Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm not gone. Don't call it a comeback. I've been
here for years.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Well you had a replacement last week.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Oh I heard, especially on wing Man Wednesday. I had
a great caller somehow on my ex page. Say you
remember in Maverick the movie, there was Phoenix. Oh yeah,
she was like beating a lot of those pilots. I
was told I was phoenixed, like as a term, I
was Phoenix. Well, Goose is back, ready to you know,
(00:28):
be the co pilot?
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (00:29):
You knowing wing Man Wednesday. You know when you're when
you're on the other side of the country, you start
getting chatter the Goose is dead. Uh huh.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Let me tell you what Goose is alive? And well
I can guarantee you that.
Speaker 4 (00:42):
How are you?
Speaker 2 (00:43):
How are you, buddy? Welcome to the show. I'm brought
our kids.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
I'm citizen Greg Hughes known as Goose on.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
It is Wingman Wednesday. We are flying this baby like
you wouldn't believe. Today. A lot to talk about today.
We are going to get into the redistricting and Jerry
manderin silly. I don't know what else to call it, Greg,
It's just silliness.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
The complaints of the actual jerry or the.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Yeah, you know, the redistrict thing, and I understand, but
the reaction to it and what the Democrats are claiming,
it's just silly. It really is.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
When I when they all flee to Illinois, of all
places where districting jerry mandering takes on a whole new realm.
These are animals you're looking at, praying mantises and all
kinds of different forms, and they're all there complaining about redistricting.
It's that it reminds me of the saying, Hi, high pot,
I'm kettle, you're black, Okay. I mean, I just don't
understand how they could go there, of all places to
(01:34):
complain about jerry mandering.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
That's what they're trying to do. Speaking of silly, Uh,
I don't know if you read this. About about a
week ago, our good friend uh Brennan and Clapper wrote
their own op ed page into the friendly confines of
the New York Times and all this Russian hope stuff.
It's not right. You're just misinterpreting the documents.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
It is so strange to read them say that what
we've read in the declassified documents isn't there, that this
is just a mere political opinion. It's actually it makes
you dizzy because you're like that, maybe I didn't read
what I thought I read. You go back and you're like,
how are they saying that's not true? When it's a
(02:16):
declassified document, it's not subject to opinion. It's they took
the blackout and they took the black away, and you
can read the words and the words say what they say.
So how do they say that's not true?
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Yeah, well they're trying. Well, they lied a lot, as
they do each and every day. Now, we'll get into
that a little bit later on. We'll talk about critical minerals,
the mining of those minerals in this country, very very important.
And we'll also talk about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
They're about to come into a book tour Collision. Yeah,
(02:46):
her book, his book. She said, he said, it's going
to be interesting. She's already slammed. We know, I read
this yesterday. She's already slammed. Poor little Timmy.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Yeah, she really goes after his happy hands, you know,
that little way if he had going, I mean, we
laughed out of it. He apparently even the Canada herself
wasn't really thrilled with that little enthusiastic double wristed swing
whatever hand.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Whatever that is, happy hands, I guess. All right, So
we've got a lot to get to today, and we
invite you to be a part of the program. Eight
eight eight five seven eight zero one zero on your
cell phone dial pound two fifteen and say hey Rod
or on our talkback line. All you do is have
to download the brand new iHeartRadio app. Put kan RS
there at knars dot com and up in the right
(03:31):
hand corner on your cell phone you'll see a little
red microphone. You click on that and you can leave
us a thirty second comment. All right, let's start off.
Abby just mentioned this new newscast. The news conference is
just wrapping up now. But Donald Trump greg in his
element when he does things like this. You can just
you can see him. He doesn't have happy hands, I
(03:54):
hope not, but he just feels so comfortable. One he's
talking about another sixess story. A man, this is a
giant success story again today. Well, and where to begin
on the success stories? You have the announcement from Apple,
which is a massive additional investment from the one they
already committed to. They committed a five hundred billion now
(04:14):
they're adding another one hundred billion and Utah apparently we
don't know the details of this, but as Abbi mentioned
in newscast, the President briefly mentioned it in the statement,
Greg that Utah is going to benefit with this Apple investment.
So something is coming here and.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
We've heard this, and I'm like, I've been looking forward
to the announced groundbreaking because it's one thing to project
over a number of years. I think it's is it
Kentucky or Tennessee where the Apple is going to be
breaking grounds on I think one hundred and seventy five
thousand guitar feet facility, which that is not a small
facility at one hundred seventy five thousand feet. So it's
really happening. I think you're seeing a trade realignment globally,
(04:52):
but you're seeing a reintroduction of our manufacturing in our
industries in the United States that we were always the
loan superpower because of and we saw this outsourced and
we saw it disappear and every day Americans were the
victims of that happening. This is coming back. It's coming back.
By this announcement, You've got this five hundred billion dollars
Department of Labor put out a post. Five hundred billion
(05:15):
now available for trade schools thanks to the Trump's bill,
the big beautiful bill. H that's that's that's money that
trains every day Americans and trades that a I can't
get its hands. Okay, if AI's you know, if everyone's
worried about what AI is going to displace by way
of jobs, these trade school jobs are going to are
are high paying, are going to be great jobs. And
(05:37):
I don't think they're they're vulnerable to AI or technology.
And again, it gives every day Americans opportunities. And that's
and that should have always been the state of play
in America, but we lost that for a good while
and now it's coming back. And Trump is the author
of this without his vision and his determination, because everyone
didn't want to do it. They wanted to keep the
status quo. You wouldn't have, uh, these exciting announcements like
(06:00):
we're seeing.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Well, I don't know if you've heard Mike grow we
all know who Mike is, the jobs guy. I mean,
he said, you know, if you're an electrician, if you're
a plumber, if you're an HVAC expert, you have training
that you're easily going to be making more than one
hundred thousand dollars a year because we're going to need
a robot. You know, AI cannot unclog your drain. Nope,
let's say come up with a robot that does that.
(06:23):
But we haven't seen that yet. Maybe that'll be developed someday.
But let's be honest. I mean, you've got jobs like
this and then you've got numbers on the SNP. The
S and P has just taken off.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
So let me tell you what the regime media will never,
oh never, oh never. Eighty two percent of S and
P five hundred companies have beaten their quarterly earnings estimates
so far. This is the highest rate since twenty twenty one.
To see this, if you watch this bar graph, it
is straight up in the year for eighty two percent
of SMP companies to beat their quarterly earnings. This is
(06:53):
what they estimate, and they were they probably weren't bearish
in their estimates because things are going well, but they're
beating their own estimates a two percent. That's a that
is a great economic indicator of which no, the leftists,
the regime media, they can't tell you this. They won't
tell you this because your conclusion when you see that,
and you see the announcements of five hundred billion dollars
(07:14):
for trade schools, and you hear the announcement from Apple,
all of that culminates into the everyday American people are
getting its opportunities back, the economy is going to grow,
and that that for them. Yeah, that's that's the worst
news they've ever heard. They're not going to report it.
They're not going to tell you about this, or they're
going to find a way to tell you that somehow
that those earnings reports being beaten, that's somehow a bad thing.
(07:37):
They'll find a way to discuss.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Well. And the Democrats, and I heard Clay and Buck
have a great discussion on this earlier today coming into
the U to the station today. But they talked about
the state of the Democratic Party. It is a party
of unhappy people.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Yeah, they're massing.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
It's a party of grievance. Well, you know, so how
do you complain about giving Americans more jobs, better jobs,
having a better life. How do you combat that?
Speaker 1 (08:04):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Well, you know, and that's their message.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
So, and we talked about this yesterday. They they think
when we talk about jobs, we talk about five hundred billion.
And you know in the trades, the Democrats are trying
to tell our young, our young people in America that
jobs are demeaning, like you shouldn't have to work. Is
in not working, and these communist countries around the world,
there's somehow, some quality of life that is worth it.
While it's not all upward mobility all all. A good
(08:29):
quality of life comes from, you know, freedom of choosing
your self determination and doing what you want to do.
But they they want to tell you that work is bad.
They want to tell you that they want to have
a collective that raises you from cradle to grave. And
so anything that creates more liberty, more self determination, more
opportunity is this is this is the worst impossible scenario
(08:51):
they could imagine. They are just they can't and they
don't know how to even lie about it. They used
to lie about these things. They could tell you with
a straight face, we just want to build school and roads.
And meanwhile they had these real bad intentions. Now they
just tell you the bad intentions. They don't even hide it. Yeah,
I don't get it.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Well, they don't hide the fact that they're socialists anymore either.
I mean, they're calling them, the Democratic Socialist Party. I mean,
that's what it's become.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
I can't get that mayor's name right anymore. So I
heard him called, I heard Jesse Waters. I call him Zoolanders.
I'm just call him because then I don't have to
worry about how to say his name anymore. I'm just
calling him Zoolander from now. Well, Zoolander is a socialist,
a declared and proud socialist. And when you look at
the socialist platform of which he helped author, according to
(09:36):
the socialists there in New York, they want to do
away with a nuclear family. Yes, that is that is
again part and parcel with we don't want you to work.
We want the collective to take care of you from
cradle to grave. We want this, I mean, it's it
is all the things we talk about. They're actually saying, yes,
you're right.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Well, you know, the one politician that never was afraid
to say this greg was Bernie saying. I mean Bernie
Sanders for years has said I'm a Democratic Socialist yep,
you know, and everybody, you know, everybody else in the
Democratic Party was afraid to say that.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Now they're admitting it where they're headed. Yes, So when
we talked about Terris way back when. Okay, I mean
this is when April. Yeah, back in April, we had
a lot of criticism from the so called economists and
everything else, but we had we had Ran Paul, Senator
Ran Paul that was really against tariff's and he was
really you know, angry about it all. When you see
(10:28):
Trump right now using these tariffs as leverage to see
the like you're seeing. What are you when you have
that leverage? With Senator Paul now condemned President Trump with
the global trade realignments that we're seeing going on that
are advantaging the United States, Is it still as bad
as he said?
Speaker 5 (10:45):
Then?
Speaker 1 (10:45):
I wonder if he has some second thoughts about his
condemnation of uh President Trump using tariffs to leverage better
agreements for this contract.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
I haven't heard, I have not heard him say anything
to that fact, as if you'd be interesting to see
what he comes up with. All Right, We've got a
lot to get to when we come back. We'll talk
about the battle over redistricting and Jerry Mandarin. It's been
around a long time. That's coming up on the Wingman
Wednesday edition of the Rod and Greg Show right here
on Talk Radio one O five nine k n RS.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
That's all right, but I'm alive. I die like any movie.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
I'm rot our kid. Great to be with you on
this Wingman Wednesday afternoon. All right, let's talk about redistricting
and Jerry Mandarin. We just saw an amazing map on
Fox News during the break, Greig, this is a map
They showed what everything north or kind of northeast of
New York, New York state. Yes, all these blue states. Yes,
now one of those states have a Republican member of Congress.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Yeah. Yeah, north of north of New York. It's all blue.
It's all blue. This is why when with this character
you have a clip of it, when if a state
has all Democrat members of Congress, all congressional districts are blue,
when you say, okay, gloves are off, we're going to redraw,
what would that actually look like them? Because you don't
have a Republican district anywhere in your state. You've done this,
(12:05):
You've done this as much as you possibly could. You
got nowhere to go.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Yeah, yeah, here's more. Heally, she is the governor of Massachusetts,
a state which, by the way, does not have a
Republican member of Congress. Even though there are forty percent
of the state's population is Republican. Let's hear her explanation
about that.
Speaker 6 (12:23):
Donald Trump, Greg Abbott, Ken Paxton have left us no choice.
That's the reality. Nobody came looking for this, right. We
had a system of free and fair elections. We have
maps that are regularly drawn, voted on by legislatures, approved
and signed off on by governors. This is the way
the system works until this, until this comes in, and
(12:45):
so you know, they've left us no choice. It's not
where anyone wants to be. I could tell you that governors,
I know, maybe with the exception of this person in Texas,
evidently we want our constituents represented. We want the voices heard,
whether you vote for me or not. I want your
vote to count. I want your vote to count. Unlike
(13:08):
Greg Abbott, who doesn't want your voice to count and
doesn't want your vote to count. Nor does Donald Trump,
nor does Ken Paxton. Because they're proposing to completely rewrite
a map out of nowhere to take away the votes
and the voices of Texans.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
Well, haven't they already done that in Massachusetts? Greg where
I said about you know, forty percent of the state's
population voted for Donald Trump in the latest election. But
there is not one district in Massachusetts that has a
Republican going to Congress.
Speaker 7 (13:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
No, so she says that. But they've they've absolutely drawn
those districts in ways that they've They've sure they've they've
gotten full maximum benefit for their party, for their power,
and you know, it's it's it does really ring hollow
when they're when they're complaining about any of this drawing,
when they've drawn, when their districts look the way they doe, Yeah,
(14:00):
not kidding you. They look like like praying mantis's or
like there's a district that, if you looked at it,
you would think, well, they have to be contiguous. That
district's not. Well, no, there's like a daddy long leg
spider length strip that connects these two parts together. And
it's I've never seen I tell you this. The legislative
attorneys in our state nonpartisan. They had some fundamental rules
(14:22):
we had to follow, and we did. Those maps I'm
watching would not fit into how our process worked here
in the state of Youth. Not that we didn't have
you know, not that we were completely oblivious to party affiliation.
I mean, it's it's there, but there was you know,
major boundaries, counties, waterways, you name it. There's just ways
that you you do it. And I don't see it
(14:42):
in those Democrats, those blue state maps at all.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Ed Ring is joining us on our Newsmaker line right now.
He's a senior fellow at the Center for American Greatness.
Ed thanks for joining us tonight. What do you make
of all this head.
Speaker 8 (14:53):
Well, I mean, this is something that's been going on forever.
Jerry mander is a term that was invented in honor
of I think the guy's last name was Jerry. He
was a state legislator that came up with the bright
idea of manipulating voting districts in order to maximize the
(15:14):
advantage for his party. And it looked like a salamander,
so they called it a Jerry mander. This has been
going on for a very long.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
Time, you know what, And you're exactly right now. The
thing that in Utah we have had what they call
non partisan staff. That means that they write a draft
legislation for both a majority of minority party in the
And this goes back to twenty ten when I was
a part of the the redistricting. I was part of
House leadership at the time. There were some fundamental rules
(15:43):
about how you would draw these congressional districts. And of
course you're counting population and you're not. It's not that
you're not mindful of party affiliation in those things, but
you had to have the difference of population. We try
to keep it between A plus one or very close
in terms of the pope of each district. But I'm
looking at districts in Maryland, I'm looking at districts in
(16:04):
other states, and they do each set a salamander. One
looks like a praying mantis. One looks like I don't
know what this one. This looks like Italy. To me,
I don't see them following some of these fundamental rules
that our legislative attorneys said. You've got to have some
standards that you can really justify that are not just
your cook in the books. Why how are these states
(16:24):
getting away with this?
Speaker 8 (16:28):
Well, you know, part of it is the standards, I guess,
you know, especially if you go from state to state.
They're not federal standards. They vary from state to state,
I suppose, easily manipulated.
Speaker 5 (16:40):
But there was also the.
Speaker 8 (16:42):
Impact of the Voting Rights Act and some of the.
Speaker 5 (16:45):
Supreme Court decisions.
Speaker 8 (16:46):
Which by the way, it looks like some of those
may get reversed.
Speaker 5 (16:50):
But they actually made it a condition.
Speaker 8 (16:54):
Of equal access and equal representation to create safe districts
by ethnicity, and so they in order to do that,
I mean, that's a rationale, but it's based in law
and court precedents, and so in order to do that, though,
they had to create very contorted shapes for some of
(17:16):
these districts. And that's their moral and legal justification for
doing it. Specifically for the Democrats, it's why they they're
able to come up with this stuff and get away
with it.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
And is the rub here right now that Trump wants
to do this during the mid terms and not wait
until twenty thirty. Is that the rub? Is that what
really's got everybody sow up in arms.
Speaker 8 (17:36):
Well, yeah, it is, because that's unprecedented as far as
I know, and you know, typically you're supposed to do
this every ten years. Now, you know, Trump is trying
to take into account something which you know, if Californians
try this, they're on thin ice because California is already
so heavily jerrymandered. But the Latino boat in Texas has
swung heavily. You know, it's still a majority Democrat, but
(17:58):
it's swung heavily in favor of Republicans. And there's all
of these counties down there, and I guess along the
Rio Grande and elsewhere in Texas where if they redraw
the boundaries, they're going to elect more Republican congressmen. And
that's got the Democrats around the country pretty upset. They're
(18:18):
upset because, you know, that's something that they've been doing.
Everybody's been doing it, but the Democrats have managed to
do it more adroitly because they've had the benefit of
those voting Rights Acts to allow them to be more
manipulative with the districts. And that's only going to work
as long as minorities continue to vote for Democrats, which
I think Democrats themselves are starting to realize with great
(18:40):
panic that that's not something they can take for granted anymore.
But you know, in California, if you want to connect
compare California and Texas. You know, they get fifty five
percent of the vote in statewide elections. The Republicans get
fifty five percent of the vote. They've got sixty six
percent of the congressional seats. That's equivalent to four extra
(19:02):
Republican seats in the House.
Speaker 5 (19:04):
That's how they are currently.
Speaker 8 (19:05):
You know, if you want to call it that jerrymandered California,
the Democrats get fifty eight percent of the vote for
statewide offices. We're talking about the most recent election, they've
got eighty three percent of Wow, that's the twenty five
percent variants compared to an eleven percent variants.
