
And then the rare case where they say no because
no one trusts them or considers them real. Even the
ones they say don't retain, they still get retained because

(27:30):
no one's looking at their their recommendation.

Speaker 2 (27:32):
I wanted to thank center Chris Wilson for join us
right here on the Rogain, Rod and Greg Show and
Utah's Talk Radio one O five to nine. Okay, alright,
saying the other day that I was cruel because I
was laughing at the story out of Florida Wannas. Yeah,
where iguanas die because of the cold jemperature and they
fall out a tree.

Speaker 1 (27:51):
It's just laughing, laughing like folks. It wasn't just a laugh,
it wasn't just a chuckle. It was a belly laugh.
But he is really enjoying the death of these Well,
it's just a very odd story. It's odd. But why
do you laugh so hard at you think it's funny?
I just find it count.

Speaker 2 (28:08):
Well, let me tell you what, there's a guy you're
gonna love this because there's a guy in Florida who
has come up with a rather unique way, Oh, this
is morbid to deal with the fallen iguanas.

Speaker 3 (28:21):
It is currently so cold here in South Florida that
iguanas like this one are falling out of the trees.
So today we're making iguana tacos. Green iguanas are an
invasive species here in South Florida that compete with our
native wildlife for resources. But because they're not from here,
they aren't adapted to the cold. So when we get
these cold fronts, they become too cold and they fall
straight out of the trees. Whenever we have these cold
fronts and they start falling down, a lot of people

(28:42):
will go out and collect them to help control the
number in the population.

Speaker 2 (28:45):
But they do have the.

Speaker 3 (28:45):
Nickname Chicken of the trees because they're absolutely delicious. So
rather than let this one go to waste, we're gonna
make tacos.

Speaker 2 (28:53):
This story is getting worse.

Speaker 1 (28:56):
Chicken of the tree. This is a terrible story, and
this just turns made a very morbid turn even worse.
It's Nate to ask you a question. Was Edgar Allan
Poe like your favorite? No, he's very dark too. Yeah,
I'm sure he d because I think you would love
want to talk about that sounds disgusting.

Speaker 2 (29:17):
What's the weirdest thing you've ever read?

Speaker 1 (29:20):
Frog legs? I guess that's probably that's it.

Speaker 2 (29:24):
I'm trying to But you went to India once, I
mean I got Indio Indian.

Speaker 1 (29:29):
Yeah, I went to India. It was Eminem's and Red
Bull Man. I wasn't anything else Peanum, red Bull. I
wasn't touching the food there. No way would you. I
would fake it. I would just like try to. I'd
have to ask. They don't even give you a fork.
They want eat with your hand. They don't give you
a fork.

Speaker 2 (29:45):
It's their culture.

Speaker 1 (29:47):
Yeah, you don't want to know what they do with
the other hand. He was telling you that place. It's
not a few folks. If you've been to a place
called India and you enjoyed it, you were at a
resort called India. You were at an amusement park India,
but you are not in the country of India.

Speaker 2 (30:02):
I wonder if anybody in town makes iguana tackles, would
you eat one.

Speaker 1 (30:07):
No, I wouldn't you because they're It's sad that they
die that way. You know, it gets cold and they die.
That's just terrible.

Speaker 2 (30:12):
Well that's what happens to them for chronologically.

Speaker 1 (30:15):
Why they're not Did I hear that they're not indigenous
to their transplants? Are they legal?

Speaker 2 (30:23):
Yeah? I guess so.

Speaker 1 (30:24):
Did they legally come there?

Speaker 2 (30:26):
They are not protected? There you go. Our number two
is coming up, Rod and Greg with you. Stay with us.
I have a follow up on the iguana story in Florida. Yes,
I know you ready for this. A listener just wrote
in said, please let Greg know that Florida they actually
hire bounty hunters to shoot the iguanas that are invading resorts, hotels,

(30:48):
and apartment complexes. Take a look at the YouTube videos.

Speaker 1 (30:52):
Well, I used to go to Florida. I don't remember
all these bounty hunters run around trying to kill iguanas.
But you have, sir, maybe a career path in this
given if you could stop laughing to actually shoot them.
You're it's so funny. I don't know if you can aim.
If you're laughing that hard, I just find it. You
gonna make a bunch of tacos with it too.

Speaker 2 (31:11):
How long has it been since you've been Hawaii?

Speaker 1 (31:13):
Hawaii or Florida?

Speaker 2 (31:14):
No Hawaii, I haven't, you haven't. You've never been Hawaii?

Speaker 1 (31:19):
No no, I no layover but not outside and Kawhi.

Speaker 2 (31:23):
There are chickens everywhere?

Speaker 1 (31:25):
Oh really?

Speaker 2 (31:25):
Yeah? That that you talk about me laughing about in Florida.
How do we get the chickens? Chickens all over the
plates in Hawaii? Well, run over the place. I love
chicken is delicious, I love chicken. You can kill all
the chickens. So it's okay if the chickens. Absolutely because of.

Speaker 1 (31:45):
The yes, of course, I wish chickens would die when
when it gets that cold, because chickens are delicious. I
think that.

Speaker 2 (31:51):
But you have not had, so you're judging. I'm fairly judging.

Speaker 1 (31:55):
You know what. It's just not on the menu, and
you shouldn't even it's a bit savage that you would
even look at them as a potential meal.

Speaker 2 (32:02):
They fall out of trees, are dead.

Speaker 1 (32:04):
Yeah, that doesn't make it a meal. But chickens, that's
a different story.

Speaker 2 (32:09):
So you're okay if you had chickens dying off in
Hawaii because they run all over the place, you'd be fine.

Speaker 1 (32:14):
Yeah, I wish again, I wish they if it got cold,
they died because you go pick up a bunch of chickens,
chickens expensive, you go to the stuper supermarket. I love chicken.
I mean Super Bowl Sunday. You think I won't be
eating wings, I sure.

Speaker 2 (32:26):
Will road killed chicken.

Speaker 1 (32:27):
Come on, you know what? You know my dumb friend.

Speaker 2 (32:30):
D what Yeah, we d his mother. Just be aware.

Speaker 1 (32:34):
He's my lifelong friend and he was dumb from day one.
He even met him. Hill even confirm this. Uh, hey,
he's a pest control guy, which is a perfect job.

Speaker 2 (32:42):
For him to box rocks.

Speaker 1 (32:44):
Yeah, you can't exactly what you can't break. You can't
kill brain cells that weren't there. So he's totally safe
being a pest control guy. But his mother fed me
what I thought was chicken salad sandwich, and she asked
me if I liked it, and I said, I like
this sandwich. And I had the mayonnaise that a little
a little clary in it, and I thought it was
chicken salad. It was a squirrel. She had run it

(33:06):
over and then she fed it to us.

Speaker 2 (33:10):
Purposely.

Speaker 1 (33:10):
Yeah, so when you asked this memory is just it
is just emerging. So when you said, what's the weirdest
thing you've eaten? I said, frog legs. I think it'd
be that roadkill squirrel. My dumb friend. Ee's mom fed us.

Speaker 2 (33:23):
Do you ever call him something other than dumb friend?

Speaker 1 (33:25):
D it's one word dumb friendly. Hi, this is my
dumb friend. And if you don't know that our relationship,
people around us try to explain it because they think
that I'm being rude when I'm not.

Speaker 2 (33:35):
It's really a nice guy. And you should go. You
should golf with these two because they're hilarious.

Speaker 1 (33:41):
Yeah, well he's you'll say, hey, you play this course,
where should you hit? And he says, you see that?
You see that tree over there?

Speaker 2 (33:50):
And there?

Speaker 1 (33:51):
He goes, don't go there? Well, then why are you
pointing it out? I'm asking you what you know? What's
the line here? He doesn't know how to answer simple questions. Yeah,
that's pretty it.

Speaker 2 (34:01):
Lightly, all right? Shall we carry on? Yes, let's just
let's carry on. Let's talk about a gas tax.

Speaker 1 (34:06):
Now, you gas tax?

Speaker 2 (34:08):
Got Yeah? You have been on this forever.

Speaker 1 (34:12):
Yes, I haven't because the prices.

Speaker 2 (34:13):
In this state are not as low as you and
I think they should be Utah lawmakers. Utah lawmakers are.
They haven't unveiled this yet, but they're working hard, being
led by I think House Speaker Mike Schultz's really on
this as well, on doing something about lowering the gas
tax here and taxing oil that has shipped a gas
that is shipped out of the state to other states?

(34:35):
Am I reading that right?

Speaker 1 (34:36):
That is correct? For up to forty We have five
refineries in this state of Utah. They haven't built a
new refinery since seventy seven, So refineries are kind of
a good thing to have. Yeah, and as you're seeing California,
see there's go away, the demand for the refineries in
Utah has increased. They are getting paid a mint for
that that they are shipping out of state. They're up

(34:57):
to forty percent out of state. And if you're wondering
why you look and go, we used to have low
gas prices, like we have the infrastructure like a Gulf
state does that has refineries and they pay low gas prices.
We used to pay low gas prices. We're now triple.
A website will show we're the highest region in the country.
Why it's because California is thirsty for it. Idaho's thirsty
for it, Nevada is thirsty for it. We're still we're

(35:19):
making it the highest rate possible. But once they make
that much money shipping it out, they look at us
and go, well, they need to pay it too. They
send it out tax exempt to all these states, while
the only tax collected is the motorists at the pump
in the state of Utah. If we started putting the
tax at the rack before it leaves the states, since
we're refining it here and those refiners in our front

(35:40):
yard in Salt Lake, not in some backyard, but if
we were to put the tax at the rack, then
all these thirsty states will pay a tax as well.
Our gas tax will go down by I'll bet you
half of what we're paying. And I'm telling you we
are not a state that's going to price fix these
gas prices. But if we could take the gas tax
and cut it in half, and those that are using

(36:02):
the gas refined in our state and all the impact
that comes from that gas supply chain infrastructure we have here,
pay your fair share. Guess what Idaho doesn't like it.
They're they're threatening to try and cut off our water
upstream if we do this.

Speaker 2 (36:15):
Yeah, let's take a step back for just a minute.
So would the cut in the gas tags would the
revenue we would lose by a cut in the gas tax,
would it be offset by the tax we're now placing
on gasoline going out of the state. It would, It
would offset.

Speaker 1 (36:32):
Yep, the revenue would say the same. And those receiving
that gas and incentivizing that gas are ready to pay
more for it. They can pay at the rack. Why
are they tax exempts? Why are out of state people
tax exempt for the gas refined in our state and
we're paying the full rate of gas tax at the pump?

Speaker 2 (36:51):
Well, I say, I did you do something in the
legislature do allow this to happen?

Speaker 1 (36:57):
Well, so, this good question.

Speaker 2 (37:00):
So there was a So you did, so you're responsible
for it.

Speaker 1 (37:03):
I'm not responsible for this. We had a great relationship
the state of Utah, the people with our oil and
gas industry. Okay, it was Yeah, we have in the
you and a base, and we have wells. Yes, we
have refineries. Yes we have pipelines from Sinclair, Wyoming coming down.
We have all this, But guess what we get for it?
Low gas prices lower than other places. Guess what EPA

(37:26):
was telling these large refineries that they had a certain
amount of low carbon gas or gasoline they had to refine. Well,
we live in this valley. So we even gave state
taxpayer tax credits for them to upgrade those refineries so
that that they call it Tier three fuel would be
refined in our state, so we would have the cleanest gasoline,
which would create less emissions in the tailpipe and less hayze.

(37:49):
And so we do all that as a partnership. But
what no one remembers is that it was a partnership.
We as the people received, had way lower gas prices
and they had a good economic climate in which to operate. Well,
fast forward to today. They're they're getting paid a fortune
for all that gas, and they're like, well, why would
we pay why would we charge Utah any less? Our

(38:12):
prices per gallon have gone up, and there's no justification
for it. You can take the same averick that's in
Colorado and they're a buck less a gallon.

Speaker 2 (38:19):
Yeah, but tell me how that works. All right, But
these oil refineries that we have here in this state,
and you said, we have what five to five five
in the state, they're just selling to the highest bidder,
are they not?

Speaker 1 (38:28):
They are?

Speaker 2 (38:29):
I mean, is that business that is? I mean, if
California is going to pay them a lot more money,
or Idaho's going to pay them a lot more money,
why wouldn't they do that?

Speaker 1 (38:37):
The potato chip guy gets a tax, the bread gets taxed.
The gasoline in Utah gets taxed if Idaho or California
or a Novata once are refined gasoline, then paid, then
paid time.

Speaker 2 (38:47):
See I'm not arguing with you because I agree with this.
I think you know, California, I see this story today.
The Valero refinery in California is about to close down
earlier this year. I think Chevron or Phillips of them
down there is going to close down. A matter of fact,
they're closing earlier than what California was expecting. California, as
big of a state is as that is, has no refineries.

Speaker 1 (39:11):
It's so unbelievable. You know, third most in America. We
used to have the third most refineries and no pipelines
going into California. There are no pipelines. They stop in Nevada,
they don't go into California. So they're now going, oh,
are we going to do, and they're upset that Utah's
thinking about boosting that tack. Then in Idaho, the Speaker
of the House attacked us the other day in Idaho,

(39:32):
we're doing this and considering this, and I say to
that speaker, and I say to the people of Idaho,
if you don't like a taxi.

Speaker 2 (39:38):
Build the refinery.

Speaker 1 (39:39):
Go build a refinery. It's been since seventy seven. Go
build one, or purchase your gas somewhere else. But for
the state, for Utahs, the taxpayers of Utah's to have
this relationship with oil and gas industry that has always
rewarded us with you know, the cleaner fuel, but really
the lower prices to have that price go up because
of the failure of California's what they've done to run
oil and gas in stries out of that state to

(40:01):
create a demand out there for all the gas that
everybody else needs. And it is a free market, but
we're this is now a one way street where the
oil and gask we have the lowest severance tax for
the being pulled out of the ground than Wyoming's is
higher reallys in Utah. Yes, the reservations in Utah pay
a look if they're drilling oil out of those reservations

(40:23):
tribal lands. Here in Utah, they have a higher Severnce tax.
But as a lawmaker, I never voted to raise the
Severnce tax. Why because we had low gas prices here.
It was a symbiotic relate. It was a two way street. Well,
now that they're getting paid a mint to send it
out of state tax exempt, Okay, we have all the
taxes that we pay for it to pump here. It's

(40:45):
about time. If you have five refineries, put a tax
on that and lower the Utah's tax at the pump.
We need that tax relief.

Speaker 2 (40:52):
I want to come back and discuss more of this
because I have a question for you about this as well.
But I'd love to hear from our listeners what they say.
I mean, are they in favor of dropping the gas tax,
increasing the what do you call it the rack rate?

Speaker 1 (41:05):
Yeah, the racket so you're taxing it leaving the refinery
instead of yeah, and taxing that.

Speaker 2 (41:10):
And do you care what California and Idaho think? Yeah,
I don't.

Speaker 12 (41:15):
Matter.

Speaker 2 (41:15):
Yeah, they're upset. I don't care.

Speaker 1 (41:18):
They got straws all into our state, taking our gas
and making our gas and we're.

Speaker 2 (41:22):
Praying higher prices. We sure are eight eight eight five
seven o eight zero one zero triple eight five seven
o eight zero one zero. On your cell phone dial
pound two fifteen, say hey, rot or leave us a
comment on our talkback line. Just download the iHeartRadio app
and look for kN r S and you can leave
us a comment there. We'll get to your thoughts and
your comments coming up right here on the rod In
Greg Show and Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine

(41:44):
k n r S. But if you're just joining us
right now, Utah lawmakers considering the plan. It's not done yet.
They haven't unveiled this plan, but they are working at
it away, in which the gas tags here in the
state of Utah would be lowered. But do we know
by about how what fifteen to twenty cents?

Speaker 1 (41:59):
Yeah, yeah, fifteen fifteen cents or more.

Speaker 2 (42:01):
And fuel that has been exported out of the state
to states like California and Idaho because we have more
than we really need. Apparently they would be taxed. They
aren't taxed by that now, so they kind of offset
each other.

Speaker 1 (42:14):
That's right.

Speaker 2 (42:14):
People in California. You said in Nevada, we know in
Idaho they do not like this idea. As a matter
of fact, had in the Speaker of the Utah House
and Speaker of the Idaho House talked about this.

Speaker 1 (42:24):
Yeah, and the Speaker of the Idaho House was critical,
particularly of our speaker, and then they passed the resolution
in Idaho condemning this. But like I said, if you
don't like it, you can go get You can have
all the impact of the trucks that are driving up
and down these freeways. You know the interesting thing about
the basin and the oil there, it's called a waxi crud.
That means that when it cools down, it begins to SOLIDIFYE.