Speaker 5 (19:23):
That's thirteen congressional seats.
Speaker 8 (19:26):
That Republicans ought to occupy if it was representative.
Speaker 5 (19:30):
So even if California were only as.
Speaker 8 (19:32):
Jerrymandered in favor of Democrats as Texas currently is, you'd
be looking at another eight or nine seats of representation
by Republicans in the House.
Speaker 5 (19:42):
So what California is trying to do is.
Speaker 8 (19:44):
Go well beyond, because they've already gone well beyond what
Texas has ever done or what they're contemplating.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
So I don't want to mix situations, but I have
to use it as a comparison. Back when we were
talking tariffs, and you saw this even presidential President Trump's
first term. If you raise tariffs on China, well they
can turn around and raise tariffs on the United States.
And the answer back was they already have They don't
have much room to go. They have been putting a
lot of tariffs on a lot of things, whereas the
(20:11):
United States had not, so we had room to put
tariffs on on different items. So to compare that to
this situation when the Democrats say, okay, then we're going
to Jerry Mander, haven't they already played that card? Is
there any left if you have if you're Delaware and
you have one, I think it's well. No, Maryland has
out of eight congressional members, they got one Republican. They
(20:32):
used to used to be a split th they're thirty
years ago. I don't think Delaware has a single Republican.
Haven't they already played that card on us? Do they
have any room to go to make it worse than
they've already made it?
Speaker 5 (20:44):
No, they don't.
Speaker 8 (20:45):
And what's going to happen, as I mentioned, is I
think that again they're on very soon ice because non
white voters are starting to reject Democrats in increasing proportions,
and so they can't rely on the voting right facts
which themselves are in jeopardy of being repealed. There could
be an explosion of redistricting, and by the twenty twenty thirty,
(21:09):
you know, redistricting, when everybody's going to do it, that
that may rewrite the boundaries heavily, heavily in favor of
Republicans because the Democrats are losing both the legal basis
to Jerry Manner on the basis of ethnicity, and they're
losing the ethnic voters. So things are looking pretty good
strategically for Democrats. And no, I don't think the Democrats
(21:31):
have a lot of room to move here.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
I drain from the Center for American Greatness, joining us
on our any hour Newsmaker line. Now, I mean I'm
in here, just slaved.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Order fake news, golfing.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
I'm working, Yeah, I work hot outside today back with
us here on talk radio one oh five nine can Eris.
It is the Wingman Wednesday edition of The Rutting Great Show.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
I you know, I'm a big boy. I could you
want to play that callback?
Speaker 2 (21:57):
We willy?
Speaker 1 (21:58):
Okay, Yeah, I'm ready, I'm ready take the shots.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
Yeah, I am ready. I want to talk about the
president he said yesterday. If things don't start improving in
our nation's cap which should be greg just a wonderful city.
He's going to step in and do something about it.
And you read stories like we're about to share with
you right now, and you can't blame them. I just
got back from there.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
I just got back from there. And we were lucky.
We probably were out in daylight. You know, we'd go
to dinner, but they would still be light afterwards and
we go back to the hotel, So we weren't. I
don't know. There was just one night when we arrived
on Tuesday, where we were, you know, walking around it
when it was night. But then we took an uber home.
But I'll tell you that, while we were walking around
in a place that looked completely safe, we were told
that because that intern that was killed was just a
(22:42):
few blocks from where we were, which felt surreal that
that would be the case. So the lawlessness in the
crime is in that town. It's just where it erupts
and where it happens. It's anyone's guest. But it's great
when Trump says I'm going to bring the FEDS in
to do this. If Biden did it, what we get
more we'd have the like escape from New York, Yes,
(23:02):
snakes running around. It would be terrible.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Well, well, the story the President said this because of
what happened to a former Doge staffer. He had the
nickname of Big Balls. Yes, but he was the other
night he was trying to save a young woman whose
car was being hijacked by a gang of what about
ten or fifteen teenagers? Yeah, double digits. It was always
ten in a section of Washington. But he saw this.
(23:27):
And I don't know why he did this. I mean,
you have fifteen kids, what are you going to do?
But he's been a human being, said this isn't going
to happen.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
He saw a woman in duress.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
Yeah, what he saw, and he stepped in, and he
stepped into help her, and he got the daylights beating.
Speaker 7 (23:40):
Out of them.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
That's putting it mildly. The picture is it's a bloodfest.
He's got blood all over him. I'm hoping some of
that's the people that he scrapped with. I hope they
got some of it too.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
But when you see that, when you see the image
of him, and he's bleeding so profusely, and and the
reason he is is because he came to the aid
of a woman that was being attacked by these guys.
I mean, I I that's that's a scenario that is
just you know, it's out of a of a bad movie.
It shouldn't even be real. Yeah, Now, I I I
(24:10):
don't know that the federal government handling law enforcement there
is the answer, because I only have faith in the
current chief executive. I don't know if.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
Well, you know, yeah what I mean, Washington is already
a failure. What's he going to do?
Speaker 9 (24:24):
You know?
Speaker 1 (24:24):
Well, that's my thing is that I just don't see Washington,
DC as a bastion for anything, you know, I mean
I think what bringing the military? Well, I actually trust
the National Guard or the military more than I would.
You know, DC plays.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
Well, that's the only thing I think would solve the problem.
Put an American soldier on every corner. Yeah, chill it
out with a weapon?
Speaker 1 (24:44):
Is there maybe our listeners know, is there any major
metropolitan city in America run that has a majority of
Republicans on their council and as their mayor running a
city in America? Because every city seems to be a
just a just a war zone of lawlessness city. I
can't I can't think of one. I can't, I can't.
I mean, look suffers from the same fate.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Look at it in our own, our own region. You've
got Salt Lake City. Yeah that's a joke. You've got Boise,
uh huh, Yeah that's bad. You've got Vegas, bad, Arizona.
I don't know this about Phoenix. In Arizona, you got
a wacky governor, yea who doesn't know what she's doing.
Look at Colorado, Look at Denver.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
It's a cesspool.
Speaker 7 (25:27):
All of all.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
The major cities in this country, which we all you know,
should be all shining cities on the hill, and now
one of them is doing their job.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
Like you, look at a city like Chicago that's been
run by the Democrats for a zillion years, and they
have the goal to complain about Republicans. You haven't seen
a Republican in your state in Chicago for forty fifty years.
Any problem you have, that's your problem. You you made it,
and I yet they can still point at another political party.
I don't know. Maybe there is maybe one of our
(25:56):
listeners knows, or some of our listeners know of a
major metropolitan city that is a majority of Republicans on
a council as a mayor somewhere, show me and is it?
Is it as bad as these cities I'm we're talking about.
I would have a hard time believing that's the case,
But I don't know for sure.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
My guess is, Greg, those cities don't have a crime problem.
Would be just my guess. Maybe someone can be all right,
morey coming up. It is the Rod and Greg Show
on Talk Radio one O five nine k nrs. Yes, yeah,
I got your back. How much grocery shopping do you
do with your wife?
Speaker 1 (26:28):
None? Really, Because I'm a man, I don't don't. I don't.
I don't do that.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
So it's not manly to go grocery shopping with your wife.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
Now, if your wife sends you to go get some stuff,
go get it.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
Yeah, but you won't go with her.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
She doesn't want me breathing over her shoulder. I I
shop like I'm on a quest for treats. I'm gonna
buy all the junk.
Speaker 7 (26:48):
I like.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
That's why men go with their wives. Haven't you figured
that out yet?
Speaker 1 (26:52):
No, I'm she might be well, I have not been
invited to such an.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
Okay, Well, if wife wives go to the grocery store,
they pick up the essentials.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
Yes, well, now my wife picks up ye picks up
the cookies and stuff for.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
The men go to load it up with the treats. Yes, oh, yeah,
so you should if you haven't learned that by now, Man,
you you need a reindoctrination into.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
We have treats. But Matt, she does not want me
breathing over her shoulder looking to buy stuff. And man,
when I when I go shopping, she goes on a
trip and I'm in charge. Man. The diet changes very quickly.
And it's good. I think it's great, but it's different.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
Of late, have you talked has she come home, say
a man, grocery prices are getting high.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
She's been saying this a lot, has she, Well, ever
since COVID, it's she's never felt there's been a normalization.
Since five years. She's felt that the things have just
been a nightmare.
Speaker 2 (27:43):
Well, apparently, a new survey shows that the vast majority
of US adults are at least somewhat stressed about the
cost of groceries as prices continue to rise. Yeah, things
are are higher. I mean beef prices are high.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
Well, it's not just that it's uncertainty. The way it's
shared with me is that there's a level of stress
when it comes to grocery shopping now that she didn't
feel before because prices can swing so quickly or things
have not got normalized or got back you know. You
know what they did. They shrunk a lot of products. Yes,
less in it, charged more, made less of it.
Speaker 3 (28:18):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
And there's just so there's just a lot of that
going on where you just feel like, what's next or
is it gonna get worse? And there is a lot
of stress attached to grocery shopping.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
More Americans are feeling that stressed.
Speaker 9 (28:29):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
By the way, someone called in on our talk back
line and left this message about wing Man Wednesday.
Speaker 7 (28:36):
Hey Rod, happy wingman Wednesday.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
And all I gotta say is you were gone last week. Greg.
Speaker 1 (28:45):
You know you could take that in a bunch of ways.
I take that is that you know, I'm on the present.
It was like I wasn't gonna be because he's he
feels like I'm always with him.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
No, he didn't notice that you were gone. That's what
that's what That's what it means.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
Well, Debbie Downer, that's the half class. That's half class empty.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Look, well, that's what that's what he's doing. He didn't
notice you were gone.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
Because he just see he just I'm always with him,
so he just can't imagine life without me.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
That's what I think. You can justify just about anything.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
Yes, it was a compliment. Thank you very much, listener.
I appreciate that. I'm I'm omnipresent in your life.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
Appreciate it, your president. All right, all right, well we
come back. We're going to delve into the latest on
John Brennan and is it John Clapper? It's it's is
it Clapper?
Speaker 4 (29:33):
I only know him by their last names, Brennan, Clapper
and Comy. But they continue to lie and we'll dig
into some of those lies. And a lot of your
phone calls coming up as well. It is Wingman Wednesday
right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine
k n r S. Rod and Greg show right here
(29:56):
on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine Kate and
are ask great you again this afternoon.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
I'm Rod Arquette, Citizen Greg Hughes.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
A lot to talk about again today.
Speaker 1 (30:05):
There is you know, Tulsa Gabbert did a podcast yes
with Miranda Devine from those New York Posts, and I
have not heard It's about an hour and I haven't
heard all of it. But I've heard there's been clips
of it on on X and on social media, and
it's getting a lot of attention because if you've ever
listened to Tulsa Gabbert, it's so matter of fact, you
(30:28):
don't get a lot of she's not animated, but she
gets into even how they searched followed her. They were
searching the lining of her luggage. I mean, some of
the things that she went through being spied on from
the past administration, and then some of the things that
they've declassified and uncovered. It just speaks for itself. I
know that the regime media wants to say that this
(30:48):
is somehow her opinion. There's there really isn't a lot
of opinion being expressed here. It's just the un you know,
the unveiling of or the revealing of classified documents. Then
that the that the left thought they would hype.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
Well long before you launched your stellar career radio career,
she was in this studio. Really, she was here years
ago when she was running for president. She came by
she was visiting Utah. We had a chance to get
to know her and talk to her a little bit.
Her husband was both the campaign manager and media guy,
so he handled her very nicely. She didn't have a chance,
(31:20):
but it was nice to get to know her. But
she came across is a very very smart, down to earth,
common sense candidate. Yeah, and of course didn't go anywhere
into the Democratic Party because they don't look for.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
People common sense and substantivet We're just a deal break.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
Doesn't work, doesn't work well. She of course, has released
a lot of documents on the Russian hopes, been sharply criticized,
basically saying it's all political and she's doing nothing but
releasing the documents all she's doing.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
Yeah, it's not her opinion, it's the documents she's releasing
that have been they're eight years old. I mean, she's
it's not like something that was just generated recently. So
it's it's amazing that the media gets the regime media
gets away with saying that this is an opinion when
really it's the declassification of documents created years ago.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Yeah. Yeah, And of course Comy and Clapper and Brennan
all come out not looking the best. I think that's
fair to say. Yes, and Clapper and Brennan decided to
write an op ed piece to The Friendly Confines. I
like to call it the New York Times because they
know they can write and say anything they want in
the Times, nobody will fact check them. Well, joining us
(32:29):
on our Newsmaker line to talk more about that. As
Sean Fleetwood, staff writer of the Federalists, he's been looking
into what they had to say and the lies they told. John,
Thanks for joining us tonight. What did you find most
interesting in that op ed piece from Brennan and Clapper?
Speaker 10 (32:45):
Right, So, basically the gist is that Clapper and Brennan
are continuing to do what they've been doing for years,
which is to just lie and obscure their role in
pushing this dangerous and destructive Trump Russia collusion hoax. You
just kind of just set the stage of it all
after the twenty sixteen election. You had then President Obama
order his intel chiefs Clapper, Brennan and Komy to put
(33:09):
together what's called an Intelligence Community Assessment or an ICA.
And so this ICA was to look at Russia's interference
in the twenty sixteen election. Well, they published the ICA,
and there was a key judgment in there that claimed
that Vladimir Putin aspired to help Donald Trump win the
twenty sixteen election, and that's important because it became foundational
(33:30):
in pushing the overall Trump Russia collusion hopes, right. And
so what we found through these these classified documents from
d n I Toulca Gabbard is that that assertion that
Trump or that Russia aspired to help Trump win was
based on garbage. It was based on a fragment of
a sentence or fragment of intelligence that was interpreted five
(33:52):
different ways by five different Intel officials. It did not
meet the high standards for being included in reports such
as this, but it was included away at the behest
of Obama's intel chiefs. And so I bring all of
this up because when you read this op ed by
Clapper Brennan, they make a bunch of claims about the
drafting of the ICA that just are flat out false.
(34:14):
One of them notably involves the Steele dossier, Right, that
was the collection of allegations and unsubstantiated claims against Trump.
You know, dirt that supposedly Russia had on Trump that
was actually dirt opposition dirt bought and paid for by
the Hillary Clinton campaign. And they make the claim in
this op ed that, well, the Steele dossier, it wasn't
(34:35):
included in the main analysis or is the main source
we just put it in the annex. Well, that's not true.
When you read the declassified documents from Director Gabbard, what
it shows is that it was in fact reference in NX,
but it was also referenced in the main body of
the ICA. And so that's one of the many lies
throughout this article that we can discuss. But I'll stop
(34:59):
there in case you want have any follow up questions.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
So here's here's what's frustrating me. And I'm glad you
wrote this article, but I just I don't know what's
going to actually penetrate the American consciousness. This is these
are declassified documents. This isn't as far as I can tell,
this is not Tulsi Gabberd's opinion. These are documents that
are Now you can read the documents and you can
see what the truth is. Uh, it's being it's being
(35:23):
framed as Tulsi Gabbard's political opinion that it is not
it is not documented. How do you get how do
you break through a colluding media that doesn't want to
report it or wants to demean it and and just
relegate it to just someone's opinion, political opinion. How do
you get the facts that you just laid out that
are in the documents themselves? She it's not her opinion,
(35:44):
it's what was written and recorded and documented. How does
how does the public understand that it is not debatable
and not off ed by these two It just perpetuates
the very lies that they were trying to hide all along.
How do we get the information out? Do you think?
Speaker 10 (36:00):
Yeah, yeah, it's a really great question. And I think
you bring up an important point that none of this
Russia collusion hoax stuff the success, because in a sense,
I do believe it was a success on their end
in sabotaging Donald Trump's presidency. That would not have been
possible without the compliance of the legacy media. I mean,
they acted as the mouthpieces of this hoax for years.
(36:22):
They spewed out endless allegations, endless you know, claims coming
from the intel community about all of this. So it
really is, like you said, how do you break through this?
How do you after all of these years of propaganda
being spewed, how do you disseminate the truth? And I
think one I think the White House is doing a
fairly good job of it and just kind of putting
(36:44):
it out there and letting the people see for themselves
what this intelligence shows. But I also think that the
hoaxers themselves have done incredible damage to their own reputations.
For years, you had people like Adam Schiff and you know,
these former Intel officials going on cable TV, going on
these news outlets saying, we have evidence of Trump Russia collusion,
(37:05):
we have evidence that Donald Trump was in cahoots with
the Kremlin. And then you have ultimately, back in twenty nineteen,
when Robert Mueller went before Congress and testified, and people realized, oh,
this guy actually isn't running the investigation. Really, he doesn't
really know what's going on, and it kind of blew
up in their faces. I think from that point on
to current day, the American people have slowly but surely
(37:27):
started to realize the absurdity and the destructive nature of
all of this hoax, and the distributing information like the
documents that Director Gabbert put out becomes somewhat easier, but
it's also going to be a challenge in getting that
information and the truth out obviously, So.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
There's a grand jury that's been in paneled there's investigation
going on. I think that I would assume that's the
jurisdiction of DC, which is tough for any Republican looking
to go after any Democrat. But let me ask you this,
is there any legal consequence for Clapper, Brennan comey, because
there's there was a narrative, they would not be writing
op eds and they would not be on TV now
(38:04):
if they thought they were in legal peril. Their attorneys
would be telling them to stay quiet. So they're they're
pointing to their willingness to talk about this, showing that
they don't have any legal jeopardy at all. What's your take?