(42:47):
So what you have a lot of times you'll have
these tanker trucks that have this crude in them. They
have to they cannot go slow. They have to hurt.
They have to get to nor Salt Lake so they
can empty it before it begins to solidify. That means
those trucks are not going at a slow, leisurely paced
the wear and tear on the road. Do you even
have an elementary school near these these refineries? You you have,

(43:07):
you just have impact And it's I mean, we've worked
it through. That's why we do the Tier three fuel.
We've provided tax payer you know, benefit or tash credits
to help her to modify those refineries for the clean
air of this state, not for Nevada, not for California,
not for we us. So it was a partnership.

Speaker 2 (43:26):
Yeah, back to the let's go to the phones. Eight
eight eight five eight zero one zero.

Speaker 1 (43:31):
Let's go. Let's go to Scott and Mapleton. Scott, thank
you for holding. Welcome to the Rod and Greg show.

Speaker 8 (43:38):
Hey, Greg and Rod. In Alaska, they not only don't
have an income tax, they citizens of Alaska get a
bonus each year for the natural resources that they're yankeing
out of their states.

Speaker 2 (43:52):
Are they still doing that, Scott? Are they still doing that?

Speaker 11 (43:57):
Uh?

Speaker 3 (43:58):
Yeah?

Speaker 10 (43:58):
Lastly check.

Speaker 8 (43:59):
I don't know, you know, but but in I in here,
in Utah, a natural resource is wildlife and we sell
we sell tags to non residents for a lot more
of the residents because it's ours. And there you go,
and I think we we have we have plenty of
hunters that wed just as soon get those tags to

(44:20):
sell them to out of state. But we're charging them,
you know, four or five, six hundred dollars for a
fifty dollars tag here in Utah because it's our natural resource.
So I just don't get how, you know, we we
don't benefit from the our natural resource like Alaska does.
And I just get nervous that the state will collect
the road tax from us and the taxes from when

(44:43):
they're pulling out of the ground, and then the legislature, uh,
you know, spends it the way they want to spend it.
But it's our natural resource, isn't it?

Speaker 2 (44:52):
Isn't it ours?

Speaker 1 (44:54):
I love that call, And I'll tell you that you
have golf states that have for the same reasons about
natural resources and where they refine it. You have golf
states that have the lowest gas prices in the country.
You have what he described in Alaska happening that was
going on in Utah for a a good while, and
then once that demand went up and they were making
so much money that I'm telling you, we pay high

(45:16):
gas prices because of the mismanagement of California. Because of
what they're doing. The people still need fuel and it
is a free market. Nobody wants to We're not going
to see the our state legislature price fix or do
anything like that. The only thing you can do is
bring tax relief to the motorists here and start stop
letting that be tax exempt fuel and the refineries. By

(45:37):
the way, I've been told that diesel is taxed at
the wreck. It's it's just regular gasoline. Yeah, okay, let's
go to Rick in Centerville. Rick, thank you for holding.
Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 2 (45:48):
Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Speaker 13 (45:50):
My question is, okay, you want to put off the
tax burden off to other states. Let's address the qu
issue at hand. Why don't we decrease the taxes on
on our fuel for road taxes and figure out ways
to conserve and to save our tax money so we

(46:11):
don't need these taxes, you know, because once you start
pushing taxes over to Idaho or California wherever, it's going
to be a tit for tax. California, well, personally I
don't really care about them.

Speaker 2 (46:23):
They with their own grave there.

Speaker 13 (46:26):
But but Idaho, we're good friends. And if you want
to get in a border war, you really want to
go down this road. I mean, I understand sure. I
like to pay less in fuel by any means, because
all this fuel going out of state, it keeps the
price up here because it's artificially keeping our inventory low

(46:50):
because we're sending across state. Why don't we I mean,
that's the free market. Okay, I understand all that, But
why don't we address the issue a tax period, everybody
wants to pass it on to everybody else, So everybody
wants to well, let these guys, let the rich pay,
let's let just pay, let the you know, people in
Idaho pay. Let's get back to addressing the issue at hand.

Speaker 1 (47:13):
Yeah, good point, right, And I think Rick, I think
that is one of the things they're doing. The tough
part about when you have a gas tax, it's supposed
to fix the maintenance and our you know, the maintenance
of roads, but it's also the expansion of so when
you're a state that's growing as much as ours, that
the roads keep coming and and and so you see,
they're not Not only does the gas tax used to
pay for every single road construction, it used to pay

(47:35):
for the maintenance, even pay for the highway patrol. It
doesn't pay for that stuff anymore, and so so it
is growing. But to to Rick's point, the state of Utah,
motors should not be paying the full rat rate. And
then at the rack, seeing tax exempt fuel being sent
out of state. It ought to be. And by the way,
it's there's an interstate commerce clause. You can't you can't

(47:57):
tax a different state different than you taxture. So our refine,
the refinery sending it to our gas stations, they would
have that rack tax as well. But I'm telling you
the revenue that would be you would get from the
taxes for what's sent out of state. It sends our
gas tax down at least in half.

Speaker 2 (48:15):
You know why I want to sign me up, you know,
I why I want to stick at diadem. Why? Well,
my wife from mine, he's a farmer's daughter, right, Yes,
anytime we go up there, her family always makes funds
of always makes fun of Utah they do, Yeah, they
always do, all right, so stick it to them.

Speaker 1 (48:33):
Yeah, I'll tell you, Okay, have fun pal paying for gasoline.
You want to be rude to our state?

Speaker 2 (48:38):
Yeah, you want to do that dark state?

Speaker 1 (48:40):
Yeah, I have it. Like I'm just going to tell
you that we've been talking about this for so many months,
and we have been baffled that with all this supply
chain infrastructure for oil and gas, how on earth we
got to a place and the last year this year,
just reasons where we are paying so much where I
go to you look at Colorado, a blue state, a
Democrat state. They don't have a single refinery, they have nothing.
They are a dollar less a gallon on average than

(49:02):
we are. There's no there's actually there's no free market
argument for that. There's just the market says that you'll
pay with what's you know what they'll you charge what
they'll pay. What are we supposed to do? They charge
at the higher rate we're paying it?

Speaker 2 (49:17):
All right, we know we need to break. We'll come
back with more of your phone calls and your talkback
comments right here on the Rod and Greg Show and
Talk Radio one O five nine. Okay, all right, we
produce a lot of gas. We have five ol refineries here.
They're cranking out. They're at full speed right now.

Speaker 1 (49:31):
Highest production rate they've ever But we don't.

Speaker 2 (49:33):
We don't use all of it. So what are the
oil companies do? They sell it to California for a
higher price. What does that mean we have to pay
a higher price because we aren't utilizing all the gas
that we Well, it's a free market. We're taking pay market.

Speaker 1 (49:47):
They're going to pay a fortune they're gonna have us
pay as close to that fortune as as we can't
they can get away with and that's what we're doing.
By the way, I just want to say I've got
there is no reason that this bill, because it's a
very tough bill to pass. The oil and gas lobby
and the and they are fighting this tooth and nail.
They want to keep they want that tax exempt fuel
to leave the state, and so they're fighting this hard.
There's only one reason they're going through this, and that

(50:09):
is to lower our gas prices. So if you're worried that,
it's just more revenue and the legislature saying to spendius.
So this is the only way the state knows how
to responsibly lower your gas per gallon is to lower
the gas tax.

Speaker 2 (50:22):
All right, let's go to the phones. Get more of
your thoughts on this tonight. Eight eight eight five seven
zero eight zero one zero on your cell phone, tal
pound two to fifteen, say a Rod or leave us
coming on our talkback line. We go back to the phones.
We talk with Scott, who's on I fifteen tonight listening
to Rod and Greg. Scott, how are you? Thanks for
joining us?

Speaker 14 (50:40):
Thank you sir, My comment is, why doesn't the state
just past the state regulation that no fuel is allowed
that is processed here is allowed to be sold out
of state until the price of fuel in Utah equals
the average of the surrounding state.

Speaker 1 (50:56):
You know, that could be an option. Now here's the problem.
Nevada is higher because they need people's gas. Idaho is
even higher because they're getting other people's gas. I don't
know why Colorado enjoys a buck less a gallon without
having any refineries, and then Arizona's lower too, so that works.
There's a lot of things they can do, and the
oil and gas industry has been fighting this bill tooth

(51:17):
and nail, and they keep saying that all you're going
to hurt the economy, you're going to do all these things.
There hasn't been a refinery built since seventy seven, and
we have the cleanest Tier three fuel being refined. We
have the cards. No one can bluff us out of this,
So you're right, Scott, we should be putting the rules
down and saying we're doing this and if you don't
like it, build your own refinery or buy it somewhere else.