Is there any legal consequence for what they've done?
Speaker 10 (38:18):
I mean, I certainly hope so. I think we all
agree they definitely deserted to face legal consequences. But I
think the tricky part is going to be kind of
the statute of limitations of it. You know, if they
did commit crimes, which I would argue is likely, you know,
what is the statute of limitations on that certain statue
or law that they had supposedly violated. But but then again,
(38:40):
you could also make the argument that they're continuing to
perpetuate the hoaxes. Does that somehow change the statute of
limitations of it all? I don't know, but I do
certainly think that, you know what, the issue that you
raised about where you're bringing charges, if you're going to
bring them, if you just bring them in DC, if
you bring them in Northern Virginia, than the likelihood that
(39:01):
you're going to get any sort of conviction on any
sort of charges is going to be extremely low. I
think I saw recently somewhere in the news reports that
potentially Florida they could be looking at that because of
that guy's great on mar A Lago. So you know,
I think that's going to be a big factor in
determining whether we see any actual justice occur.
Speaker 2 (39:22):
And Sean, isn'ten fair to say that we basically still
have a complying media on this story, because you know,
I'm old enough to remember the Watergate days and the
media latched onto that story and wouldn't let go this one.
They seem to say, ah, it's old news, We'll let
these guys write the up ed. But I don't see
legacy media in this country really digging into this story
other than maybe Fox News. At this point, Well.
Speaker 10 (39:45):
How can they right because they.
Speaker 1 (39:46):
Were true for the part of the story.
Speaker 10 (39:48):
Yeah, they are part of the conspiracy that pushed this
conspiracy theory for years on end, just acting as the
mouthpieces for the Intel community, And like Brennan, like Clapper
and Komy, there's no way for them to now be honestly,
be honest and report about this topic in a transparent
(40:09):
fashion because to do so would admit that they were
participating in this destructive scandal for years on end. So
I have no expectations that they're going to be honest
in reporting on this going forward, which falls upon outlets
like the Federalists and other independent media to really focus
(40:30):
on on the details, get the truth out there and
make sure people know what's going on in their country
and government.
Speaker 2 (40:34):
Sean Fleetwood with the Federalist joining us on The Rotten
Greg Show and Talk Radio one O five to nine knrs. No,
we've got some news today. Aby mentioned this new newscast
a moment ago, Greg, but we're getting more information. Of course,
a big announcement today at the White House when the
head of Apple, Tim Cook, showed up with the President
and they announced they've already committed to spending five hundred
(40:55):
billion dollars to reinvest in the US. Well, they've added
another one hundred billion dollars to it today and Utah
is going to benefit, that's right, which is great.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
Yeah, when we started the show today, we knew that
announcement came, and we know that Utah's estate was mentioned,
but we didn't know exactly where or what. And we're
seeing reports now coming in that the area is lehigh.
The facility is I call it the old Micron facility.
If that's if I'm right there.
Speaker 2 (41:20):
And I think you are. It's now a Texas Instruments facility,
that's right, correct, right, And so it's the old Micron plant.
Speaker 1 (41:26):
Yeah, they and I remember when they were building that,
there was a race. They were building all day, all night.
They were because they were building micro chips in the
market was one that was very volatile, so they want
to get it online and keep going quick. And then
it just kind of it was it was big, and
it didn't really the economy didn't really support it. So
it's kind of been an asset or an area that
could do a lot that isn't really seeing its potential.
(41:48):
And I think Apple could absolutely if they upgrade that facility,
it would really would reach some real potential there.
Speaker 2 (41:57):
Well, here's what they're saying. According to a story today,
Apple's up raids, we'll focus on an increased investment at
the Texas instrument facility there in Lehigh, where bear wafers.
It's not like a cookie. Wafers are turned into silicone chips.
Apple calls the Lehigh location and one schedule to be
(42:17):
built in Sherman, Texas, as home to the most advanced
process technologies. He goes on to say these facilities will
manufacture critical foundational semiconductors used for Apple products, including iPhone
devices shipped to the US and around the world. The
company said of the Lehigh in Texas facility, so I
(42:37):
would assume that means more jobs and a lot more
money coming into the state of Utah.
Speaker 1 (42:41):
Right it is. And I'll tell you that this will
be the greatest test because we we we've got a
border that looks closed. It looks like it's been fully
funded to be secured both physically with the fence, but
also technology wise, new border patrol agents, more ice agents.
So it looks like we're getting a handle on that.
What the workforce look like. We are a younger state,
(43:02):
comparative where we do have an emerging workforce like other
states do not have. They don't have that young demographic
coming up like we do. Ours is smaller now than
it's ever been before. We're shrinking in terms of that
true children per home replacement, yes, and so ours is.
We're about a generation and a half behind the country's numbers.
But it has been said, I've heard it many times
that you could bring a lot of businesses that need
(43:25):
a lot of jobs, can you fill those jobs? So
my question is, I think this is phenomenal news for
everyday Americans and it gives us opportunity, and that's what
we've always that's what's made this country great is opportunity.
But to what extent will we be able to fill
all of the jobs? Utah is in the best position
as a state growing economically to be able to do that.
Our kids won't have to necessarily move out of state
(43:47):
to find opportunity.
Speaker 2 (43:48):
To place to live, though, challenge.
Speaker 1 (43:51):
Tell me about it. So yeah, well, so we're not
out of the out of the woods yet, but a
lot of states, if you it'll be just interesting to
see how the the job demand now that you have
the opportunity how quickly is that filled, especially if they
got young people that told that working is bad.
Speaker 5 (44:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
Yeah, Well my question is on top of that, Greg,
we saw the story today we're going to talk about
this that the University of Utah has I think cut
eighty programs. One of the programs, I guess graduated one
student in the program.
Speaker 1 (44:19):
Yes, that's so.
Speaker 2 (44:19):
My question is, knowing this is coming, are our universities
geared to graduating and producing students who can go after
jobs like this. I would hope they are.
Speaker 1 (44:31):
I think they will. But I'll tell you the mistake
that I think has been made in the past, and
it's easy to say in hindsight, So I don't think
this was you know, this wasn't This wasn't well thought out.
But we have looked at they call what they call
it tailor fit or custom fit. We looked for companies
that needed unique workforce, and we the state and it's
into its trade schools, wanted to help train prospective employees
(44:54):
to these unique manufacturing jobs. But these manufacturing jobs change,
and the nature of those jobs change. I think the
best thing you can equip an emerging workforce young people
with is the ability to learn how to learn, and
I would be very cautious about a pigeonholing into a
specific trade. Now, if you're welding, you can weld in
(45:14):
a lot of different fields. You can work for Boeing,
you could work for you could work for a lot
of different manufacturers with the skill of knowing how to
be a welder. So there's some that I think it
crosses economic sectors or different manufacturing, but I would be
very careful not to make them you know, silicon chip
or you know the chip manufacturers specifically, because that's that's
(45:35):
a technology or a business that can change.
Speaker 2 (45:38):
But how do you design a programs to do what
you just said, learn to learn?
Speaker 1 (45:42):
I think it can be done. I think you have
to do in partnership with the people that are looking
for and that workforce. They are going to have to
be have a very large voice on how that's done.
But people have to be able to adapt. I think
the one thing that's going to happen in the United
States and the world going forward from twenty twenty five
looking forward, is kind's ability to adapt to the change
(46:02):
in the landscape of our economy because it is changing,
and it's changing very quickly, and you've got to be
able to adapt to those changes. And I think we
all I'm one hundred percent confident we can. But if
you were learning how to code, and you will say,
be a coder, because this is the future that's gone.
That being a coder is.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
Where'd you go? Tod Ai?
Speaker 1 (46:21):
Take that Ai is doing it? It doesn't. So that
was I was told when we were seeing technology become
a stronger economic sector, when I was a policy maker,
that's what students ought to be learning how to do
is be a coder because that's a job that is
going to be needed far more than you know, the
trades or anything else. We're going to need that well,
and not that long of amount of time. That job
is now already uh not, it doesn't exist right, it's
(46:44):
it's going away. So I think it's I think we
have to be ready to be able to adapt and
be smart and be nimble and those skills.
Speaker 2 (46:54):
Because the opportunities are obviously the opportunities are coming to Utah.
Apple saw an opportunity here in Utah along with down
in Texas that, like you've said, we've got a young
population for the most part of well educated population, a
population that wants to work I think parents out there,
kudos to you for teaching your kids to work. We've
just got to be able to adapt to and hopefully
(47:15):
we can because the opportunities are coming.
Speaker 1 (47:18):
I am there here, I don't I can't speak for
the whole country, but I feel very, very bullish about Utah.
Utah has such a strong work ethic. It has our
our young emerging workforce has multiple language skills from there
if they've had experiences as missionaries in other countries. We
have natural resources, we have rare minerals, we have tech,
(47:39):
we have agriculture. We have the military. We have the
Hill Air Force brings a ton of engineering jobs and
other jobs around the military. We have such a diverse economy.
We have a strong emerging workforce. The housing is the
big issue, as you said, and water is as well.
But I'm really bullish that that the state of Utah
(48:02):
can be completely independent as a state on everything. We
need energy, you name it not. But I don't know
about the rest of the country. If i'm if I'm
looking at Wisconsin and I know that state and I
know their speaker, you could bring all the companies with
all the jobs. He doesn't think he has a population
to fill it.
Speaker 2 (48:19):
They don't.
Speaker 1 (48:19):
They don't because they're an aging state. They're getting older.
Speaker 2 (48:22):
Yeah they are, so all right. More coming up It
is the Rod and Greg Show on Talk Radio one
O five nine k n R S and uh, some
people are indicated and they didn't know you were gone.
Speaker 1 (48:31):
Well, you know what, you know, class half full. He
just that for that person just thinks I'm always around.
They just couldn't even believe I wasn't here. But if
it's the other way, they didn't miss you. But well,
if that's if haters have to hate, and that's hater aide,
then I know I'm I know I'm doing I'm doing
well because you know that's you can judge a person
(48:53):
by their critics. If you have good, good listeners here
and they become critics, well then you know you're making
a difference. You're you're making you know you're doing something.
But I will say this, I got a I got
a message from a listener who thought that Carolyn should
come in on wing Man Wednesday and have as Phoenix.
So then you get Phoenix in here, and then you
got the three of us bantering on Wednesdays. That was
an idea. I thought it sounded good. I've worked with
(49:16):
Carolyn for a long time friend. She was telling me
a lot of secrets about you. Well, that's not necessary.
Speaker 2 (49:22):
But I'm not going to share them. I wore they weren't.
Speaker 1 (49:25):
Good enoughing because you would nark me out in a nanosecond,
which I could.
Speaker 2 (49:28):
Hey, Clay, Travis had a great idea today. Okay, Okay, Clay, Yeah,
I like Travis fot Sexton. I'm not as hot on,
but I like Clay.
Speaker 1 (49:37):
I like them both.
Speaker 2 (49:38):
He's a good guy. I like both of them. Clay
had an idea for bud Light.
Speaker 1 (49:44):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (49:45):
Now, bud Light has struggled since Dylan mulvaney and that
one posting kind of sank the entire beer.
Speaker 1 (49:51):
Yeah, they ruined that whole company.
Speaker 7 (49:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (49:53):
Now Clay's opinion, here's what he thinks Budweiser should do.
Go get Sydney Sweeney, Yes, put her in a tank top. Okay,
have her do all your commercials and put around a
beer can.
Speaker 1 (50:07):
Yeah. I would call that the redo. I would say
bud Light should go to America and say, you know,
we've been thinking we made some big mistakes around here.
We want to redo. Just let's just forget the pass,
let's not look backwards and so forth, and then you
lay lay out that campaign and bud Light would be back.
They would, they would, That would be it. Everyone would
(50:28):
forgive and forget. That's a smart idea.
Speaker 2 (50:30):
That she threw out the first pitch at the Boston
Red Sox game. That surprised me if you told was
wearing a Boston jersey. I used to like her. Now
I don't because I'm a Yankee.
Speaker 1 (50:39):
You know, a lot of people argue that Boston's kind
of a liberal town for her to be, you know,
and getting it from all the left. You can get booed.
But I but I think that's great that she threw
out the first pitch in Boston, of all places. It's
the birthplace of our nation and yet it's such a
leftist magna.
Speaker 2 (50:55):
But it's also a very big sports town. Yes, you know,
their fans are very loyal to the Red Sox, to
the Patriots, to the Celtic Ruins and the Celtics. I
mean that's a very good sports down. So I think
she was smart to go out there and throw out
the first page and Boston baseball jersey.
Speaker 1 (51:12):
Yeah, it is good.
Speaker 7 (51:13):
I do it.
Speaker 2 (51:14):
I think lay Travit's got a brilliant idea. You hire
her and put her on a beer camp.
Speaker 1 (51:19):
We are watching something unique and I love it, and
I hope that this this this pendulum keeps swinging this way.
It had been the case that as soon as the
left decided that you were unclean, that you were unworthy,
that you had offended their senses and their worldview, they
would cancel you and then you would either be gone.
You would either disappear or you would spend the rest
(51:40):
of your career whatever you did, like like swinging, apologizing
and trying to be an apologist for whatever it is
you did, or trying to make your way back. That's
not what happened here. Nobody apologized. Everybody almost just doubled
down and said it. You know, we have nothing to
apologize for. And there's been a I think commercially in
the country, there's people have appreciated that they like that
(52:02):
that's the case.
Speaker 10 (52:02):
I think.
Speaker 1 (52:03):
I think American Eagle Out is doing very well well.
Speaker 2 (52:05):
Their stock is up twenty eight percent. I know someone
who walked into one of their stores the other day.
Jeans are all gone. So you know, Dems, you can
complain all you want but people are going to go
buy the Jens.
Speaker 7 (52:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (52:18):
I think it's great American Eagle outfitters. I think how
hats off to them for not backing down. And really,
I think the pulse of this country's why we're talking
about that. And also today Howard Stern, the big giant
phony sellout, weirdo, wope guy, he got canceled.
Speaker 2 (52:34):
Apparently he's gone.
Speaker 1 (52:35):
They gave him, they gave him the heave ho and
uh and and I think that's another sign, a good
sign that you know, every day common sense. Americans know
what they like and they know what they don't like.
And maybe these dumb companies are going to start tracking
that that sentiment.
Speaker 2 (52:49):
Why pay Stephen Colbert twenty to forty million a year
and why pay Howard Stern one hundred million dollars a
year to do a show that fewer and fewer people
are listening.
Speaker 1 (53:00):
Yeah, it doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2 (53:01):
That makes sense.
Speaker 1 (53:02):
It doesn't make sense at all. And I and I
just think that you're seeing you're seeing less corporate sponsorship
of insanity. You're seeing you're just seeing a lot of
a lot more common sense. And I I I credit
this president for really creating a tone America first and
looking out for the everyday American that that is just
something that sadly got away from us and we didn't
(53:23):
see anymore.
Speaker 2 (53:24):
I credit Trump for giving companies the guts to do it.
Speaker 1 (53:27):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (53:27):
We were talking earlier, you know, we were talking with
Ed rang about the the Jerrymandarin and redistricting. Other Republican
presidents have seen this taking place. Why didn't they say anything? Yeah,
I mean they have been seas and said something.
Speaker 1 (53:43):
So they've been using the count of illegally people that
have come over illegally to help even count the number
of people each congressional district you know, represents, which has
always weighted to the advantage of the Democrats. And they've
been gaming that system forever and finally we push back
and they're just clutching their pearls and losing their minds.
(54:05):
But honestly, if you don't, if you're not going to
fight back, you're just going to get more of what
they're doing to you. And that's why Democrat states they
don't have independent commissions. They because they have all the
districts they want. It's in the Republican red states where
they start saying, we need an independent commission, which amazingly
is always someone that's left of center. A commission made
up of people left of center, you know that are
(54:26):
going to be your independent commission. So again, they are
going to continue to game it until you push back.
And I think this is to push back. It is antiitis.
Speaker 2 (54:37):
A lot more to come on the Wingman edition of
the Rod and Gregg Show right here on Utah's Talk
Radio one five nine knrs. If Washington, DC doesn't get
us act together, he may move in. Of course, we're
still talking about what happened in Cincinnati in that brutal
attack on a group of people who are out in
the evening. The woman who was not cold and has
(54:59):
horrible looking scars on her face down held the news
conference today and talked to the media about what's going
on in Cincinnati and what needs to be done. Here's
a little bit of what Holly had to say.
Speaker 9 (55:10):
Yeah, I never want this to happen to anyone else,
especially a mother, a daughter, somebody who is loved. So
I just know what it's done to my family, not
just to me, and I think that moving forward, we
do need more accountability and I definitely think that, you know,
(55:31):
we need more police officers. But like he said, you
know the judges who are just letting people out with
a slab. The man who attacked me and might have
permanently damaged me forever should never have been on the
streets ever. And the fact that he had just gotten
out of jail previously for something he should have been
(55:53):
in there for years. It's really sad to me because
I can't even fathom how many other people who have
been attacked by the same type of man over and
over and over in Toledo, in Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton. Our
streets are being taken over and nobody is doing anything.
Speaker 2 (56:13):
I said, some streets are being a taken over. Nobody
is doing anything. You we talked about what's going on
in the nation's capital today.