(51:39):
But we Utahns have paid taxes, not only just at
the pump, but the tax credits to update and modernize
the refineries, the trucks that are on these roads. We
have an impact with this business being in our state.
But like the Gulf States, and like our caller pointed out,
in Alaska, we should be the biggest beneficiaries of having

(52:00):
that industry domicile and its infrastructure inside our state. There's
no reason to have it otherwise.

Speaker 2 (52:05):
We were talking about the benefits of having companies like
Delta here. I mean, we're a hub, we are, and
as a result, a lot of planes coming in each
and every day. Just I mean, we see them fly
over our place all the time, and you've got landing feeds.
You've got people coming here either to stay or passing through.
But they're getting something deep, you know, whatever they can.
You have a jobs, they have jobs created. You're getting

(52:27):
tax money from that. So the refiner is, yes, it's
nice to have it, but we'd like more of a
benefit because we don't feel we're getting it now.

Speaker 1 (52:34):
See, corporate citizens are important, and we've always had a
very positive relationship with our corporate citizens. Where it goes
wrong is when that corporate citizen thinks it's a one
way street. Now they get all the benefit, they get
all the tax exemptions, and they get all the help
to modify or update their refineries, and they turn around
and they milk us at the pump is And I

(52:56):
just I've been around too long to remember how that
relationship is. Work work with this industry and our state
to see what's happening today and be okay with it.
I just know, I know, I know. They're just they're
artificially raising those prices. That is not the price. If
you can go to other parts as close as Colorado
and see it's so low. We're from the same by

(53:17):
the way, the same supplier, Maverick. It just can't. It doesn't.
It doesn't. It's there's not a valid reason.

Speaker 2 (53:24):
Rate earlier sent us about what was it probably fifteen
to seventeen minute video, and I'm not sure who put
this together, but talked about all of this and explained it.
I think, very very well. Yes, we'll see if we
can get that posted up on our X page and
have people it's about a fifteen minute, but it really,
I mean, there are things in there I learned, and
you were even saying I didn't know this, especially I

(53:45):
didn't realize that there is not a pipeline going into California.

Speaker 1 (53:49):
There is not.

Speaker 2 (53:50):
They stop in Nevada.

Speaker 1 (53:51):
Yeah, and they bring a lot from overseas as well,
because they keep as they there's a it's Valero. They
just they're writing a billion dollars and I think they're
the last refinery they're they're shutting down because they can't
keep up with what California regulation is done. But okay,
why does that cost us more? Why? Why did the
citizens of the state of Utah have to pay more
at the pump because of their poor decisions and what

(54:13):
they're doing with their you know, with their state. They
have the resources, they have gas, they have they could
refine their own, they can drill their own. They don't
want to. Don't come to the state of Utah where
we had a good thing going. It was it was
a two way street. Start paying a fortune, which then hey,
if they can do it, they can charge us too.
The only place it's interesting, the only place where you

(54:33):
can see the free market working is you go all
the way to remote filmore on I fifteen and you
will see that.

Speaker 2 (54:38):
You will see how it is. I think, how should
they didn't get.

Speaker 1 (54:43):
The memo that we are all supposed to go up
to the high price. So they said, hey, let's let's
let's offer. We're a new gas station. We're going to
offer less than Maverick Cross Street. So then what happens
the one across the street lowers their price, they lower theirs.
Pretty soon you're seeing the lowest prices in the whole
state of Utah between two and one off ramp in Fillmore, Utah.
That by volume, you're supposed to see the lower prices

(55:05):
where there's a higher volume of cars coming every day,
not somewhere that's remote like that. So that shows you
what the free market would do if you had a
free market. We do not have a free We have
a captured market here and along the Wasatch Front. Yet
eighty seventy five to eighty percent of the population lives
in four contiguous counties that are flat. The transportation costs
aren't high, they refine it right here, and yet we're

(55:26):
paying It's the triple A. Will show you we're one
of the highest regions of paying gas in the country.

Speaker 2 (55:31):
In the country. More of your calls and comments coming up.
It is the Wingmen Wednesday edition of The Rod and
Greg Show and Utah's Talk Radio one O five nine
k n RS. It is wing men Wednesday, is it not?

Speaker 1 (55:41):
That's right?

Speaker 2 (55:42):
That's right. Story today we're talking about the gas tags.
Gasoline prices are mostly dropping according to the story today
in Red Stage right. There are some places, however, that
are not enjoying lower gas prices. Hmmm, yes, whatever, it
could be us And he brought up an interesting point

(56:02):
in this article I saw on this today where he
says California and Washington, he writes, are the only two
states with economy wide cap and trade programs. California's program
raises the price of gasoline by forcing gasoline suppliers to
buy allowances. Those higher costs are eventually passed down to drivers.

(56:24):
The California Legislative Analyst Office estimates that cap and Trade
raises the retail price of gasoline by twenty three cents
a gallon. Well, if suppliers greg are forced to pay
for these allowances, no wonder they're leaving California. Well you wonder,
I mean you've got two refine I think they're the
last two in California. The Phillips and Valero are shutting down.

Speaker 1 (56:46):
They are they're writing them off a billion dollar loss. Yep,
and there is. You cannot say that there would not
be a ripple effect around this country. But their problems
should stay their problems. They're thirst for fuel, even though
they want to say it's a bad thing, they still
need gasoline. They still need it for them to be
willing to outspend and pay a fortune for ours here

(57:08):
where our five refineries are going, and that results in
US paying way more as a captured market. We're a
captured market in this wasatch front in Utah. Frankly that
it should not be born on the backs of Utah's
that California doesn't know how to manage their state and
they took their natural resources and didn't know how to
do it right. Clean there we have again clean refineries

(57:31):
compared to other places. They just ran theirs out of business. Yeah,
so you know they have a very large economy. Obviously
California does. When they make really bad decisions, it can
have a detrimental impact. But if we make if we
produce our own we have our wills, we have the
pipelines from Wyoming that come here, we refine it here.

(57:51):
This should make us energy independent. Not Okay, we're going
to feed all these states because now California doesn't or
they need it, and we're just gonna have to pay
more because of it.

Speaker 2 (58:00):
Come all, why should we cover California's mistake? Why do
we have to cover that?

Speaker 1 (58:07):
Yeah, and we really shouldn't. And to have tax exemption
for out of state while we bear the full brunt
of all of it, all of it, the impacts of
having an infrastruct an oil and gas infrastructure here, supply
chain infrastructure in our state, which there is an impact,
but to pay more because other states don't know how
to manage theirs or they don't have it, so they're
going to pay more, So we're going to pay even

(58:28):
more than that. It's just it's not right. And what
I want to say is we've never done it that way.
It's always been a partnership. It's always been to the
advantage of Uton's to have that infrastructure here. So where
they decided to reneg on this two way street, where
they decided that they were just going to make profits
everywhere they can possible and including at the expense of

(58:50):
our state, where they're at it's wrong.

Speaker 2 (58:54):
Well, but my question is, Greg, I mean, you are
taking on a very powerful lobby in this state when
you're coming talking about gas companies. Oh, and are there
lawmakers up there who are willing to stand up to
them and say this is how it's going to be.

Speaker 1 (59:09):
I got to be honest with you. It's gonna be tough.

Speaker 2 (59:10):
It's going to be tough. You're up there, you have
a sense of it.

Speaker 1 (59:13):
There's a lot of there's a lot of lobbyists up there,
and they have they're putting their coalitions together. They're trying
to get the Chambers of Commerce against it. They're trying
to Can you imagine that the chambers If you're a business,
you want lower gas prices because lower gas prices result
in lower delivery costs, lower prices all over everywhere. Why
on earth would we would we be tolerant of artificially

(59:36):
high gas prices in our own state when we refine
this much fuel. I mean, obviously, if they're if they're
exporting to other states forty percent of what they're refining
every day, we have enough to be completely energy independent
in the state without any need for any other fuel
coming in. And that should make us a stronger state.
It should be paying less, not seeing when we look

(59:58):
at other states they're paying less than we are and
they have none of that infrastructure. Something is wrong there,
something's not that is not free market. We're seeing that
is not it's if it's it's not. I don't think
it's a monopoly. They call it an oligopoly. It's this
unspoken if they're going to do it that high, we
can do it there because people have to pay it,
they have to buy it. They can't go anywhere else.

Speaker 2 (01:00:19):
Well, we know lawmakers are working on this. They I'm
not sure when they're going to unveil this idea in
this plan. I would think it have to be pretty
soon because they're what into the end of the third
week of the legislative session, they've got four more to go,
so sooner or later they're going to have to unveil
what they want to do, and then we'll let the
public decide where it's going to go. Hey, I'm all

(01:00:42):
in favor of lower gas taxes.

Speaker 1 (01:00:43):
So I just looked at the triple they said we
were at two seventy six. I'm putting up the gas
buddy right here. Our lowest price right now for regular
unleaded two ninety one highest three point fifty nine. We're
going back up into the three dollar round.

Speaker 2 (01:00:56):
Why are we going back up?

Speaker 1 (01:00:57):
Because they can? That's why telling you there's no other
reason for it.

Speaker 2 (01:01:01):
Yeah, could be, could be. Well there, I'm looking at
this report on Fox soons. Apparently some police activity at
Nancy Guthrie's home down there in Tucson. I'm not sure
what's going on. There may be a new development in
that tonight. We've got a lot more to talk to
you about, So stay with us The Rod and Gregg
Show on Talk Radio one oh five nine, Dan Ears.

Speaker 1 (01:01:23):
Wednesday.

Speaker 2 (01:01:24):
Super Bowl coming up on Sunday.

Speaker 1 (01:01:28):
Yeah, who do you like?

Speaker 2 (01:01:29):
I don't care.

Speaker 1 (01:01:31):
I think Seattle's a bare team. Yeah, I think probably so.

Speaker 2 (01:01:34):
I mean I think Seattle will win, but I really
don't care.

Speaker 1 (01:01:37):
I think the Seattle Rams game was the super Bowl
if you're looking for the two best teams the NFL
and I I you know, I said the Patriots are back,
but they're they're not as strong as well.

Speaker 2 (01:01:46):
In the AFC Championship game. I mean, first of all,
bow Knicks is not playing. Second of all, you got
a wickeds no Storm. Teams couldn't do it during thing. Yeah,
so whoever got ahead early and was able to stay
ahead through that storm. They were going to win the
game because Denver could not do it near could New England.
After the score, I mean, nothing changed for after that
fourth quarter or into the fourth quarter with that Snowgreg,

(01:02:08):
nothing with.

Speaker 1 (01:02:09):
Yeah, they were done whatever whose ever was winning when
that that blizzard hit. That was the end of the game.

Speaker 2 (01:02:13):
Well, and next couple of weeks, big, big week for
Proposition four in the efforts to uh a petition to
put the measure on a ballot to restore the legislature's
ability when it comes to setting up districts here in
the state of Utah. Now we learned today story in
the Tribune today says about seventy thousand people have signed
the petition so far. Greg, they need about one hundred

(01:02:34):
and forty thousand. I believe right the better Boundaries people
are sending out letters to the seventy thousand who've already
signed the petition asking them to ask the petition drivers
to remove their name. Which it's getting uggly.

Speaker 1 (01:02:49):
It's getting ugly, Yep, it's it's it's a tall it's
a tall order by design, you know, to get that done.
And what I love is the leftists, they they're so
mad that they say there's paid signature gatherers. Every single
ballot measure they've ever passed in this state. They paid
for those signatures every single time without accession.

Speaker 2 (01:03:08):
Yeah, there's that all right. Well, joining us on our
Newsmaker line and state Representative Paul Cutler. He is a
lawmakers are trying to clarify what signature gatherers can and
cannot do. I maid concerns over the country about misleading
ballot initiative petitions, and he's joining us on our Newsmaker
line right now. Representative Cutler, thank you very much for

(01:03:28):
joining the Roden Greag Show. How are you tonight?

Speaker 11 (01:03:31):
Yeah, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it. What
are something always fun to join you guys?

Speaker 2 (01:03:36):
Well, thank you. What are some of your concerns about
the petition gathering and what you're trying to do or
what you're looking for right now?

Speaker 11 (01:03:44):
So we started this effort in the summer over interim.
Had been complaints before about signature gatherers not being trained
and not understanding the law, and so in the summer
we started working on a training course. The elections off
with the Elections Office say hey, what nobody's going to
go and read the state code. Can't you make a

(01:04:04):
training course for this so it's easy to understand what
the rules are for gathering signatures or removing signatures, et cetera.
So what the bill does. The first thing it does
is creates this training class has been created. It's an
online takes ten minutes or so. It provides really useful
information about what a signature gather can say, what they

(01:04:25):
can't say, what the rules are for if you're going
to go gather signatures as a volunteer or as a
paid signature gather. And it's available now that we're putting
in into law to say if you're going to get
if you're going to go gather signatures, you've got to
watch this training first so you know the rules, and

(01:04:45):
they'll have to sign and say yes, I took the
training class. And there's a week We capture their information
online too, so it will help everybody to understand what
the rules are about gathering signatures.

Speaker 1 (01:04:56):
I love it. I think it's a great idea. Let me,
I only flowed this one because I think the Democrats
have kind of painted themselves in a little bit of
a corner. You might have heard me say before we
brought you on that. Whether it was Medicaid expansion, Obamacare expansion,
or whether it was the Better Boundaries initiative, you name it.
There isn't one that the Democrats haven't deployed millions of

(01:05:16):
dollars in signature gathering and otherwise advertising to be able
to pass those statewide measures. Is it time? And now
they're complaining about state one, they're another paid, they're complaining
about the paid signature gatherers, or they're outraged they can't
believe anyone would pay to have a signature gatherer? Do
they say you can't believe it? Is this the time
to say, okay, Democrats, we agree no more paid signature gathering.

(01:05:38):
So instead of creating a bad incentive to gather signatures,
tempting you to maybe not represent what it is just
to get the signature, has the time arrived where we
should not allow for signatures to be paid to be collected?

Speaker 11 (01:05:52):
Okay, well that's another thorny issue.

Speaker 1 (01:05:54):
I'm passed the education and I'm right to this.

Speaker 11 (01:05:59):
Sorry, if you're ready to go, I will say there
have been complaints for years about signature gathers and this
isn't new. Suddenly some of these people you know, are
suddenly agassed if their complaints, but there have been complaints
for years. Yes, it's now just different people complaining.

Speaker 1 (01:06:17):
Yeah, yeah, the Democrats. We're complaining about Democrats doing this,
so well, now they're the ones to get there seeing
the ballot me as you're going. Now they're upset.

Speaker 2 (01:06:25):
Yeah, you're well, well, let me ask you this representative
color if yeah, if in fact, there have been complained
for years, and you just said that, and I think
we've been aware of that. The whole idea of gathering
petitions and people getting signatures seems to be getting a
lot more attention this time than it has in the past.
My sense is that's an indication of who the media
favors here, because they're getting attention here.

Speaker 8 (01:06:46):
Am i?

Speaker 2 (01:06:46):
Am I reading that wrong? Or do you kind of
see that as well as why is this getting all
of the attention all.

Speaker 11 (01:06:52):
Of a sudden, Well, I think the redistricting in general
has just gotten so much attention that everybody paying attention
to it. Before it may have just been one side
of the aisle that was paying attention. Now everybody's paying
attention both sides of the aisle and the people in
the middle and so it's it's it's getting even more attention,
and we think there's a number of things we can

(01:07:13):
do to improve the situation. So if I can, if
you allow me, I have a couple of other things
that this bill.

Speaker 2 (01:07:19):
Does, like sure, please do please do so.

Speaker 11 (01:07:22):
The other thing we uh it does is it's going
to send an email or a text message notice to
a signer of any kind of petition to when their
signature has been verified and it says your you know
your the clerk in this county has verified your signature.
So if we have the information for the for the voter,

(01:07:44):
and we have either a mobile number or an email
for many voters when they when they signed up to
the voter, then it will send them an email our
text message just saying the clerk's verified your signature. They
can go online today, but you have to go online
and look for it. This way, it's really clear, and
we proactively reach out to people and notify them of
that status. And then if they signed an initiative or referendum,

(01:08:07):
they'll also get a link to here's the here's a
link to the actual text, and here's any instructions. If
you suddenly disagree with what you sign or if you
think you are tricked into signing something, then you can
here's how to remove your signature. So everybody's got the
information and which I think will help everybody.

Speaker 1 (01:08:30):
So it also makes it good No head go ahead, Well.