Speaker 1 (56:20):
Yeah, So this is an interesting statistic. I've always known
that the DC jurisdiction, federal, you know, judicial, the jurisdiction
is the nightmare. But listen to this. Both Presidents Obama
and Biden appointed an unusually high number of foreign born
individuals to serve as federal judges. As a result, nearly
one third of Washington d C's federal bench is now
(56:41):
composed of judges born outside the United States from countries
including Uruguay, Egypt, Trinidad, Jamaica, and India. Even more troubling,
and this is the most troubling part of that statistic,
not one of these foreign born judges had any prior
judicial experience before their appointment. They became a federal judge
with not any judicial experience whatsoever. Now, if you go
(57:04):
back to the bill, that immigration bill that was so
supposedly bipartisan that Biden wanted and the Democrats wanted past,
one of the provisions in that bill was that every
all the litigation about the border, wherever it occurred along
the United States, would be adjudicated in that court by
that court. And now you know why that was so
(57:25):
important to the Democrats to have, because a third of
those judges are foreign born and none of them have
any judicial experience at all. And that's the same court,
by the way, that told President Trump that he couldn't
take away the money from USAID. They had to go
to the Supreme Court to get that overturned. The judicial activism
is even worse in a place where you've never been
a judgement.
Speaker 2 (57:46):
And this is all Barack Obama and Joe Biden's.
Speaker 1 (57:48):
Work all of it. Yep, that's what they've done. That
turnovers put that.
Speaker 2 (57:51):
Much and you see the job Donald Trump has. I
had them trying to do it. But boy is he
got a lot of work. He sure does trying. All right,
more coming up number three of the Rod and Gregg
Show right here for you on this wing Man Wednesday.
I'm talking radio one oh five nine. Okay, and all right,
stay with us, Mordica. That right celebrated our first anniversary yesterday.
(58:12):
Were now moving into your number two.
Speaker 1 (58:15):
Yes, it's gone so fast. Time flies when you're having fun,
you know it has it has gone fast? I think so,
I do. I think it's gone. I think it's gone
very quickly. See you're used to it. You've been a
radio guy for a long time. This is kind of
a new gig for me, so it's kind of a.
Speaker 2 (58:28):
New new experience.
Speaker 1 (58:30):
Yeah, but I've loved it. I've had a lot of fun.
Speaker 2 (58:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (58:33):
How could you not? I mean I got in right
at the sweet spot. You know, Trump's running all the
crazy stuff's going on. He wins to.
Speaker 2 (58:42):
Do this just because you got a free trip to
the RNC.
Speaker 1 (58:45):
Yeah, yeah, that was good. No, I'm telling you there's
not one thing about this this experience I could complain
about because it has been a hotbed of issues. And
to be able to eating every day, I love it.
I absolutely love it. And if I was stuck just
talking to the TV set by myself in my house
and poor Queen Bee just heard me ranting on my
own and it wouldn't be healthy. So it's good to
(59:06):
be able to get off my chest but also hear
from our listeners and have this evening discussion.
Speaker 2 (59:13):
Yeah, we're making an effort right now to get James
Varney on the show. He's with real clear investigations about
critical mining, minerals mining Big Mine opened up what was
a couple of weeks ago into Wyoming then opening. Yes,
they have announced that and but it's going to be
a while. I want to talk a little bit more
greg about the announcement today by Apple one hundred billion
(59:35):
dollars the the you know, the only I guess it's
glass or whatever they use on the phones and everything else.
It will be manufactured in Kentucky. But we're getting some
of the jobs here at the Texas Instruments plant down
there in Lehigh.
Speaker 1 (59:51):
I see all that is just incredible opportunity. The state
of play in the United States should have always been
how everyday Americans have more opportunities, more economic opportunities, opportunities
to prosper upward mobility. We lost that, and I hate
to say it, but I think if I go back
and look at what Ross Perot was saying when he
was running for president, boy was he ever right. And
(01:00:12):
and everything he said has happened, maybe even worse than
the way he said it would happen as I look
back now and take inventory, so I would argue that
I think I think some of that was already starting
to go trend downward when by ninety two we were
losing some manufacturing in those things offshoring. But I think
NAFTA and I think those those trade agreements put it
on steroids, or it made it, hastened the pace. We
(01:00:35):
got to bring it back, and we've got to and
I think we were. I think we are. I think
these announcements today show people said it couldn't be done.
Worst economic decision a president could ever make was trying
to retrade these global agreements. I think that all of
these things are working so far or working out well.
There's a momentum that you create when you're when you're
changing things and you're challenging the status quo. And I
(01:00:56):
think that I think that all these successes that you'll
see that the president have in the first seven months
they inform the rest of his term. They're going to
just build on each other. And that's why I'm actually
looking forward to the interview because this is this issue
of rare minerals. China is just dominating globally, dominating this market,
(01:01:19):
not only in the extraction of rare minerals, of which
we need for so many things, especially as technology grows,
but then the processing of it. Of those minerals. They
own both of those efforts, the extracting and the processing
ninety eight percent, maybe something that's just unbelievable. So my quest,
I mean, what I want to talk about is the
(01:01:40):
permitting for these has always been more than a decade
and then if they got litigated, which every environmental group
litigates to slow everything down to try and chill the
interest in doing it because they're going to have to
deal with these lawsuits. It has successfully stopped mining in
the extraction industry in the United States. Now you're talking
rare minerals, we have them in the state of Utah.
(01:02:02):
You just had this announcement in Wyoming. When do you
start digging? Like, when does the digging start? That's what
I want to know, because if you're talking anytime after
Trump's term, who's even investing in that? If they're not
going to be able to actually break ground before Trump's
out of office? Does the politics stay the same? Are
we because nobody's liked extracting up till now. This is
(01:02:24):
the first time we've been talking about it.
Speaker 2 (01:02:25):
Yeah, let me ask you about this, this race for
critical minerals. Yes, okay, have they become the new oil
of this century?
Speaker 1 (01:02:35):
Yes? Well, oil is still still very important. It still
has it's it's absolute sense. It's an essential.
Speaker 3 (01:02:43):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (01:02:43):
You know, petroleum is essential to life and everything we do.
Rare minerals will as well, especially with batteries and all
the every all of it. The rare minerals are as
valuable as as oil. But our problem is we can
get all we know where to get oil. Good luck
with the with the rare minerals. If again, I if
(01:03:06):
you have a NIPA, the you know these environmental studies
that you have to do, and you have you have
the environmentalist groups that litigated every turn to try and
delay twelve months, twenty four months, people's capital. They need
that capital to move. They can't have it frozen and
litigation in over two years?
Speaker 7 (01:03:23):
Are is it?
Speaker 1 (01:03:23):
Is it true that we can really get the extraction
industry back, the mining industry back and see it successfully,
you know, keep us independent. If if China runs ninety
eight percent of the rare minerals and processes them, I'd
love to know what kind of trade deal you're getting
with China because we need all that. Yeah, we need
those rare minerals. Well, well Apple needs it. Everything they
(01:03:46):
talked about today, they're gonna need rare minerals.
Speaker 2 (01:03:48):
Yeah. We had on the show several years ago Greg
a man by the name of Daniel Yurkin and heeds
an oil analyst considered one of the foremost oil analysts
in the world today, and started coming up, Greg, have
we reached peak oil?
Speaker 1 (01:04:04):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (01:04:05):
Have we reached peak oil? And it came back, No,
we haven't. And BP announced yesterday the largest find ever
just off the coast of South America.
Speaker 1 (01:04:15):
Yeah, I think there's.
Speaker 2 (01:04:17):
Plenty of oil out there. Let me tell you.
Speaker 1 (01:04:19):
Whatever reason they always tried to make it look like
it was a rare commodity. I think it's not rare
at all. I think you just have to get to it.
There's a lot of those deposits all over the world.
Speaker 2 (01:04:27):
It's there. Well, let's talk about America's critical mining industry
is finding itself in a deep pole. Joining us on
our newsmaker line to talk more about that now is
Jim Varney. He is with real clear investigations. Jim, how
are you welcome back to the Rot and Greg Show.
Speaker 7 (01:04:41):
Yeah, I'm fine, Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (01:04:43):
How deep of a hole are we in when it
comes to critical mining, Well.
Speaker 7 (01:04:49):
If you want to go by how dependent we are
on foreign sources for what the US has a list
called fifty key minerals that the government is supposed to
update periodically. If you look at those fifty and you
compare how dependent we are on foreign sources for a
lot of them, we're in a pretty deep poll.
Speaker 5 (01:05:08):
Now.
Speaker 7 (01:05:08):
I think it's kind of interesting to hear you guys
talking about peak oil just before you head me on,
because you know, that's one of the questions that's sort
of out there, is what kind of supply might we
have have we been as diligently and as carefully sort
of mapping our geological deposits here in the US as
we should have been, and maybe even as the law
(01:05:29):
requires us to be. And I think that's kind of
an open question, because if you go from Canada to Chile,
there's a lot of deposits, So it ought to be able.
It should be something we ought to be able to
find healthy amounts of let's say, I don't know all
we need, but a lot more than we have now.
Speaker 1 (01:05:46):
Yeah. Yes, And so your article and I found this
it was actually sobering. It made me sad because I
was very excited about the announcement of the mind in
Wyoming of rare minerals. Now you point out that's the
first one since Dwight Eisenhower was president and the Brooklyn
Dodgers won the World Series, which is a long time.
But you're pointing out that even if you were to
(01:06:07):
expedite that permitting process, which is already ten to fifteen
years or more, but let's say you cut it in half,
you're pointing out astuteley that this takes you past President
Trump's term potentially for this Wyoming mind to even break
around start digging and extracting rare minerals. So my question is,
is this real? Even if you have the appetite and
(01:06:27):
the need for rare minerals in the United States, do
we have the ability politically to actually extract rare minerals
here in the United States?
Speaker 7 (01:06:38):
Well, I think we do have the ability in terms of,
you know, the manufacturing and the mining and the production
side of things. The political will to keep doing it
that you're talking about, That's a very difficult thing to judge, right,
and you never know what might happen in elections going forward.
Certainly the Obama and the Biden administrations. I think we're
(01:06:59):
a lot more sympathetic to environmental groups who generally oppose
virtually all mining. So if, like you say, if this
is supposed to really start paying dividends in twenty seven
or twenty eight, we're already passed. We're right at the
end rather of Trump's last term. So what happens in
(01:07:19):
twenty thirty, I don't know, But I think that if
we do maintain the focus and the will, then I
do think yes, we can certainly improve our situation dramatically.
Speaker 2 (01:07:31):
Jim, who is the real driving force behind let's get going,
Let's get after this, Let's find out where these minerals are,
let's get mining them. Who is the driving force behind
all of that right now? Is there somebody out there
or organization or an industry that is really pushing this now?
Speaker 7 (01:07:46):
Jim, Well, that's a good question, and I think that
we see more of it coming now from like Doug
Bergram and people at the Department of Interior, maybe a
little bit from the US Geological Service, which ironically enough,
they didn't get back to me for like a week
and a half and then they called me today when
the story published, and we're like, oh, we're sorry about that.
(01:08:08):
You talk tomorrow to our Director of National Resources. So
on the private side, you know, there's a number of
people doing this, and it sort of brings up an
interesting point. There was an article in the World Street
Journal maybe three weeks ago or so where Bill Gates
is invested in some mining or some company extraction type
company in Colorado, and he was encouraging the government to
(01:08:32):
do some kind of Marshall plan, right and just invest
heavily in this this whole sector. Now, that would be good,
I guess for Bill Gates investment in that thing, it
may also pay dividends to the United States. Because what
we're talking about it's not just you know, the mining
for the companies itself. This is stuff that is used
(01:08:53):
like in the cell phones, it's used in kevlar. The
greens ought to love it because the solar and the
wind farms, all that equipment, all of this stuff is
using these kind of things we've never heard of. So
I think that there are people in the private sector
that are trying to do this right. You mentioned the
(01:09:13):
Brook mine in Wyoming. There's a place called Mountain Pass
in California there which the Defense Department's just bought four
hundred million dollars worth of the stock. So you do
see evidence here and there that people seem to be
getting their act together and focusing on this. But I
can't pinpoint one person or one organization like you're asking.
(01:09:35):
That's sort of in the driver's seat here.
Speaker 1 (01:09:37):
So we have this hits close to home for us
because we have the same permitting problems, whether it's for
a crude oil, for drilling, for mining for coal, things
like that. The NIPA, the you know, the environmental studies
that take three to five years, and the environmentalists that
litigate everything and stretch everything out to try and chill
investment and make them move on, because they just are
(01:10:00):
going to stretch out the game too long. Grand County
has rare minerals, Grand County has uranium. If we were
to just look at past performance, I would argue that
it's going to be very difficult to see those come
online and start extracting, you know, rare minerals processing. I
guess my question is, if China is going to extract
(01:10:21):
and process ninety plus percent, ninety five plus percent of
the of the Earth's rare minerals and processing, how do
you ever get to a straight faced trade deal that's
fair with China. How does China not just rule the
school with the advantage they have today and the challenges
that we have trying to extract and process our own
rare minerals.
Speaker 7 (01:10:42):
That's a good question, and I think it's pretty easy
to get pestimistic about it, right because you see the
numbers you're talking about, there are actually the real numbers,
right they can China controls apparently about ninety percent or
more of the processing of these things, and then even
other sources like places in the Congo were terrible things
gone with them mining there, right, You think that the
(01:11:02):
Greens would be against that, but in any event, China
has an equity stake in those operations. So I think
what you got to do is say, we're not going
to solve this overnight. We're not going to be able
to reverse our position in these supply chains in twelve
months or twenty four months, but we have to get
(01:11:22):
the ball rolling in a way that it can't be
stopped in that same period, like in one or two years.
And then you know, once these things start to come online,
like the brook mine in Wyoming or the MP or
another one that's getting liftium in Nevada, once those things
start happening, they'll have a momentum of their own, and
(01:11:42):
those figures you're talking about that China controls right now
will start to level out a little bit.
Speaker 2 (01:11:48):
We can only hope. Jim as always love your insight.
Thank you for being with us tonight, Jim, Thank you,
thanks for having me appreciate it all right, Jim Varney,
real clear investigations. I think, you know, I'm not sure
if Jim's said this or if Bill Gates said this,
but maybe Greg, we do need a Marshall plan, a
nationwide marshall plan to attack this problem and get things going.
Speaker 1 (01:12:08):
You're gonna have to strip out a lot of federal regulations.
Speaker 2 (01:12:11):
Sold seven years to get a permit to do something.
That's gotta change.
Speaker 1 (01:12:15):
There are laws that that you will prevent this from
happening unless they suspend them or eliminate them.
Speaker 2 (01:12:20):
Yeah, yeah, all right, more coming up the Rod and
Greg Show and Talk Radio one oh five nine can
arrest citizen Hughes and I brought our cat. Uh. Maybe
this is frightening to think about, Greg, but maybe a
little common sense is starting to creep into California. You know,
think so, don't believe me.
Speaker 1 (01:12:36):
It's hard. It's hard to comprehend. You have to You're
gonna have to come with one heck of a story
well to make me think that this is maybe just
a little bit of a tease.
Speaker 2 (01:12:43):
Maybe. The Public Policy Institute of California highlighting an example
of what they called mismatched responses when they did a
survey of Californians. Right six and ten adults and likely
voters favor a state law that requires one hundred percent
of the state's electricity to come from renewable sources by
(01:13:04):
twenty forty five, okay, large percentage, Yes, okay. But when
asked a follow up question, would you be willing to
pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources such as
wind and solar, under forty percent of California.
Speaker 1 (01:13:22):
Said yes, that's the lunacy of California. We're sixty percent
or more. One wanted to be all renewables and nobody
wants to pay for it. Welcome to La La Land.
You know that's not even real.
Speaker 2 (01:13:33):
They're already you know, I think we are we. I
think we're fortunate. Here in the state of Utah. Our
electricity rates, power rates are pretty good.
Speaker 1 (01:13:41):
The lowest in the cart. We're still using coal. We
have clean coal, we have low carbon high BT hot coal,
and we use it. And we also use natural gas
and we have a lot of natural gas deposits in Utah,
so our power generation costs are a lot lower. Thanks. Also,
this is inside baseball, but the legislature noticed that the
(01:14:03):
Warren Buffett's what's at the Pacific Core, that's the power
power company, but also California is in you know, Oregon
and Washington, idahos. They were looking to shut down the
power generation without having the new renewable like the new ones,
they switch the flip the switch to go to the
new one. They were going to shut these down without
having the new energy up and ready. And so to
(01:14:26):
the legislature I know that said we sooner you leave, Yeah,
and we'll go ahead and handle this ourselves. We're not
turning anything off if we don't have something to turn
on at the same time. And that slowed their role
big time. And they didn't leave. They just stopped that talk,
that nonsense. And now you look at it. That was
just a couple of years ago. Now you look and
you think, duh, I'm glad they did it.
Speaker 2 (01:14:47):
So will all right, coming up in this corner, Kamala
Harris and her new book. In that corner, Joe Biden
and his book Their Collision is about to take place.
We'll talk about it coming up next right here on
the Rod and Greg Show and Talk Radio one off.
I'm nine knrs. Following our news update at the top
of the hour, I'm Rod Arquette, I'm citizen Greg Hughes.
All right now, Kamala Harris has released her book One
(01:15:09):
hundred and seven Days. I'm just laughing, ye. Joe Biden
we're waiting. So the question is going to be will
it be a battle royale between these two when it
comes to release of their books? And what will they
say about each other?