Speaker 11 (01:08:34):
There's a couple of other things that does so right now,
the packet that people carry around, if you've seen, if
you've helped with the Top four effort or see these,
they're not very well and it's not very compact. You
have you can only have two signatures per page. You've
got this big stack of a paperer carrying around. And

(01:08:55):
so we're offering a new version as it's calling it
a condensed packet, and it is going to have an
explanation in written in plain English on the top so
you can see what you're signing, says this is what
you're signing, and it has a QR code so you
can just use your phone and see exactly what you're signing.

(01:09:17):
You can go verify it yourself so you don't have
to wait for somebody else. And we're changing slightly what
information is collected to so we can fit seven signatures
for a page page. So it'll just make a little
bit more efficient and not have to store so many pages.
The current language says that the signature gas has to

(01:09:41):
attest signed that whoever signed it has read and understood
the petition. Guess what, people don't read these things. They
agree with general ideas. So we're changing the lording to
say they had an opportunity to read and understand what
the petition says, which people feel more comfortable signing up
for that.

Speaker 1 (01:10:00):
What do you think will happen? Let's let's assume that
your bill passes and and your good information drives good decisions.
You're you're you're putting a system together that will be
more efficient. People will have the opportunity to understand it better.
The QR code, I like it, the compact packets. Do
you do you think this will just make the existing
process have more integrity? Do you think we'll see more

(01:10:21):
signature gathering efforts because it's more clear? Maybe it's more efficient?

Speaker 5 (01:10:26):
Uh?

Speaker 1 (01:10:26):
Is it harder because you have to go through the education,
So maybe not so many? Where where do you see
signature gathering go? Because you're a lawmaker, I used to
be one. We kind of like doing it through the
legislative branch. You and I don't do. We don't. We
don't do state wide ballots. We kind of do bills,
so we don't do this part of it. What do
you what's the future of these ballots.

Speaker 11 (01:10:43):
I think it depends on what happens with with top
porn and upcoming potential constitutional amendment. If the judiciary has said, hey,
we like uh letting people run initiatives that all for
a reform government. And if that stand, if we don't

(01:11:03):
pass a constitutional amendment to clarify that the legislature can
change and update these laws, these super laws as needed,
then we're going to see a lot more money coming
in and we're going to get a lot more signature
gathering and a lot more initiatives. So I agree with
you that will change. Things will change. We can pass

(01:11:24):
the constitutional and them to make a change, But until then,
money is going to keep pouring in and people are
going to keep pushing signature together.

Speaker 2 (01:11:33):
Representative thank you, appreciate a few minutes, your time, your explanation,
Good luck for the rest of the session. Thank you,
you Bett, Thank you say Representative Paul Kutler on the
rod and Greg showing Utah's talk. Rady'll want to oh
five nine can or can I read your quote Greg
from this letter that has now been sent out by
the Better Boundaries people. This is what it says, you'll

(01:11:53):
just crack up Better Boundaries according to this article on
the trips today, and I'm reading from that article, is
telling voters who signed the petition that their name appeared
on a petition that would bring back jerrymandering.

Speaker 1 (01:12:07):
Tug you you can't misrepresent what it is that you're assigning.

Speaker 2 (01:12:13):
You just love it.

Speaker 1 (01:12:13):
It'll bring back jerry mandoring because Better Boundaries thinks a
plus twenty four percent Kamala Harris district in the state
of Utah is how somehow h nonpartisan without partisan consideration. Uh,
it's a joke. But we've got the receipts on how
badly they've gained this system. I just don't know how
they can still get away with saying lying like this.

Speaker 2 (01:12:33):
It goes on to say, you'll love this even more.
Let's be clear, this is a pro jerrymandering petition that
takes power away from voters and gives it to politicians.

Speaker 3 (01:12:46):
Ye.

Speaker 1 (01:12:48):
Power to judges who the people have never elected, and
left of center organizations who don't have to count to any count,
to anyone to draw the congressional maps. That's what that's
what we got from better bad and we don't not
by theory but by practice. So it's not even a debate.

Speaker 2 (01:13:04):
I would think Greg, they would understand this. But do
you think Ben mccadams, who's running, Nate Bluin, who's running, who, well,
there are others. Do they realize that if in fact
they get elected. Okay, let's say the boundary stage the same.
It's the Democrat that the Democratic Party does not give
a twit about them. No, they don't. You're from Utah, Yeah,

(01:13:27):
we don't give a twit. We just want your vote.
Go into your room and shut up.

Speaker 1 (01:13:31):
And you know, again, with only four seats, it is
important that all of those and we've seen this as
a case that without regard to political affiliation, whether it
was Matheson, whether it was even Ben McAdams when he
was a member of Congress, when they represented urban, suburban,
and rural constituencies, all four of them, and you only
have four, you can start to divide into urban or

(01:13:54):
suburban and rural if you have more than four. We
only have four. To have them all have similar can costituencies.
You saw even without regard to party common ground. Yeah,
you saw them work together as Utah delegation on general issues,
which is important when you only have four. This stunt
that's been done, this little blueberry, as it was called

(01:14:15):
by Congress from Mulloy yesterday.

Speaker 10 (01:14:18):
Is.

Speaker 1 (01:14:20):
We'll disconnect that area from the rest of this state
and its delegation and it won't help that area.

Speaker 2 (01:14:25):
Committee assignment. Yeah, Oh, they'll get a powerful committee assignment. Yeah,
dog catcher committee. All right, mare coming up, they're riding
Greg show in Utah's talk radio one oh five nine
knrs a retreat. We're talking about the fact that Tom Holman,
who was sent to Minneapolis by the President to figure
things out up there, announced today that they're drawing down
about seven hundred agents. Everyone's saying, see we won they're

(01:14:49):
pulling out. Well, they are not pulling out, Greg. They
have been able to do their job. And Tom Holman
said today we're getting little more cooperation.

Speaker 11 (01:14:56):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:14:56):
And the big lynchpin here and that's why Minnesota has
does have a chance to look like other states where
ICE is working to find the criminals and deport them,
is that they are now experiencing the cooperation of county
sheriffs and that that was what they never had before
and why they had to do all the work themselves. Well, uh,
these sheriffs in Minnesota are now cooperating fully and that's

(01:15:20):
a big difference. That changes that that changes the rules
right there.

Speaker 2 (01:15:23):
Here's a few of the highlights that Tom of Tom
Homan tonight at the news conference announcing the drawdown.

Speaker 12 (01:15:29):
Given this increase in unprecedented collaboration and as a result
of the need for less law enforcement offers to do
this work and it's safer environment, I have announced, effective immediately,
we will draw down seven hundred people, effective today, seven
hundred law enforcing personnel. I keep hearing it and hearing
it and hearing it. We're not surrendering the present's mission

(01:15:54):
on the mass deportation operation. If you're in the country legally,
if we find it.

Speaker 5 (01:16:00):
Aren't you.

Speaker 12 (01:16:00):
But this is about tarker enforcement operation, and that's what
we're going to be doing. When I was a way
to where the roadblock says, I called the chief of
police and he went and disbanded them after I got
the phone. Well, he has promised to take enforcement access
to the legal You can't do that. And again it
messages those folks, what are you doing? You really thinking

(01:16:22):
will stop an ICE and cvpople doing the job.

Speaker 2 (01:16:25):
To joke, I love tell moment. He's a very matter
of fact. What are you doing trying to block a
road a roadblock? You're trying to a checkpoint that's totally illegal. Yeah, yeah,
that's what are you doing. The thing is only he
can say. I'm sure that that those those words had
been shared and they've been expressed by other people and

(01:16:45):
in the Trump administration in Ice, but no one was
paying attention to him or didn't respect him. I think
Tom Homan's getting their full attention. Yeah, I think he is.
I I he's gone in. He said, we're gonna focus
on the nastiest of the nasty, and we're going to
go after them. And I you know, Christine Noman, this
is not her shining moment, so to speak. I think
it could have been handled a lot differently. And I

(01:17:07):
think the President saw that and that's why he said
Tom Homan, get in there and get this thing under control.
And I think now there's still protests going on. They're
going to protest just because they like to protest, I think,
But you know, I think Tom Holman has gone in
there and done a good job.

Speaker 1 (01:17:22):
He has. And look, I actually think that Minnesota came
into this. I mean, first they needed distraction from the
historic fraud and.

Speaker 2 (01:17:31):
This nobody's talking about that.