Speaker 1 (01:15:25):
I have my thoughts, but I want to hear from
someone in the know.
Speaker 2 (01:15:28):
In the know, Okay, joining us on our Newsmaker line
to talk about that is Jim Antel. He is a
politics editor at The Washington Examiner. Jim, how are you
welcome back to the Rod and Greg Show.
Speaker 3 (01:15:40):
Good to be here, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (01:15:41):
Jim, what are you expecting from these books?
Speaker 3 (01:15:45):
Well, they both have a lot of incentive to spill
the tea on each other if they're interested in selling
books or being all that interesting. But it's possible that
that's not primarily what they're going to be interested in.
You Knowrris is a very cautious person. She's very risk
averse person. And Biden gets to speak last, and so
(01:16:09):
does she want to do anything that will entice the
former president and his ghostwriter to get into stories about
how they probably tried to prepare her better to maybe
become president someday and it just didn't quite pan out.
Maybe some Sarah Palin esque stories or worse from Harris's
(01:16:32):
time as vice president. But Harris, if she wants to
be president, and now it's a very open question whether
she's ready to sail off into the sunset and.
Speaker 1 (01:16:43):
Have some margaritas or whatever she does, that.
Speaker 3 (01:16:49):
Maybe it's a false choice. Yeah, exactly if she has
twenty twenty eight ambitions still, and I think at least
on some level she does. Whether she wants to do
the work involved is another story, but I think she
still has the ambition. She needs to do a better
job of distancing herself from Biden than she did at
(01:17:09):
any point in the twenty twenty four campaign, and that
could set them up to be on a collision course
unless she just, once again, is just way too cautious.
Speaker 1 (01:17:21):
You know, I watched her own Colbert and she did
duck this question or didn't want I didn't want to
throw any shots at Biden just recently when she was
on And so what the scenario I see playing out
as the one that you said where she's always over
overally cautious. She's never said I mean, when she was
on the View, there was a moment where she really
(01:17:41):
didn't need to separate herself and she couldn't do it.
Then so why would she do it?
Speaker 7 (01:17:45):
Now?
Speaker 1 (01:17:46):
I could see a scenario where she whimps out and
then Biden's ghost writer, who could be hot Hunter, you know,
decides to singer anyway because they love money. I think
they love money more than anything. So then she plays
nice and then they go for the throat so they
have a book that sells. Does that sound plausible?
Speaker 3 (01:18:05):
It's certainly a possibility, and you have to think on
some level, especially if the ghostwriter is someone like Hunter.
You know, the Biden theory of the case, because all
they have to go for is legacy at this point,
he's never running for anything ever. Again, you know that
their theory of the case is that every time Joe
Biden listened to the smart people in the Democratic Party
(01:18:27):
and didn't run for president, Donald Trump got elected and
Harris was, in many ways, like Hillary Clinton, a good
foil for Donald Trump. Now, I don't think there's any
real evidence that Biden would have done any better, and
I think there's some reason to suspect he would have
done worse, but it's not a falsifiable thing.
Speaker 10 (01:18:48):
At this point.
Speaker 3 (01:18:49):
Whereas we know that Hillary lost and we know that
Harris lost, we can Biden, you know, had twenty twenty
and we can always wonder what would have happened in
twenty twenty four, even though I think most Democrats feel
they already know the answer to that question.
Speaker 2 (01:19:04):
Yeah, Jim, not that I'm going to read the book,
but we did read a section of the book in
Kamala's book yesterday talking about happy Tim and you know,
they said, you know here he is. They tried to
toughen him up. They sent him hunting, they sent him
to football games, They did all these things to try
and get him to appeal to young men and men
(01:19:26):
in general. But then when he'd be at a campaign appearance,
he'd come out prancing around and waving his two hands
in the air. And she said, the polls went immediately down.
I mean, so there's a little bit of truth in there,
isn't there.
Speaker 3 (01:19:39):
Jim, Well, that's that's certainly true. I think it's been
disputed whether that thing that's circulating is really in her
book or not the book. But yes, it's absolutely true
that he was a disaster of a pick. He has
said he's not going to run himself.
Speaker 5 (01:19:58):
He tried to.
Speaker 3 (01:20:00):
He'd made the rounds a couple months ago on various
podcasts and stuff, and he's still the same disaster that
he was during the campaign. If she can produce that
kind of honesty about the stick, because I think if
she wants to run again, even if it isn't for
the voters, even if I think she's going to have
to convince the donors that you know, blowing that billion dollars,
(01:20:22):
that she's learned something from that experience. And it looks,
based on the title of the book that she's going
to blame how short the campaign was for how badly
it ended up going, Whereas I think, to me, you know,
she'd have been better off if the campaign was three
days long, that was that would have been her. But
you know, if the election was the day after they
(01:20:44):
made the switch, that was her best shot at winning
the election.
Speaker 1 (01:20:48):
So I'm watching some of my sports you know, podcasts
and things and some of the fantasy football leagues that
are starting up for the fall. The loser, instead of
having to get an embarrassing tattoo, they're going to force
the loser to read the one hundred and seven of
her book. They're gonna sequester them and they have to
give a presentation and if they don't like it, they're
going to make them listen to it on audible. So
(01:21:11):
so already the expectations are low, but there has to
be some says, well, she doesn't go after Biden, what
is there anything in that one hundred and seven days
it's going to be you know, it's going to pull
the book off the shelf. Do you think.
Speaker 3 (01:21:26):
Really tough to see? I mean, anybody else who she
could go after other than Biden. Walls are just not
very well known people. So she could blame it on
all of the campaign staff that she largely inherited from
Joe Biden and the fact that she didn't have her
own people to the degree that she's held together a
staff long enough to really have her own people, you know,
(01:21:48):
nobody's ever hurry. Only political professionals know who any of
these individuals are. So it's hard to see how that
would be good enough. I think she's either got it.
She's going to take a shot either at somebody well
known in the Democratic Party. If she doesn't want to
do Joe Biden, she could maybe go after Nancy Pelosi,
maybe Barack Obama say they didn't do enough to support her.
(01:22:10):
But I think it's going to be a tough seale,
and I think you look again, even if she can't do,
you know, making an interesting enough book to sell, well,
she could at least send a message to donors that
she's learned some kind of lesson from the last campaign
to make them willing to pony up money again.
Speaker 2 (01:22:28):
Yeah, that's going to be interesting to see how this
all pans out. Jim, as always, thank you for joining
us tonight, and enjoy the rest of your evening. Thank you, Jim,
Thank you you too. Take care of thanks right, Jim Antle,
politics editor at The Washington Examiner. You know, I wonder
if by there were rumors throughout her four years as
vice president that she's a horrible office manager, nobody liked
(01:22:49):
working for. The staff kept on quitting on her.
Speaker 1 (01:22:52):
Yeah, that turnover was what if he's going to.
Speaker 2 (01:22:54):
Get into that or mention that at all, because that
was the rumor out there that people just did not
like working for this woman.
Speaker 1 (01:23:01):
So I I think that it will play out that way.
I think that she'll play nice and she won't have
a book that has much to say negative about Biden,
and then he's going to launch on her. You think,
I do think he will. I think he's I think
that they are going to want to try and create
a scenario where as as Jim pointed out that all
the smart people who always told him not to run,
and he didn't run when Hillary did and Hillary lost,
(01:23:23):
and then they told him not to run drop out late,
so he did and Kama lost too. They're going to
want to try and say that that he had the
answers all along, and that none of these people were smart,
and none of these candidates were capable of being Trump,
and he's the only one that ever did bet Trump.
That's that's going to be the book. But they're going
to have to slam her to to make him look better.
And I just think that's what the Biden crime family
(01:23:45):
can do. I just don't think they're held to any
loyalty anything other than themselves. Then they're going to want
to sell books.
Speaker 2 (01:23:51):
It all depends on how much input Jill has. Oh,
and it will be a book that will be a
lot of Given.
Speaker 1 (01:24:00):
That he's at best, he thinks he's Batman, I think
it is up to Jill. So then I think it's
absolutely going to be a brutal, you know, expose.
Speaker 2 (01:24:08):
If she tells him right, here's what you here's what
I'm thinking. This needs to get into the book because
we know that she is very upset with the Obamas,
with the Pelosi's, with Harris for forcing him out of
the race.
Speaker 1 (01:24:22):
And they're in a unique position. As he said too,
they're just looking at legacy. They can they can torch
Nancy Pelosi, and Republicans will love that. They might even
buy the book if you're going to torch some of
these people bad enough. So I think I think you'll
see it. I think that I think it'll be a
I think it'll be a barn burner on his side,
but they're going to keep it close to the vest
till they see what puts out, and Kama will play along.
(01:24:44):
She's not going to burn down Biden at all. I
don't think if I'd love to be wrong, because I'd
love her to be honest and have an honest account
of what was on.
Speaker 2 (01:24:52):
All right, more coming up, final segment of The Rod
and Great Show on Talk Radio one oh five nine. Canna.
Speaker 1 (01:24:57):
Yeah, I'm very proud of you, Rod, you are coming
so far along here. I am your you are. I
am just so impressed.
Speaker 2 (01:25:05):
In my radio professional career.
Speaker 1 (01:25:06):
In your televisioning prowess the show that you are watching
right now. I am so happy to hear. Well, I
think I'm I'm I'm crediting myself for this.
Speaker 2 (01:25:17):
You ever clipped.
Speaker 1 (01:25:18):
I'm clumped over the fact that, Yeah, I think I
did this for you. I think I gifted.
Speaker 2 (01:25:23):
You're watching reruns of Miami Vice. Yes, right, yes, well
I've started watching reruns of Magnum p I in the
Rockford File.
Speaker 1 (01:25:30):
It's so good.
Speaker 2 (01:25:30):
I'm so happy.
Speaker 1 (01:25:31):
That is such a great move. No, it's it's like
going by a time machine. Both of those shows were great.
I love both those shows. And you know, matt mustaches
weren't all the rage when Thomas Magnum showed up with
his mustache and he wasn't he wasn't shaving it. So
uh anyway, so rest is history.
Speaker 2 (01:25:48):
I remember you when we went to why this was
when the show was still in there. My wife and
I went and you could rent the Ferraris and remember
that drive around Hawaii and one of the Ferrari I believe.
Speaker 1 (01:26:00):
Right, Yeah it is, And it was interesting. I've read
something where that it wasn't their fastest one or the
most expensive one, but it was the one that fit.
And but he's at six foot fur they had to
like move that far back so he keep his body
into it.
Speaker 2 (01:26:11):
Yeah. N b A r W n b A hans
a few problems.
Speaker 1 (01:26:16):
As we've discussed on the show. Are you aware of
the latest you bring that up?
Speaker 2 (01:26:21):
Well, they're they're they're telling people who go to the
games to quit throwing sex toys on the floor.
Speaker 1 (01:26:27):
Yes, I don't. This is a family program, Ron, I
can't believe you're bringing this up.
Speaker 2 (01:26:30):
There have been due incidences where someone in the stands
is throwing a sex toy on the floor.
Speaker 1 (01:26:36):
It's green, it looks like a it looks like a
stuffed animal, but yeah, animal. It's been funny because no
one knew who it was. I think they finally caught
someone find.
Speaker 2 (01:26:45):
Out they did. It was charged with something. I don't
know what it was. Yeah, I know there was a crime,
but apparently it was and God bless Sophie Cunningham. Now,
Sophie Cunningham is on the same team as Caitlin Clark. Yes,
and she's kind of her protector. Oh really, she's a
white woman like Kitlin Clark and protector. Well apparently, during
(01:27:07):
a recent edition of a podcast, she revealed that She's
been hit with yet another fine for throwing some shade
at the Zebras. The refs, oh yeah, this time around
is because once, she said on the debut episode of
her pod, she said, the WNBA find me, They find
me fifteen hundred dollars. I was like, this was just
(01:27:29):
the beginning. So she's out there protecting Kitlyn Clark and
going after the ref saying, hey, what on earth are
you doing? That was a foul? Why are you calling it?
Speaker 9 (01:27:36):
In?
Speaker 2 (01:27:37):
THEAWNBA find her fifteen hundred dollars. This is about the
third time this year.
Speaker 1 (01:27:41):
You know, I'm reading the headline. You know what the
you know what the WNBA penalty is if you get
caught throwing something like that on the court, throwing. According
to the Babylon b WNBA warns, if you throw anything
on the court, you will be forced to attend ten
more WNBA games. O. There you go. So that that
would be a severe punishment, and I don't I think
that might the punishment outweighs the crime at that point.
Speaker 2 (01:28:03):
Simply because of that. I would never do that in
a WNB a game.
Speaker 1 (01:28:06):
Yeah, I'm not going to be forced to watch ten
more of those games. Actually, how about How sad is
it that what they throw on the court is getting
more attention than the game?
Speaker 2 (01:28:14):
Yeah the players, Yep, all right, that doesn't for us tonight,
Head out, shoulders back. My God bless you and your
families and this great country of hours. Enjoy your Wednesday.
We're back tomorrow with a brand new addition of The
Roding Grad Show. Talk to you four
I'm not gone. Don't call it a comeback. I've been
here for years.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Well you had a replacement last week.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Oh I heard, especially on wing Man Wednesday. I had
a great caller somehow on my ex page. Say you
remember in Maverick the movie, there was Phoenix. Oh yeah,
she was like beating a lot of those pilots. I
was told I was phoenixed, like as a term, I
was Phoenix. Well, Goose is back, ready to you know,
(00:28):
be the co pilot?
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (00:29):
You knowing wing Man Wednesday. You know when you're when
you're on the other side of the country, you start
getting chatter the Goose is dead. Uh huh.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Let me tell you what Goose is alive? And well
I can guarantee you that.
Speaker 4 (00:42):
How are you?
Speaker 2 (00:43):
How are you, buddy? Welcome to the show. I'm brought
our kids.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
I'm citizen Greg Hughes known as Goose on.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
It is Wingman Wednesday. We are flying this baby like
you wouldn't believe. Today. A lot to talk about today.
We are going to get into the redistricting and Jerry
manderin silly. I don't know what else to call it, Greg,
It's just silliness.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
The complaints of the actual jerry or the.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Yeah, you know, the redistrict thing, and I understand, but
the reaction to it and what the Democrats are claiming,
it's just silly. It really is.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
When I when they all flee to Illinois, of all
places where districting jerry mandering takes on a whole new realm.
These are animals you're looking at, praying mantises and all
kinds of different forms, and they're all there complaining about redistricting.
It's that it reminds me of the saying, Hi, high pot,
I'm kettle, you're black, Okay. I mean, I just don't
understand how they could go there, of all places to
(01:34):
complain about jerry mandering.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
That's what they're trying to do. Speaking of silly, Uh,
I don't know if you read this. About about a
week ago, our good friend uh Brennan and Clapper wrote
their own op ed page into the friendly confines of
the New York Times and all this Russian hope stuff.
It's not right. You're just misinterpreting the documents.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
It is so strange to read them say that what
we've read in the declassified documents isn't there, that this
is just a mere political opinion. It's actually it makes
you dizzy because you're like that, maybe I didn't read
what I thought I read. You go back and you're like,
how are they saying that's not true? When it's a
(02:16):
declassified document, it's not subject to opinion. It's they took
the blackout and they took the black away, and you
can read the words and the words say what they say.
So how do they say that's not true?
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Yeah, well they're trying. Well, they lied a lot, as
they do each and every day. Now, we'll get into
that a little bit later on. We'll talk about critical minerals,
the mining of those minerals in this country, very very important.
And we'll also talk about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
They're about to come into a book tour Collision. Yeah,
(02:46):
her book, his book. She said, he said, it's going
to be interesting. She's already slammed. We know, I read
this yesterday. She's already slammed. Poor little Timmy.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Yeah, she really goes after his happy hands, you know,
that little way if he had going, I mean, we
laughed out of it. He apparently even the Canada herself
wasn't really thrilled with that little enthusiastic double wristed swing
whatever hand.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Whatever that is, happy hands, I guess. All right, So
we've got a lot to get to today, and we
invite you to be a part of the program. Eight
eight eight five seven eight zero one zero on your
cell phone dial pound two fifteen and say hey Rod
or on our talkback line. All you do is have
to download the brand new iHeartRadio app. Put kan RS
there at knars dot com and up in the right
(03:31):
hand corner on your cell phone you'll see a little
red microphone. You click on that and you can leave
us a thirty second comment. All right, let's start off.
Abby just mentioned this new newscast. The news conference is
just wrapping up now. But Donald Trump greg in his
element when he does things like this. You can just
you can see him. He doesn't have happy hands, I
(03:54):
hope not, but he just feels so comfortable. One he's
talking about another sixess story. A man, this is a
giant success story again today. Well, and where to begin
on the success stories? You have the announcement from Apple,
which is a massive additional investment from the one they
already committed to. They committed a five hundred billion now
(04:14):
they're adding another one hundred billion and Utah apparently we
don't know the details of this, but as Abbi mentioned
in newscast, the President briefly mentioned it in the statement,
Greg that Utah is going to benefit with this Apple investment.
So something is coming here and.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
We've heard this, and I'm like, I've been looking forward
to the announced groundbreaking because it's one thing to project
over a number of years. I think it's is it
Kentucky or Tennessee where the Apple is going to be
breaking grounds on I think one hundred and seventy five
thousand guitar feet facility, which that is not a small
facility at one hundred seventy five thousand feet. So it's
really happening. I think you're seeing a trade realignment globally,
(04:52):
but you're seeing a reintroduction of our manufacturing in our
industries in the United States that we were always the
loan superpower because of and we saw this outsourced and
we saw it disappear and every day Americans were the
victims of that happening. This is coming back. It's coming back.