Speaker 1 (01:17:33):
After the public Treasury it's because of this. Somebody that
because of the ice action in Minnesota. They're not but
they Minnesota and its politicians needed to have a distraction
from that because it's pretty bad. So they were they
want they wanted to be confrontational. They wanted this to
capture the media's full attention, national media, and so they

(01:17:54):
were acting, I think, very recklessly when things got as
bad as they did. I think when you bring in Homan,
I think, I don't know that you get all these
sheriffs in Minnesota to start cooperating if you weren't pushing
hard and saying we're gonna not stop going after these criminals.
But they can't have what's going on. They went and
fomented all this, but now it's getting out of control,

(01:18:14):
and so then I think you bring in Homan, and
he's able to do what he's doing now. But I
don't know, it's hindsight's twenty twenty, but I don't know
who could have gone into Minnesota with all the motivation
to create that, you know, that chaos that they needed
or wanted. And we even see the receipts that these
were politicians as well elected officials, Governor Walls himself, they

(01:18:35):
were fomenting all this chaos and then it starts to
get out of their reach, your hands, and so now
you're seeing decisions. You're seeing now. By the way, Homan says,
for those who are not a national security threat or
public safety risk, you are not exempt from immigration enforcement actions.
If you're in the country illegally, you are not off
the table. So he's not, you know, give me a hug.

(01:18:58):
He's saying, Nah, even if you're out a national security
threat or a criminal, if you're in the country illegally,
the law still applies to you.

Speaker 2 (01:19:06):
Well, there is big news tonight on gender affirming surgery,
and the line I leave with you is follow the money.
We'll explain when we come back on the Rod and
Greg Show and Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine.
kN Ar s the doctors who conducted her process of
transitioning from female to male, claiming negligence. The woman, once

(01:19:28):
again living as a woman, is going to walk away
with two million dollars, but she'll never get her organs back.
Her breasts were removed. Now, boy, did that set off
a series of events over the last twenty four to
forty eight hours, and it may be the tipping point
when it comes to transgender surgery. We had what Greg,
we had The Surgeons Association announced that they say delay

(01:19:51):
the surgery until nineteen and all of a sudden, the
AMA has come along.

Speaker 1 (01:19:55):
So the American Society of Plastic Surgeons had said publicly,
this looks like it shouldn't be done though there someone's
at least nineteen years of age. The American Medical Association
came out and concurred with that. Pointing to the American
Society of Plastic Surgeons statement, they said they concur with
those with that.

Speaker 2 (01:20:16):
With that as well well, joining us on our Newsmaker line.
We just had him on the show last week because
he was here in Utah justifying on this issue as
doctor Kurt Marcelli. He's the chief medical officer for the
organization called No Do No Harm. Doctor Marcelli, welcome back
to the Rod and Greg Show. Thanks for having me back,
Doctor Micelli. Is this the tipping point? Do you think

(01:20:37):
have things changed that rapidly.

Speaker 15 (01:20:40):
It's quite remarkable what's happened in the past forty eight
hours or so. And certainly when you have the American
Society of Plastic Surgeons come out, look at the evidence,
assess the comprehensive systematic reviews and come to the conclusion
that the evidence just isn't there for these procedures, that's
that's huge. And certainly to have it thought up with
the AMA. Granted, I think the AMA is still allowed

(01:21:04):
maybe for some they sort of suggested that these procedures
could generally be deferred to adulthood, but even that is
a huge statement for the AMA to make, even what
their past policies have been. So this this is pretty significant,
and it's it's so good to see medical societies against
specifically the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, actually looking at
the evidence, taking it into account and putting it in

(01:21:27):
an ethical framework as well, to truly understand how we
can best serve individuals and really come to the conclusion
that these these treatments for kids with gender confusion are
just wrong when we go to this hormonal route and
the surgical route.

Speaker 1 (01:21:43):
So this was a jury awarded this this person two
million dollars in damages. It's the first malpractice suit from
a de transitioner. Now, when you were in Utah, you
were testifying as a physician in this space you have it.
You brought so much knowledge and perspect to that committee hearing.
What would that committee hearing had been like? Do you

(01:22:03):
imagine if these things had these dominoes had fallen? Just
what was it last week? I mean, this wasn't that
long ago you were here. Would what would have changed
in that hearing that you were in? I mean, it
passed overwhelmingly, but you had a lot of people there
that were arguing that what you were saying was wrong
and what the legislature was doing was wrong. Would this
information from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons in the

(01:22:26):
AM and this lot malpractice lawsuit, would that have changed
maybe the discussion in that hearing in your mind?

Speaker 15 (01:22:33):
Well, I think one of the things that we so
often hear is that these children and their parents are
often told that they're going to commit suicide if they
don't have these medical transition procedures and such. And the
reality is that pediatric medical transition doesn't reduce the risk
of suicide. I mean, unfortunately, there's a lot of comorbid
psychiatric illness often with these kids who are struggling with confusion,

(01:22:56):
and that's what we need to treat. But certainly, in
the case of the individual who was awarded the Tumingion
dollar lawsuit, that individual's mom was pressured as well with
this suicide myth. And again it's that kind of emotional
black now where parents don't know what to do. They're
trying to do their best, They're going to professionals, and
these professionals are putting them on this fast track. So

(01:23:18):
I think that you know, hearing this verdict and understanding
what's coming of that, hearing what the American Society of
Plastic Surgeons are saying. I mean, so often we hear
this lore that well, all the American medical associations in
this country they support gender affirming care. And the reality
is that now the American Society of Plastic Surgeons has
taken a very firm stand, and again that's a stand

(01:23:38):
that's based on the evidence. And I think if we
find that other medical societies like the Endercrint Society and
the American Academy Pediatrics, if they start looking at the
evidence and assessing it, they're going to come to the
same conclusion, and that's what we really need these societies
to do so, and I certainly hope that the American
Medical Association and these other medical societies will do just that,

(01:23:58):
and we'll find ourselves that will be in line with
Sweden and Finland, the United Kingdom and other countries which
have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion
these procedures are just harmful for kids, you know, doctor Marceli.

Speaker 2 (01:24:10):
You know, these organizations may now be looking at the science,
but they also have got to be looking at the
bottom line. Isn't part of this all about the money?
I mean two million dollar reward and if these stack up,
millions of dollars could cost some of these physicians a
lot of money. Is it fair to say a lot
of this is about the money.

Speaker 15 (01:24:28):
I think those judgments are significant, and certainly they are
about thirty other de transition or lawsuits that are out there,
and I'm sure there'll be more to come.

Speaker 8 (01:24:36):
You know.

Speaker 15 (01:24:36):
I think when folks sort of see that, wow, the
course will serve justice, that my voice can be heard,
I think that might give others the courage to come
forth as well. So I think that is a reality,
you know, on the other side of the coin, unfortunately,
many of these procedures, transition procedures, have been very lucrative
for these professionals, you know, these doctors and session and
that's the problem as well. So I think, you know,

(01:24:58):
having the lie ability there, the risk of malpractice, the
reputational risk, the financial risk. I mean, certainly the hope
would be that it really ends these procedures. But again,
when you have a society like the American Society of
Plastic Surgeons, a professional organization really imposing its own self
regulation upon itself, that's what medicine needs more and more of.

(01:25:19):
And you know, we just haven't had that really literally
until just a day or so ago, and unfortunately that's
what's allowed this to get completely out of hand. I mean,
my organization Do No Harm. We Stop the Harm database
where we looked at the claims, the insurance claims for
such procedures, and we found that over fourteen thousand kids
over a five year period from twenty nineteen to twenty

(01:25:40):
twenty three were impacted by either puberty blockers, hormones or surgeries.
And that's probably an underestimate. So there are many many
children that have been unfortunately harmed by these procedures, and
we certainly hope that whether it's through the course, through
the legislation, whatever we can do to really stop these
practices and give kids the therapy and the support that

(01:26:01):
they need, not the hormones and the puberty blockers and
the surgeries that just do so much irreversible damage.

Speaker 1 (01:26:07):
You know, doctor, I'm struggling because you sound very calm,
You sound like you're fine with this, But I have
to imagine that you taking this stance just a number,
just a year ago or more, where you were worried
about this, and you came out and you were really
arguing against what was maybe popular medical sentiment at the time.
You had to get abused for it. You must have

(01:26:28):
been criticized for it. This having the AMA come out,
having the American Society of Plastic Surgeons come out now
and say, hey, you know what, it's not a good idea.
This is an oops moment that seems pretty bad. I mean,
I mean, does this happen in medicine, Something as serious
as you can detransition a child, and a guy like you,
a doctor saying actually you can't, or if you do

(01:26:49):
there's a lot of risk and a lot of problems here.
You're getting attacked. They just turn around and say, well,
King Zax, whatever I said I didn't really mean, this
is what we really mean now. I think I'm mad
about that. I don't know that I'm happy that they're
coming out ilad. Maybe I'm glad they are, but for
them to say that they were okay with it before
to now say they're not, boy, A lot of people

(01:27:09):
have suffered because of the opinions they've expressed.

Speaker 15 (01:27:14):
There's no doubt there's been so much pain and suffering
and a lot of healing that really is needed. And
I can certainly understand when folks have lost trust in
the medical system as a result of the actions that
have happened in medicine. And you know, unfortunately, medicine has
a history of not doing always the right things, whether
it's insulin, coma's the botomy. I mean, there's just a

(01:27:34):
lot of stuff within the medical sphere, this certainly being
the most recent tragedy of pediatric medical transition. I mean,
I was a meeting of the Pennsylvania Medical Society just
I don't know four months ago or so, and tried
to get my state on board, state society on board
with the idea that we need to stop these these
procedures and kids and lost very very largely within the

(01:27:57):
context of that society. I don't know, maybe things will
be a little bit different now that we do have
a medical society that has stepped forward, partly because the
leaders of organized medicine really have not up to this point.

Speaker 2 (01:28:10):
And you're right, many of the views that I share
and that we share.

Speaker 15 (01:28:15):
Haven't been easily aired within the halls of academia. Again,
even about five months ago, our organization Do No Harm
aim to go to the American Academy of Child Medlestan
Psychiatry to have a booth in their exhibit hall, and
we were rejected. We were told that the discussion of
this debate needs to be held within the scientific program.
You can't have an exhibit and that's a real problem

(01:28:37):
that when medicine shuts down speech. Now, I will say
that the American Psychiatric Association, as opposed to the Child
the Adolescent Psychiatry Association, did allow us.

Speaker 2 (01:28:46):
To have that booth.

Speaker 15 (01:28:46):
But nonetheless, I mean, this is just a few months ago,
and we certainly hope that that changes, because we need
to have this dialogue within medicine. We've caused tremendous harm
and we need to do what's right for these individuals
who have been so harmed by and prevent any harm
from further happening.

Speaker 2 (01:29:02):
You were here last week testifying before a legislative committee.
UTAH is doing a lot in this effort, I would imagine,
though there are other efforts around the country in a
similar fashion to what UTAH is doing. What will these
rulings and these announcements mean for those legislative efforts. Does
it really give them a boost?

Speaker 10 (01:29:19):
Now?

Speaker 2 (01:29:21):
I think it does.

Speaker 15 (01:29:22):
I think it does because it does put forth a
body of organized medicine within the United States that is
voicing a very clear position. It's clear that the American
Society of Plastic Surgeons read the HHS report unfortunately that
it's actually an excellent report that was produced, but unfortunately
has been sort of sidecast by the Entercrine Society and

(01:29:45):
the American Academy of Pediatrics. They were invited to peer
review the report that was done and they didn't respond,
and I think, you know, it's really a shame on them.
It's time for them to respond, to come to the
plate and to really again look soundly at the end evidence.
So I think when you have physicians within within our
great country looking at the evidence and coming to the

(01:30:07):
conclusion that hey, these procedures just aren't justified, that's an
important first step. But they're still you know, they're miles ago.
Before we sleep there. There's so much more that that
really needs to be done, and we really have to
continue to drive home the fact that puberty blockers, cross
sex hormones, you know, these are bad too in terms
of what they do to kids with the impact on
their bones, their cardiovascular health, their metabolics, in addition to

(01:30:30):
the other permanent impacts in terms of infertility, sexual dysfunction.
So it's important for us to continue and to move
this forward so that these procedures aren't harming kids in
any way, shape or form.

Speaker 2 (01:30:43):
Doctor Marcelli, we appreciate you joining us for a second
time in such a short period of time. Thank you
for your time and good luck with your efforts. Keep
up the good work. Thank you, thank you so much.
All right on our newsmaker line, that is doctor Kurt Masselli.
He is an officer with the Do No Harm organization,
and there's some major news with these organizations. Sah, but

(01:31:03):
I'm with you. I'm kind of mad at this.

Speaker 1 (01:31:05):
Yeah, sorry, I think of it. You can't castrate your kids,
you know, really well, thanks for telling us for how
long that we could, you know. I mean it's just
I and he. I think this doctor Marceli and his organization.
I think they've got an incredible amount of criticism and
they've gone through a lot, but they've been shown great
leadership and they haven't blinked. And I think you're now

(01:31:27):
seeing people are following suit.

Speaker 2 (01:31:30):
Finally, yeah, finally am into that. All right? Mary? Coming
to final thoughts here on the Roden greg Show on
this Wednesday. Next on talk radio one oh five nine,
okayn us, Roger Goodell has said, you're there to unite,
not divide. Well, we'll see what happens with that, right.

Speaker 1 (01:31:48):
I see trouble. I think this is a slow moving
train wreck. I think this is going to offend. And
I think maybe this is the moment where Goodell has
egg on his face and the American people are just
so have had it. Watch football, and I think that
these guys are going to pummel the public watching with
all their messages and all of their stuff and I

(01:32:09):
think that at this point, maybe Roger Goodell doesn't let
jay Z produce this anymore and he just you know,
just shut up. Yeah, but politicizing everything.

Speaker 2 (01:32:18):
Well, speaking of politicizing, there's another controversy. Apparently an organization
is posting a electronic billboard greg done at Fisherman's Wharf
and it's praising Ice.

Speaker 1 (01:32:30):
Nice.

Speaker 2 (01:32:31):
Listen to this report.

Speaker 7 (01:32:32):
A new digital billboard at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco
is evoking mixed reactions.

Speaker 2 (01:32:38):
It made me stick to my stomach.

Speaker 7 (01:32:40):
It's an ad that shows support for ICE.

Speaker 2 (01:32:42):
They have a job to do too. That's it. You know,
I don't have a problem with them.

Speaker 7 (01:32:46):
The billboard breeds Defensive Player of the Year Ice that
calls itself American Sovereignty is behind the billboard. We tried
to reach out to them to learn more about their motivation,
but have not been able to reach anyone.

Speaker 2 (01:33:00):
I'm worried for my neighbors.

Speaker 13 (01:33:02):
I'm worried for what is happening, and I'm worried to
see it escalating here.

Speaker 2 (01:33:07):
I love that Defensive Player of the Year Ice, I
know that now. Speaking of that, and of course, the
Seahawks are in the game against the the New England Patriots.
Look what Washington is doing. They are now considering a proposal,
and they're calling it a jock tax on visiting athletes.

(01:33:29):
So if your team comes in, you know, to play,
you're going to be you could be taxed for playing there,
depending you know, for one day, you'd be taxed. These
football players make a heck of a lot of money,
and this Seattle's okay. I remember Rush always saying that
once he left New York, he'd never go back and
do a show in New York because he'd be taxed

(01:33:51):
that one day. And with all the money that Rush made,
he didn't want to be taxed. So if he had
something to do in New York, fly in, be a dinner,
get on the plane, fly back to Florida so they
couldn't tax them. Sean Hannity left New York because of
the text. That's right, yes, but can you see that
a jock tax? I remember years ago, Robinson Canoe, remember

(01:34:12):
who Robinson Canoe was? Great second basement for the New
York Yankees.

Speaker 1 (01:34:17):
Nineteen twenty.

Speaker 2 (01:34:18):
No, it was recent, okay, all right, all right, just
check left the Yankees to sign a free agent contract
guess where he went. He went to Seattle. Why they
have no state income tax. Ah, and that's why he left.
But there's a great quote in Steve Moore's column today.
Will this be the Seahawks' last Super Bowl? If their
players are forced to pay jock tax because they want

(01:34:40):
to play for the Seahawks? I doubt it.

Speaker 1 (01:34:43):
Now it's so easy. So don't tax me, don't tax
the taxi guy behind the tree.

Speaker 2 (01:34:47):
Yeah, that's try that one. I'll see how that works.
That's it for us tonight. Head up, shoulders back. May
God bless you and your family and this great, great
country of ours. Have a good Wednesday. We're back tomorrow.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Betrayal Season 5

Dateline NBC

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Rod and Greg Show: Necessity of Voter ID; Judicial Transparency; Plastic Surgeons Break Rank on GA Care

Episode Transcript

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

Popular Podcasts

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

Betrayal Season 5

Dateline NBC

All Episodes