By this announcement, You've got this five hundred billion dollars
Department of Labor put out a post. Five hundred billion
(05:15):
now available for trade schools thanks to the Trump's bill,
the big beautiful bill. H that's that's that's money that
trains every day Americans and trades that a I can't
get its hands. Okay, if AI's you know, if everyone's
worried about what AI is going to displace by way
of jobs, these trade school jobs are going to are
are high paying, are going to be great jobs. And
(05:37):
I don't think they're they're vulnerable to AI or technology.
And again, it gives every day Americans opportunities. And that's
and that should have always been the state of play
in America, but we lost that for a good while
and now it's coming back. And Trump is the author
of this without his vision and his determination, because everyone
didn't want to do it. They wanted to keep the
status quo. You wouldn't have, uh, these exciting announcements like
(06:00):
we're seeing.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Well, I don't know if you've heard Mike grow we
all know who Mike is, the jobs guy. I mean,
he said, you know, if you're an electrician, if you're
a plumber, if you're an HVAC expert, you have training
that you're easily going to be making more than one
hundred thousand dollars a year because we're going to need
a robot. You know, AI cannot unclog your drain. Nope,
let's say come up with a robot that does that.
(06:23):
But we haven't seen that yet. Maybe that'll be developed someday.
But let's be honest. I mean, you've got jobs like
this and then you've got numbers on the SNP. The
S and P has just taken off.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
So let me tell you what the regime media will never,
oh never, oh never. Eighty two percent of S and
P five hundred companies have beaten their quarterly earnings estimates
so far. This is the highest rate since twenty twenty one.
To see this, if you watch this bar graph, it
is straight up in the year for eighty two percent
of SMP companies to beat their quarterly earnings. This is
(06:53):
what they estimate, and they were they probably weren't bearish
in their estimates because things are going well, but they're
beating their own estimates a two percent. That's a that
is a great economic indicator of which no, the leftists,
the regime media, they can't tell you this. They won't
tell you this because your conclusion when you see that,
and you see the announcements of five hundred billion dollars
(07:14):
for trade schools, and you hear the announcement from Apple,
all of that culminates into the everyday American people are
getting its opportunities back, the economy is going to grow,
and that that for them. Yeah, that's that's the worst
news they've ever heard. They're not going to report it.
They're not going to tell you about this, or they're
going to find a way to tell you that somehow
that those earnings reports being beaten, that's somehow a bad thing.
(07:37):
They'll find a way to discuss.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Well. And the Democrats, and I heard Clay and Buck
have a great discussion on this earlier today coming into
the U to the station today. But they talked about
the state of the Democratic Party. It is a party
of unhappy people.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Yeah, they're massing.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
It's a party of grievance. Well, you know, so how
do you complain about giving Americans more jobs, better jobs,
having a better life. How do you combat that?
Speaker 1 (08:04):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Well, you know, and that's their message.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
So, and we talked about this yesterday. They they think
when we talk about jobs, we talk about five hundred billion.
And you know in the trades, the Democrats are trying
to tell our young, our young people in America that
jobs are demeaning, like you shouldn't have to work. Is
in not working, and these communist countries around the world,
there's somehow, some quality of life that is worth it.
While it's not all upward mobility all all. A good
(08:29):
quality of life comes from, you know, freedom of choosing
your self determination and doing what you want to do.
But they they want to tell you that work is bad.
They want to tell you that they want to have
a collective that raises you from cradle to grave. And
so anything that creates more liberty, more self determination, more
opportunity is this is this is the worst impossible scenario
(08:51):
they could imagine. They are just they can't and they
don't know how to even lie about it. They used
to lie about these things. They could tell you with
a straight face, we just want to build school and roads.
And meanwhile they had these real bad intentions. Now they
just tell you the bad intentions. They don't even hide it. Yeah,
I don't get it.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Well, they don't hide the fact that they're socialists anymore either.
I mean, they're calling them, the Democratic Socialist Party. I mean,
that's what it's become.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
I can't get that mayor's name right anymore. So I
heard him called, I heard Jesse Waters. I call him Zoolanders.
I'm just call him because then I don't have to
worry about how to say his name anymore. I'm just
calling him Zoolander from now. Well, Zoolander is a socialist,
a declared and proud socialist. And when you look at
the socialist platform of which he helped author, according to
(09:36):
the socialists there in New York, they want to do
away with a nuclear family. Yes, that is that is
again part and parcel with we don't want you to work.
We want the collective to take care of you from
cradle to grave. We want this, I mean, it's it
is all the things we talk about. They're actually saying, yes,
you're right.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Well, you know, the one politician that never was afraid
to say this greg was Bernie saying. I mean Bernie
Sanders for years has said I'm a Democratic Socialist yep,
you know, and everybody, you know, everybody else in the
Democratic Party was afraid to say that.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Now they're admitting it where they're headed. Yes, So when
we talked about Terris way back when. Okay, I mean
this is when April. Yeah, back in April, we had
a lot of criticism from the so called economists and
everything else, but we had we had Ran Paul, Senator
Ran Paul that was really against tariff's and he was
really you know, angry about it all. When you see
(10:28):
Trump right now using these tariffs as leverage to see
the like you're seeing. What are you when you have
that leverage? With Senator Paul now condemned President Trump with
the global trade realignments that we're seeing going on that
are advantaging the United States, Is it still as bad
as he said?
Speaker 5 (10:45):
Then?
Speaker 1 (10:45):
I wonder if he has some second thoughts about his
condemnation of uh President Trump using tariffs to leverage better
agreements for this contract.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
I haven't heard, I have not heard him say anything
to that fact, as if you'd be interesting to see
what he comes up with. All Right, We've got a
lot to get to when we come back. We'll talk
about the battle over redistricting and Jerry Mandarin. It's been
around a long time. That's coming up on the Wingman
Wednesday edition of the Rod and Greg Show right here
on Talk Radio one O five nine k n RS.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
That's all right, but I'm alive. I die like any movie.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
I'm rot our kid. Great to be with you on
this Wingman Wednesday afternoon. All right, let's talk about redistricting
and Jerry Mandarin. We just saw an amazing map on
Fox News during the break, Greig, this is a map
They showed what everything north or kind of northeast of
New York, New York state. Yes, all these blue states. Yes,
now one of those states have a Republican member of Congress.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Yeah. Yeah, north of north of New York. It's all blue.
It's all blue. This is why when with this character
you have a clip of it, when if a state
has all Democrat members of Congress, all congressional districts are blue,
when you say, okay, gloves are off, we're going to redraw,
what would that actually look like them? Because you don't
have a Republican district anywhere in your state. You've done this,
(12:05):
You've done this as much as you possibly could. You
got nowhere to go.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Yeah, yeah, here's more. Heally, she is the governor of Massachusetts,
a state which, by the way, does not have a
Republican member of Congress. Even though there are forty percent
of the state's population is Republican. Let's hear her explanation
about that.
Speaker 6 (12:23):
Donald Trump, Greg Abbott, Ken Paxton have left us no choice.
That's the reality. Nobody came looking for this, right. We
had a system of free and fair elections. We have
maps that are regularly drawn, voted on by legislatures, approved
and signed off on by governors. This is the way
the system works until this, until this comes in, and
(12:45):
so you know, they've left us no choice. It's not
where anyone wants to be. I could tell you that governors,
I know, maybe with the exception of this person in Texas,
evidently we want our constituents represented. We want the voices heard,
whether you vote for me or not. I want your
vote to count. I want your vote to count. Unlike
(13:08):
Greg Abbott, who doesn't want your voice to count and
doesn't want your vote to count. Nor does Donald Trump,
nor does Ken Paxton. Because they're proposing to completely rewrite
a map out of nowhere to take away the votes
and the voices of Texans.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
Well, haven't they already done that in Massachusetts? Greg where
I said about you know, forty percent of the state's
population voted for Donald Trump in the latest election. But
there is not one district in Massachusetts that has a
Republican going to Congress.
Speaker 7 (13:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
No, so she says that. But they've they've absolutely drawn
those districts in ways that they've They've sure they've they've
gotten full maximum benefit for their party, for their power,
and you know, it's it's it does really ring hollow
when they're when they're complaining about any of this drawing,
when they've drawn, when their districts look the way they doe, Yeah,
(14:00):
not kidding you. They look like like praying mantis's or
like there's a district that, if you looked at it,
you would think, well, they have to be contiguous. That
district's not. Well, no, there's like a daddy long leg
spider length strip that connects these two parts together. And
it's I've never seen I tell you this. The legislative
attorneys in our state nonpartisan. They had some fundamental rules
(14:22):
we had to follow, and we did. Those maps I'm
watching would not fit into how our process worked here
in the state of Youth. Not that we didn't have
you know, not that we were completely oblivious to party affiliation.
I mean, it's it's there, but there was you know,
major boundaries, counties, waterways, you name it. There's just ways
that you you do it. And I don't see it
(14:42):
in those Democrats, those blue state maps at all.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Ed Ring is joining us on our Newsmaker line right now.
He's a senior fellow at the Center for American Greatness.
Ed thanks for joining us tonight. What do you make
of all this head.
Speaker 8 (14:53):
Well, I mean, this is something that's been going on forever.
Jerry mander is a term that was invented in honor
of I think the guy's last name was Jerry. He
was a state legislator that came up with the bright
idea of manipulating voting districts in order to maximize the
(15:14):
advantage for his party. And it looked like a salamander,
so they called it a Jerry mander. This has been
going on for a very long.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
Time, you know what, And you're exactly right now. The
thing that in Utah we have had what they call
non partisan staff. That means that they write a draft
legislation for both a majority of minority party in the
And this goes back to twenty ten when I was
a part of the the redistricting. I was part of
House leadership at the time. There were some fundamental rules
(15:43):
about how you would draw these congressional districts. And of
course you're counting population and you're not. It's not that
you're not mindful of party affiliation in those things, but
you had to have the difference of population. We try
to keep it between A plus one or very close
in terms of the pope of each district. But I'm
looking at districts in Maryland, I'm looking at districts in
(16:04):
other states, and they do each set a salamander. One
looks like a praying mantis. One looks like I don't
know what this one. This looks like Italy. To me,
I don't see them following some of these fundamental rules
that our legislative attorneys said. You've got to have some
standards that you can really justify that are not just
your cook in the books. Why how are these states
(16:24):
getting away with this?
Speaker 8 (16:28):
Well, you know, part of it is the standards, I guess,
you know, especially if you go from state to state.
They're not federal standards. They vary from state to state,
I suppose, easily manipulated.
Speaker 5 (16:40):
But there was also the.
Speaker 8 (16:42):
Impact of the Voting Rights Act and some of the.
Speaker 5 (16:45):
Supreme Court decisions.
Speaker 8 (16:46):
Which by the way, it looks like some of those
may get reversed.
Speaker 5 (16:50):
But they actually made it a condition.
Speaker 8 (16:54):
Of equal access and equal representation to create safe districts
by ethnicity, and so they in order to do that,
I mean, that's a rationale, but it's based in law
and court precedents, and so in order to do that, though,
they had to create very contorted shapes for some of
(17:16):
these districts. And that's their moral and legal justification for
doing it. Specifically for the Democrats, it's why they they're
able to come up with this stuff and get away
with it.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
And is the rub here right now that Trump wants
to do this during the mid terms and not wait
until twenty thirty. Is that the rub? Is that what
really's got everybody sow up in arms.
Speaker 8 (17:36):
Well, yeah, it is, because that's unprecedented as far as
I know, and you know, typically you're supposed to do
this every ten years. Now, you know, Trump is trying
to take into account something which you know, if Californians
try this, they're on thin ice because California is already
so heavily jerrymandered. But the Latino boat in Texas has
swung heavily. You know, it's still a majority Democrat, but
(17:58):
it's swung heavily in favor of Republicans. And there's all
of these counties down there, and I guess along the
Rio Grande and elsewhere in Texas where if they redraw
the boundaries, they're going to elect more Republican congressmen. And
that's got the Democrats around the country pretty upset. They're
(18:18):
upset because, you know, that's something that they've been doing.
Everybody's been doing it, but the Democrats have managed to
do it more adroitly because they've had the benefit of
those voting Rights Acts to allow them to be more
manipulative with the districts. And that's only going to work
as long as minorities continue to vote for Democrats, which
I think Democrats themselves are starting to realize with great
(18:40):
panic that that's not something they can take for granted anymore.
But you know, in California, if you want to connect
compare California and Texas. You know, they get fifty five
percent of the vote in statewide elections. The Republicans get
fifty five percent of the vote. They've got sixty six
percent of the congressional seats. That's equivalent to four extra
(19:02):
Republican seats in the House.
Speaker 5 (19:04):
That's how they are currently.
Speaker 8 (19:05):
You know, if you want to call it that jerrymandered California,
the Democrats get fifty eight percent of the vote for
statewide offices. We're talking about the most recent election, they've
got eighty three percent of Wow, that's the twenty five
percent variants compared to an eleven percent variants.
Speaker 5 (19:23):
That's thirteen congressional seats.
Speaker 8 (19:26):
That Republicans ought to occupy if it was representative.
Speaker 5 (19:30):
So even if California were only as.
Speaker 8 (19:32):
Jerrymandered in favor of Democrats as Texas currently is, you'd
be looking at another eight or nine seats of representation
by Republicans in the House.
Speaker 5 (19:42):
So what California is trying to do is.
Speaker 8 (19:44):
Go well beyond, because they've already gone well beyond what
Texas has ever done or what they're contemplating.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
So I don't want to mix situations, but I have
to use it as a comparison. Back when we were
talking tariffs, and you saw this even presidential President Trump's
first term. If you raise tariffs on China, well they
can turn around and raise tariffs on the United States.
And the answer back was they already have They don't
have much room to go. They have been putting a
lot of tariffs on a lot of things, whereas the
(20:11):
United States had not, so we had room to put
tariffs on on different items. So to compare that to
this situation when the Democrats say, okay, then we're going
to Jerry Mander, haven't they already played that card? Is
there any left if you have if you're Delaware and
you have one, I think it's well. No, Maryland has
out of eight congressional members, they got one Republican. They
(20:32):
used to used to be a split th they're thirty
years ago. I don't think Delaware has a single Republican.
Haven't they already played that card on us? Do they
have any room to go to make it worse than
they've already made it?
Speaker 5 (20:44):
No, they don't.
Speaker 8 (20:45):
And what's going to happen, as I mentioned, is I
think that again they're on very soon ice because non
white voters are starting to reject Democrats in increasing proportions,
and so they can't rely on the voting right facts
which themselves are in jeopardy of being repealed. There could
be an explosion of redistricting, and by the twenty twenty thirty,
(21:09):
you know, redistricting, when everybody's going to do it, that
that may rewrite the boundaries heavily, heavily in favor of
Republicans because the Democrats are losing both the legal basis
to Jerry Manner on the basis of ethnicity, and they're
losing the ethnic voters. So things are looking pretty good
strategically for Democrats. And no, I don't think the Democrats
(21:31):
have a lot of room to move here.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
I drain from the Center for American Greatness, joining us
on our any hour Newsmaker line. Now, I mean I'm
in here, just slaved.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Order fake news, golfing.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
I'm working, Yeah, I work hot outside today back with
us here on talk radio one oh five nine can Eris.
It is the Wingman Wednesday edition of The Rutting Great Show.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
I you know, I'm a big boy. I could you
want to play that callback?
Speaker 2 (21:57):
We willy?
Speaker 1 (21:58):
Okay, Yeah, I'm ready, I'm ready take the shots.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
Yeah, I am ready. I want to talk about the
president he said yesterday. If things don't start improving in
our nation's cap which should be greg just a wonderful city.
He's going to step in and do something about it.
And you read stories like we're about to share with
you right now, and you can't blame them. I just
got back from there.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
I just got back from there. And we were lucky.
We probably were out in daylight. You know, we'd go
to dinner, but they would still be light afterwards and
we go back to the hotel, So we weren't. I
don't know. There was just one night when we arrived
on Tuesday, where we were, you know, walking around it
when it was night. But then we took an uber home.
But I'll tell you that, while we were walking around
in a place that looked completely safe, we were told
that because that intern that was killed was just a
(22:42):
few blocks from where we were, which felt surreal that
that would be the case. So the lawlessness in the
crime is in that town. It's just where it erupts
and where it happens. It's anyone's guest. But it's great
when Trump says I'm going to bring the FEDS in
to do this. If Biden did it, what we get
more we'd have the like escape from New York, Yes,
(23:02):
snakes running around. It would be terrible.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Well, well, the story the President said this because of
what happened to a former Doge staffer. He had the
nickname of Big Balls. Yes, but he was the other
night he was trying to save a young woman whose
car was being hijacked by a gang of what about
ten or fifteen teenagers? Yeah, double digits. It was always
ten in a section of Washington. But he saw this.
(23:27):
And I don't know why he did this. I mean,
you have fifteen kids, what are you going to do?
But he's been a human being, said this isn't going
to happen.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
He saw a woman in duress.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
Yeah, what he saw, and he stepped in, and he
stepped into help her, and he got the daylights beating.
Speaker 7 (23:40):
Out of them.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
That's putting it mildly. The picture is it's a bloodfest.
He's got blood all over him. I'm hoping some of
that's the people that he scrapped with. I hope they
got some of it too.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
But when you see that, when you see the image
of him, and he's bleeding so profusely, and and the
reason he is is because he came to the aid
of a woman that was being attacked by these guys.
I mean, I I that's that's a scenario that is
just you know, it's out of a of a bad movie.
It shouldn't even be real. Yeah, Now, I I I
(24:10):
don't know that the federal government handling law enforcement there
is the answer, because I only have faith in the
current chief executive. I don't know if.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
Well, you know, yeah what I mean, Washington is already
a failure. What's he going to do?
Speaker 9 (24:24):
You know?
Speaker 1 (24:24):
Well, that's my thing is that I just don't see Washington,
DC as a bastion for anything, you know, I mean
I think what bringing the military? Well, I actually trust
the National Guard or the military more than I would.
You know, DC plays.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
Well, that's the only thing I think would solve the problem.
Put an American soldier on every corner. Yeah, chill it
out with a weapon?
Speaker 1 (24:44):
Is there maybe our listeners know, is there any major
metropolitan city in America run that has a majority of
Republicans on their council and as their mayor running a
city in America? Because every city seems to be a
just a just a war zone of lawlessness city. I
can't I can't think of one. I can't, I can't.
I mean, look suffers from the same fate.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Look at it in our own, our own region. You've
got Salt Lake City. Yeah that's a joke. You've got Boise,
uh huh, Yeah that's bad. You've got Vegas, bad, Arizona.
I don't know this about Phoenix. In Arizona, you got
a wacky governor, yea who doesn't know what she's doing.
Look at Colorado, Look at Denver.
Speaker 1 (25:25):
It's a cesspool.
Speaker 7 (25:27):
All of all.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
The major cities in this country, which we all you know,
should be all shining cities on the hill, and now
one of them is doing their job.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
Like you, look at a city like Chicago that's been
run by the Democrats for a zillion years, and they
have the goal to complain about Republicans. You haven't seen
a Republican in your state in Chicago for forty fifty years.
Any problem you have, that's your problem. You you made it,
and I yet they can still point at another political party.
I don't know. Maybe there is maybe one of our
(25:56):
listeners knows, or some of our listeners know of a
major metropolitan city that is a majority of Republicans on
a council as a mayor somewhere, show me and is it?
Is it as bad as these cities I'm we're talking about.
I would have a hard time believing that's the case,
But I don't know for sure.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
My guess is, Greg, those cities don't have a crime problem.
Would be just my guess. Maybe someone can be all right,
morey coming up. It is the Rod and Greg Show
on Talk Radio one O five nine k nrs. Yes, yeah,
I got your back. How much grocery shopping do you
do with your wife?
Speaker 1 (26:28):
None? Really, Because I'm a man, I don't don't. I don't.
I don't do that.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
So it's not manly to go grocery shopping with your wife.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
Now, if your wife sends you to go get some stuff,
go get it.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
Yeah, but you won't go with her.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
She doesn't want me breathing over her shoulder. I I
shop like I'm on a quest for treats. I'm gonna
buy all the junk.
Speaker 7 (26:48):
I like.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
That's why men go with their wives. Haven't you figured
that out yet?
Speaker 1 (26:52):
No, I'm she might be well, I have not been
invited to such an.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
Okay, Well, if wife wives go to the grocery store,
they pick up the essentials.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
Yes, well, now my wife picks up ye picks up
the cookies and stuff for.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
The men go to load it up with the treats. Yes, oh, yeah,
so you should if you haven't learned that by now, Man,
you you need a reindoctrination into.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
We have treats. But Matt, she does not want me
breathing over her shoulder looking to buy stuff. And man,
when I when I go shopping, she goes on a
trip and I'm in charge. Man. The diet changes very quickly.
And it's good. I think it's great, but it's different.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
Of late, have you talked has she come home, say
a man, grocery prices are getting high.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
She's been saying this a lot, has she, Well, ever
since COVID, it's she's never felt there's been a normalization.
Since five years. She's felt that the things have just
been a nightmare.
Speaker 2 (27:43):
Well, apparently, a new survey shows that the vast majority
of US adults are at least somewhat stressed about the
cost of groceries as prices continue to rise. Yeah, things
are are higher. I mean beef prices are high.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
Well, it's not just that it's uncertainty. The way it's
shared with me is that there's a level of stress
when it comes to grocery shopping now that she didn't
feel before because prices can swing so quickly or things
have not got normalized or got back you know. You
know what they did. They shrunk a lot of products. Yes,
less in it, charged more, made less of it.
Speaker 3 (28:18):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
And there's just so there's just a lot of that
going on where you just feel like, what's next or
is it gonna get worse? And there is a lot
of stress attached to grocery shopping.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
More Americans are feeling that stressed.
Speaker 9 (28:29):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
By the way, someone called in on our talk back
line and left this message about wing Man Wednesday.
Speaker 7 (28:36):
Hey Rod, happy wingman Wednesday.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
And all I gotta say is you were gone last week. Greg.
Speaker 1 (28:45):
You know you could take that in a bunch of ways.
I take that is that you know, I'm on the present.
It was like I wasn't gonna be because he's he
feels like I'm always with him.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
No, he didn't notice that you were gone. That's what
that's what That's what it means.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
Well, Debbie Downer, that's the half class. That's half class empty.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Look, well, that's what that's what he's doing. He didn't
notice you were gone.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
Because he just see he just I'm always with him,
so he just can't imagine life without me.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
That's what I think. You can justify just about anything.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
Yes, it was a compliment. Thank you very much, listener.
I appreciate that. I'm I'm omnipresent in your life.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
Appreciate it, your president. All right, all right, well we
come back. We're going to delve into the latest on
John Brennan and is it John Clapper? It's it's is
it Clapper?
Speaker 4 (29:33):
I only know him by their last names, Brennan, Clapper
and Comy. But they continue to lie and we'll dig
into some of those lies. And a lot of your
phone calls coming up as well. It is Wingman Wednesday
right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine
k n r S. Rod and Greg show right here
(29:56):
on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine Kate and
are ask great you again this afternoon.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
I'm Rod Arquette, Citizen Greg Hughes.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
A lot to talk about again today.
Speaker 1 (30:05):
There is you know, Tulsa Gabbert did a podcast yes
with Miranda Devine from those New York Posts, and I
have not heard It's about an hour and I haven't
heard all of it. But I've heard there's been clips
of it on on X and on social media, and
it's getting a lot of attention because if you've ever
listened to Tulsa Gabbert, it's so matter of fact, you
(30:28):
don't get a lot of she's not animated, but she
gets into even how they searched followed her. They were
searching the lining of her luggage. I mean, some of
the things that she went through being spied on from
the past administration, and then some of the things that
they've declassified and uncovered. It just speaks for itself. I
know that the regime media wants to say that this
(30:48):
is somehow her opinion. There's there really isn't a lot
of opinion being expressed here. It's just the un you know,
the unveiling of or the revealing of classified documents. Then
that the that the left thought they would hype.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
Well long before you launched your stellar career radio career,
she was in this studio. Really, she was here years
ago when she was running for president. She came by
she was visiting Utah. We had a chance to get
to know her and talk to her a little bit.
Her husband was both the campaign manager and media guy,
so he handled her very nicely. She didn't have a chance,
(31:20):
but it was nice to get to know her. But
she came across is a very very smart, down to earth,
common sense candidate. Yeah, and of course didn't go anywhere
into the Democratic Party because they don't look for.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
People common sense and substantivet We're just a deal break.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
Doesn't work, doesn't work well. She of course, has released
a lot of documents on the Russian hopes, been sharply criticized,
basically saying it's all political and she's doing nothing but
releasing the documents all she's doing.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
Yeah, it's not her opinion, it's the documents she's releasing
that have been they're eight years old. I mean, she's
it's not like something that was just generated recently. So
it's it's amazing that the media gets the regime media
gets away with saying that this is an opinion when
really it's the declassification of documents created years ago.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Yeah. Yeah, And of course Comy and Clapper and Brennan
all come out not looking the best. I think that's
fair to say. Yes, and Clapper and Brennan decided to
write an op ed piece to The Friendly Confines. I
like to call it the New York Times because they
know they can write and say anything they want in
the Times, nobody will fact check them. Well, joining us
(32:29):
on our Newsmaker line to talk more about that. As
Sean Fleetwood, staff writer of the Federalists, he's been looking
into what they had to say and the lies they told. John,
Thanks for joining us tonight. What did you find most
interesting in that op ed piece from Brennan and Clapper?
Speaker 10 (32:45):
Right, So, basically the gist is that Clapper and Brennan
are continuing to do what they've been doing for years,
which is to just lie and obscure their role in
pushing this dangerous and destructive Trump Russia collusion hoax. You
just kind of just set the stage of it all
after the twenty sixteen election. You had then President Obama
order his intel chiefs Clapper, Brennan and Komy to put
(33:09):
together what's called an Intelligence Community Assessment or an ICA.
And so this ICA was to look at Russia's interference
in the twenty sixteen election. Well, they published the ICA,
and there was a key judgment in there that claimed
that Vladimir Putin aspired to help Donald Trump win the
twenty sixteen election, and that's important because it became foundational
(33:30):
in pushing the overall Trump Russia collusion hopes, right. And
so what we found through these these classified documents from
d n I Toulca Gabbard is that that assertion that
Trump or that Russia aspired to help Trump win was
based on garbage. It was based on a fragment of
a sentence or fragment of intelligence that was interpreted five
(33:52):
different ways by five different Intel officials. It did not
meet the high standards for being included in reports such
as this, but it was included away at the behest
of Obama's intel chiefs. And so I bring all of
this up because when you read this op ed by
Clapper Brennan, they make a bunch of claims about the
drafting of the ICA that just are flat out false.
(34:14):
One of them notably involves the Steele dossier, Right, that
was the collection of allegations and unsubstantiated claims against Trump.
You know, dirt that supposedly Russia had on Trump that
was actually dirt opposition dirt bought and paid for by
the Hillary Clinton campaign. And they make the claim in
this op ed that, well, the Steele dossier, it wasn't
(34:35):
included in the main analysis or is the main source
we just put it in the annex. Well, that's not true.
When you read the declassified documents from Director Gabbard, what
it shows is that it was in fact reference in NX,
but it was also referenced in the main body of
the ICA. And so that's one of the many lies
throughout this article that we can discuss. But I'll stop
(34:59):
there in case you want have any follow up questions.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
So here's here's what's frustrating me. And I'm glad you
wrote this article, but I just I don't know what's
going to actually penetrate the American consciousness. This is these
are declassified documents. This isn't as far as I can tell,
this is not Tulsi Gabberd's opinion. These are documents that
are Now you can read the documents and you can
see what the truth is. Uh, it's being it's being
(35:23):
framed as Tulsi Gabbard's political opinion that it is not
it is not documented. How do you get how do
you break through a colluding media that doesn't want to
report it or wants to demean it and and just
relegate it to just someone's opinion, political opinion. How do
you get the facts that you just laid out that
are in the documents themselves? She it's not her opinion,
(35:44):
it's what was written and recorded and documented. How does
how does the public understand that it is not debatable
and not off ed by these two It just perpetuates
the very lies that they were trying to hide all along.
How do we get the information out? Do you think?
Speaker 10 (36:00):
Yeah, yeah, it's a really great question. And I think
you bring up an important point that none of this
Russia collusion hoax stuff the success, because in a sense,
I do believe it was a success on their end
in sabotaging Donald Trump's presidency. That would not have been
possible without the compliance of the legacy media. I mean,
they acted as the mouthpieces of this hoax for years.
(36:22):
They spewed out endless allegations, endless you know, claims coming
from the intel community about all of this. So it
really is, like you said, how do you break through this?
How do you after all of these years of propaganda
being spewed, how do you disseminate the truth? And I
think one I think the White House is doing a
fairly good job of it and just kind of putting
(36:44):
it out there and letting the people see for themselves
what this intelligence shows. But I also think that the
hoaxers themselves have done incredible damage to their own reputations.
For years, you had people like Adam Schiff and you know,
these former Intel officials going on cable TV, going on
these news outlets saying, we have evidence of Trump Russia collusion,
(37:05):
we have evidence that Donald Trump was in cahoots with
the Kremlin. And then you have ultimately, back in twenty nineteen,
when Robert Mueller went before Congress and testified, and people realized, oh,
this guy actually isn't running the investigation. Really, he doesn't
really know what's going on, and it kind of blew
up in their faces. I think from that point on
to current day, the American people have slowly but surely
(37:27):
started to realize the absurdity and the destructive nature of
all of this hoax, and the distributing information like the
documents that Director Gabbert put out becomes somewhat easier, but
it's also going to be a challenge in getting that
information and the truth out obviously, So.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
There's a grand jury that's been in paneled there's investigation
going on. I think that I would assume that's the
jurisdiction of DC, which is tough for any Republican looking
to go after any Democrat. But let me ask you this,
is there any legal consequence for Clapper, Brennan comey, because
there's there was a narrative, they would not be writing
op eds and they would not be on TV now
(38:04):
if they thought they were in legal peril. Their attorneys
would be telling them to stay quiet. So they're they're
pointing to their willingness to talk about this, showing that
they don't have any legal jeopardy at all. What's your take?
Is there any legal consequence for what they've done?
Speaker 10 (38:18):
I mean, I certainly hope so. I think we all
agree they definitely deserted to face legal consequences. But I
think the tricky part is going to be kind of
the statute of limitations of it. You know, if they
did commit crimes, which I would argue is likely, you know,
what is the statute of limitations on that certain statue
or law that they had supposedly violated. But but then again,
(38:40):
you could also make the argument that they're continuing to
perpetuate the hoaxes. Does that somehow change the statute of
limitations of it all? I don't know, but I do
certainly think that, you know what, the issue that you
raised about where you're bringing charges, if you're going to
bring them, if you just bring them in DC, if
you bring them in Northern Virginia, than the likelihood that
(39:01):
you're going to get any sort of conviction on any
sort of charges is going to be extremely low. I
think I saw recently somewhere in the news reports that
potentially Florida they could be looking at that because of
that guy's great on mar A Lago. So you know,
I think that's going to be a big factor in
determining whether we see any actual justice occur.
Speaker 2 (39:22):
And Sean, isn'ten fair to say that we basically still
have a complying media on this story, because you know,
I'm old enough to remember the Watergate days and the
media latched onto that story and wouldn't let go this one.
They seem to say, ah, it's old news, We'll let
these guys write the up ed. But I don't see
legacy media in this country really digging into this story
other than maybe Fox News. At this point, Well.
Speaker 10 (39:45):
How can they right because they.
Speaker 1 (39:46):
Were true for the part of the story.
Speaker 10 (39:48):
Yeah, they are part of the conspiracy that pushed this
conspiracy theory for years on end, just acting as the
mouthpieces for the Intel community, And like Brennan, like Clapper
and Komy, there's no way for them to now be honestly,
be honest and report about this topic in a transparent
(40:09):
fashion because to do so would admit that they were
participating in this destructive scandal for years on end. So
I have no expectations that they're going to be honest
in reporting on this going forward, which falls upon outlets
like the Federalists and other independent media to really focus
(40:30):
on on the details, get the truth out there and
make sure people know what's going on in their country
and government.
Speaker 2 (40:34):
Sean Fleetwood with the Federalist joining us on The Rotten
Greg Show and Talk Radio one O five to nine knrs. No,
we've got some news today. Aby mentioned this new newscast
a moment ago, Greg, but we're getting more information. Of course,
a big announcement today at the White House when the
head of Apple, Tim Cook, showed up with the President
and they announced they've already committed to spending five hundred
(40:55):
billion dollars to reinvest in the US. Well, they've added
another one hundred billion dollars to it today and Utah
is going to benefit, that's right, which is great.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
Yeah, when we started the show today, we knew that
announcement came, and we know that Utah's estate was mentioned,
but we didn't know exactly where or what. And we're
seeing reports now coming in that the area is lehigh.
The facility is I call it the old Micron facility.
If that's if I'm right there.
Speaker 2 (41:20):
And I think you are. It's now a Texas Instruments facility,
that's right, correct, right, And so it's the old Micron plant.
Speaker 1 (41:26):
Yeah, they and I remember when they were building that,
there was a race. They were building all day, all night.
They were because they were building micro chips in the
market was one that was very volatile, so they want
to get it online and keep going quick. And then
it just kind of it was it was big, and
it didn't really the economy didn't really support it. So
it's kind of been an asset or an area that
could do a lot that isn't really seeing its potential.
(41:48):
And I think Apple could absolutely if they upgrade that facility,
it would really would reach some real potential there.
Speaker 2 (41:57):
Well, here's what they're saying. According to a story today,
Apple's up raids, we'll focus on an increased investment at
the Texas instrument facility there in Lehigh, where bear wafers.
It's not like a cookie. Wafers are turned into silicone chips.
Apple calls the Lehigh location and one schedule to be
(42:17):
built in Sherman, Texas, as home to the most advanced
process technologies. He goes on to say these facilities will
manufacture critical foundational semiconductors used for Apple products, including iPhone
devices shipped to the US and around the world. The
company said of the Lehigh in Texas facility, so I
(42:37):
would assume that means more jobs and a lot more
money coming into the state of Utah.
Speaker 1 (42:41):
Right it is. And I'll tell you that this will
be the greatest test because we we we've got a
border that looks closed. It looks like it's been fully
funded to be secured both physically with the fence, but
also technology wise, new border patrol agents, more ice agents.
So it looks like we're getting a handle on that.
What the workforce look like. We are a younger state,
(43:02):
comparative where we do have an emerging workforce like other
states do not have. They don't have that young demographic
coming up like we do. Ours is smaller now than
it's ever been before. We're shrinking in terms of that
true children per home replacement, yes, and so ours is.
We're about a generation and a half behind the country's numbers.
But it has been said, I've heard it many times
that you could bring a lot of businesses that need
(43:25):
a lot of jobs, can you fill those jobs? So
my question is, I think this is phenomenal news for
everyday Americans and it gives us opportunity, and that's what
we've always that's what's made this country great is opportunity.
But to what extent will we be able to fill
all of the jobs? Utah is in the best position
as a state growing economically to be able to do that.
Our kids won't have to necessarily move out of state
(43:47):
to find opportunity.
Speaker 2 (43:48):
To place to live, though, challenge.
Speaker 1 (43:51):
Tell me about it. So yeah, well, so we're not
out of the out of the woods yet, but a
lot of states, if you it'll be just interesting to
see how the the job demand now that you have
the opportunity how quickly is that filled, especially if they
got young people that told that working is bad.
Speaker 5 (44:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
Yeah, Well my question is on top of that, Greg,
we saw the story today we're going to talk about
this that the University of Utah has I think cut
eighty programs. One of the programs, I guess graduated one
student in the program.
Speaker 1 (44:19):
Yes, that's so.
Speaker 2 (44:19):
My question is, knowing this is coming, are our universities
geared to graduating and producing students who can go after
jobs like this. I would hope they are.
Speaker 1 (44:31):
I think they will. But I'll tell you the mistake
that I think has been made in the past, and
it's easy to say in hindsight, So I don't think
this was you know, this wasn't This wasn't well thought out.
But we have looked at they call what they call
it tailor fit or custom fit. We looked for companies
that needed unique workforce, and we the state and it's
into its trade schools, wanted to help train prospective employees
(44:54):
to these unique manufacturing jobs. But these manufacturing jobs change,
and the nature of those jobs change. I think the
best thing you can equip an emerging workforce young people
with is the ability to learn how to learn, and
I would be very cautious about a pigeonholing into a
specific trade. Now, if you're welding, you can weld in
(45:14):
a lot of different fields. You can work for Boeing,
you could work for you could work for a lot
of different manufacturers with the skill of knowing how to
be a welder. So there's some that I think it
crosses economic sectors or different manufacturing, but I would be
very careful not to make them you know, silicon chip
or you know the chip manufacturers specifically, because that's that's
(45:35):
a technology or a business that can change.
Speaker 2 (45:38):
But how do you design a programs to do what
you just said, learn to learn?
Speaker 1 (45:42):
I think it can be done. I think you have
to do in partnership with the people that are looking
for and that workforce. They are going to have to
be have a very large voice on how that's done.
But people have to be able to adapt. I think
the one thing that's going to happen in the United
States and the world going forward from twenty twenty five
looking forward, is kind's ability to adapt to the change
(46:02):
in the landscape of our economy because it is changing,
and it's changing very quickly, and you've got to be
able to adapt to those changes. And I think we
all I'm one hundred percent confident we can. But if
you were learning how to code, and you will say,
be a coder, because this is the future that's gone.
That being a coder is.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
Where'd you go? Tod Ai?
Speaker 1 (46:21):
Take that Ai is doing it? It doesn't. So that
was I was told when we were seeing technology become
a stronger economic sector, when I was a policy maker,
that's what students ought to be learning how to do
is be a coder because that's a job that is
going to be needed far more than you know, the
trades or anything else. We're going to need that well,
and not that long of amount of time. That job
is now already uh not, it doesn't exist right, it's
(46:44):
it's going away. So I think it's I think we
have to be ready to be able to adapt and
be smart and be nimble and those skills.
Speaker 2 (46:54):
Because the opportunities are obviously the opportunities are coming to Utah.
Apple saw an opportunity here in Utah along with down
in Texas that, like you've said, we've got a young
population for the most part of well educated population, a
population that wants to work I think parents out there,
kudos to you for teaching your kids to work. We've
just got to be able to adapt to and hopefully
(47:15):
we can because the opportunities are coming.
Speaker 1 (47:18):
I am there here, I don't I can't speak for
the whole country, but I feel very, very bullish about Utah.
Utah has such a strong work ethic. It has our
our young emerging workforce has multiple language skills from there
if they've had experiences as missionaries in other countries. We
have natural resources, we have rare minerals, we have tech,
(47:39):
we have agriculture. We have the military. We have the
Hill Air Force brings a ton of engineering jobs and
other jobs around the military. We have such a diverse economy.
We have a strong emerging workforce. The housing is the
big issue, as you said, and water is as well.
But I'm really bullish that that the state of Utah
(48:02):
can be completely independent as a state on everything. We
need energy, you name it not. But I don't know
about the rest of the country. If i'm if I'm
looking at Wisconsin and I know that state and I
know their speaker, you could bring all the companies with
all the jobs. He doesn't think he has a population
to fill it.
Speaker 2 (48:19):
They don't.
Speaker 1 (48:19):
They don't because they're an aging state. They're getting older.
Speaker 2 (48:22):
Yeah they are, so all right. More coming up It
is the Rod and Greg Show on Talk Radio one
O five nine k n R S and uh, some
people are indicated and they didn't know you were gone.
Speaker 1 (48:31):
Well, you know what, you know, class half full. He
just that for that person just thinks I'm always around.
They just couldn't even believe I wasn't here. But if
it's the other way, they didn't miss you. But well,
if that's if haters have to hate, and that's hater aide,
then I know I'm I know I'm doing I'm doing
well because you know that's you can judge a person
(48:53):
by their critics. If you have good, good listeners here
and they become critics, well then you know you're making
a difference. You're you're making you know you're doing something.
But I will say this, I got a I got
a message from a listener who thought that Carolyn should
come in on wing Man Wednesday and have as Phoenix.
So then you get Phoenix in here, and then you
got the three of us bantering on Wednesdays. That was
an idea. I thought it sounded good. I've worked with
(49:16):
Carolyn for a long time friend. She was telling me
a lot of secrets about you. Well, that's not necessary.
Speaker 2 (49:22):
But I'm not going to share them. I wore they weren't.
Speaker 1 (49:25):
Good enoughing because you would nark me out in a nanosecond,
which I could.
Speaker 2 (49:28):
Hey, Clay, Travis had a great idea today. Okay, Okay, Clay, Yeah,
I like Travis fot Sexton. I'm not as hot on,
but I like Clay.
Speaker 1 (49:37):
I like them both.
Speaker 2 (49:38):
He's a good guy. I like both of them. Clay
had an idea for bud Light.
Speaker 1 (49:44):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (49:45):
Now, bud Light has struggled since Dylan mulvaney and that
one posting kind of sank the entire beer.
Speaker 1 (49:51):
Yeah, they ruined that whole company.
Speaker 7 (49:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (49:53):
Now Clay's opinion, here's what he thinks Budweiser should do.
Go get Sydney Sweeney, Yes, put her in a tank top. Okay,
have her do all your commercials and put around a
beer can.
Speaker 1 (50:07):
Yeah. I would call that the redo. I would say
bud Light should go to America and say, you know,
we've been thinking we made some big mistakes around here.
We want to redo. Just let's just forget the pass,
let's not look backwards and so forth, and then you
lay lay out that campaign and bud Light would be back.
They would, they would, That would be it. Everyone would
(50:28):
forgive and forget. That's a smart idea.
Speaker 2 (50:30):
That she threw out the first pitch at the Boston
Red Sox game. That surprised me if you told was
wearing a Boston jersey. I used to like her. Now
I don't because I'm a Yankee.
Speaker 1 (50:39):
You know, a lot of people argue that Boston's kind
of a liberal town for her to be, you know,
and getting it from all the left. You can get booed.
But I but I think that's great that she threw
out the first pitch in Boston, of all places. It's
the birthplace of our nation and yet it's such a
leftist magna.
Speaker 2 (50:55):
But it's also a very big sports town. Yes, you know,
their fans are very loyal to the Red Sox, to
the Patriots, to the Celtic Ruins and the Celtics. I
mean that's a very good sports down. So I think
she was smart to go out there and throw out
the first page and Boston baseball jersey.
Speaker 1 (51:12):
Yeah, it is good.
Speaker 7 (51:13):
I do it.
Speaker 2 (51:14):
I think lay Travit's got a brilliant idea. You hire
her and put her on a beer camp.
Speaker 1 (51:19):
We are watching something unique and I love it, and
I hope that this this this pendulum keeps swinging this way.
It had been the case that as soon as the
left decided that you were unclean, that you were unworthy,
that you had offended their senses and their worldview, they
would cancel you and then you would either be gone.
You would either disappear or you would spend the rest
(51:40):
of your career whatever you did, like like swinging, apologizing
and trying to be an apologist for whatever it is
you did, or trying to make your way back. That's
not what happened here. Nobody apologized. Everybody almost just doubled
down and said it. You know, we have nothing to
apologize for. And there's been a I think commercially in
the country, there's people have appreciated that they like that
(52:02):
that's the case.
Speaker 10 (52:02):
I think.
Speaker 1 (52:03):
I think American Eagle Out is doing very well well.
Speaker 2 (52:05):
Their stock is up twenty eight percent. I know someone
who walked into one of their stores the other day.
Jeans are all gone. So you know, Dems, you can
complain all you want but people are going to go
buy the Jens.
Speaker 7 (52:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (52:18):
I think it's great American Eagle outfitters. I think how
hats off to them for not backing down. And really,
I think the pulse of this country's why we're talking
about that. And also today Howard Stern, the big giant
phony sellout, weirdo, wope guy, he got canceled.
Speaker 2 (52:34):
Apparently he's gone.
Speaker 1 (52:35):
They gave him, they gave him the heave ho and
uh and and I think that's another sign, a good
sign that you know, every day common sense. Americans know
what they like and they know what they don't like.
And maybe these dumb companies are going to start tracking
that that sentiment.
Speaker 2 (52:49):
Why pay Stephen Colbert twenty to forty million a year
and why pay Howard Stern one hundred million dollars a
year to do a show that fewer and fewer people
are listening.
Speaker 1 (53:00):
Yeah, it doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2 (53:01):
That makes sense.
Speaker 1 (53:02):
It doesn't make sense at all. And I and I
just think that you're seeing you're seeing less corporate sponsorship
of insanity. You're seeing you're just seeing a lot of
a lot more common sense. And I I I credit
this president for really creating a tone America first and
looking out for the everyday American that that is just
something that sadly got away from us and we didn't
(53:23):
see anymore.
Speaker 2 (53:24):
I credit Trump for giving companies the guts to do it.
Speaker 1 (53:27):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (53:27):
We were talking earlier, you know, we were talking with
Ed rang about the the Jerrymandarin and redistricting. Other Republican
presidents have seen this taking place. Why didn't they say anything? Yeah,
I mean they have been seas and said something.
Speaker 1 (53:43):
So they've been using the count of illegally people that
have come over illegally to help even count the number
of people each congressional district you know, represents, which has
always weighted to the advantage of the Democrats. And they've
been gaming that system forever and finally we push back
and they're just clutching their pearls and losing their minds.
(54:05):
But honestly, if you don't, if you're not going to
fight back, you're just going to get more of what
they're doing to you. And that's why Democrat states they
don't have independent commissions. They because they have all the
districts they want. It's in the Republican red states where
they start saying, we need an independent commission, which amazingly
is always someone that's left of center. A commission made
up of people left of center, you know that are
(54:26):
going to be your independent commission. So again, they are
going to continue to game it until you push back.
And I think this is to push back. It is antiitis.
Speaker 2 (54:37):
A lot more to come on the Wingman edition of
the Rod and Gregg Show right here on Utah's Talk
Radio one five nine knrs. If Washington, DC doesn't get
us act together, he may move in. Of course, we're
still talking about what happened in Cincinnati in that brutal
attack on a group of people who are out in
the evening. The woman who was not cold and has
(54:59):
horrible looking scars on her face down held the news
conference today and talked to the media about what's going
on in Cincinnati and what needs to be done. Here's
a little bit of what Holly had to say.
Speaker 9 (55:10):
Yeah, I never want this to happen to anyone else,
especially a mother, a daughter, somebody who is loved. So
I just know what it's done to my family, not
just to me, and I think that moving forward, we
do need more accountability and I definitely think that, you know,
(55:31):
we need more police officers. But like he said, you
know the judges who are just letting people out with
a slab. The man who attacked me and might have
permanently damaged me forever should never have been on the
streets ever. And the fact that he had just gotten
out of jail previously for something he should have been
(55:53):
in there for years. It's really sad to me because
I can't even fathom how many other people who have
been attacked by the same type of man over and
over and over in Toledo, in Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton. Our
streets are being taken over and nobody is doing anything.
Speaker 2 (56:13):
I said, some streets are being a taken over. Nobody
is doing anything. You we talked about what's going on
in the nation's capital today.
Speaker 1 (56:20):
Yeah, So this is an interesting statistic. I've always known
that the DC jurisdiction, federal, you know, judicial, the jurisdiction
is the nightmare. But listen to this. Both Presidents Obama
and Biden appointed an unusually high number of foreign born
individuals to serve as federal judges. As a result, nearly
one third of Washington d C's federal bench is now
(56:41):
composed of judges born outside the United States from countries
including Uruguay, Egypt, Trinidad, Jamaica, and India. Even more troubling,
and this is the most troubling part of that statistic,
not one of these foreign born judges had any prior
judicial experience before their appointment. They became a federal judge
with not any judicial experience whatsoever. Now, if you go
(57:04):
back to the bill, that immigration bill that was so
supposedly bipartisan that Biden wanted and the Democrats wanted past,
one of the provisions in that bill was that every
all the litigation about the border, wherever it occurred along
the United States, would be adjudicated in that court by
that court. And now you know why that was so
(57:25):
important to the Democrats to have, because a third of
those judges are foreign born and none of them have
any judicial experience at all. And that's the same court,
by the way, that told President Trump that he couldn't
take away the money from USAID. They had to go
to the Supreme Court to get that overturned. The judicial activism
is even worse in a place where you've never been
a judgement.
Speaker 2 (57:46):
And this is all Barack Obama and Joe Biden's.
Speaker 1 (57:48):
Work all of it. Yep, that's what they've done. That
turnovers put that.
Speaker 2 (57:51):
Much and you see the job Donald Trump has. I
had them trying to do it. But boy is he
got a lot of work. He sure does trying. All right,
more coming up number three of the Rod and Gregg
Show right here for you on this wing Man Wednesday.
I'm talking radio one oh five nine. Okay, and all right,
stay with us, Mordica. That right celebrated our first anniversary yesterday.
(58:12):
Were now moving into your number two.
Speaker 1 (58:15):
Yes, it's gone so fast. Time flies when you're having fun,
you know it has it has gone fast? I think so,
I do. I think it's gone. I think it's gone
very quickly. See you're used to it. You've been a
radio guy for a long time. This is kind of
a new gig for me, so it's kind of a.
Speaker 2 (58:28):
New new experience.
Speaker 1 (58:30):
Yeah, but I've loved it. I've had a lot of fun.
Speaker 2 (58:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (58:33):
How could you not? I mean I got in right
at the sweet spot. You know, Trump's running all the
crazy stuff's going on. He wins to.
Speaker 2 (58:42):
Do this just because you got a free trip to
the RNC.
Speaker 1 (58:45):
Yeah, yeah, that was good. No, I'm telling you there's
not one thing about this this experience I could complain
about because it has been a hotbed of issues. And
to be able to eating every day, I love it.
I absolutely love it. And if I was stuck just
talking to the TV set by myself in my house
and poor Queen Bee just heard me ranting on my
own and it wouldn't be healthy. So it's good to
(59:06):
be able to get off my chest but also hear
from our listeners and have this evening discussion.
Speaker 2 (59:13):
Yeah, we're making an effort right now to get James
Varney on the show. He's with real clear investigations about
critical mining, minerals mining Big Mine opened up what was
a couple of weeks ago into Wyoming then opening. Yes,
they have announced that and but it's going to be
a while. I want to talk a little bit more
greg about the announcement today by Apple one hundred billion
(59:35):
dollars the the you know, the only I guess it's
glass or whatever they use on the phones and everything else.
It will be manufactured in Kentucky. But we're getting some
of the jobs here at the Texas Instruments plant down
there in Lehigh.
Speaker 1 (59:51):
I see all that is just incredible opportunity. The state
of play in the United States should have always been
how everyday Americans have more opportunities, more economic opportunities, opportunities
to prosper upward mobility. We lost that, and I hate
to say it, but I think if I go back
and look at what Ross Perot was saying when he
was running for president, boy was he ever right. And
(01:00:12):
and everything he said has happened, maybe even worse than
the way he said it would happen as I look
back now and take inventory, so I would argue that
I think I think some of that was already starting
to go trend downward when by ninety two we were
losing some manufacturing in those things offshoring. But I think
NAFTA and I think those those trade agreements put it
on steroids, or it made it, hastened the pace. We
(01:00:35):
got to bring it back, and we've got to and
I think we were. I think we are. I think
these announcements today show people said it couldn't be done.
Worst economic decision a president could ever make was trying
to retrade these global agreements. I think that all of
these things are working so far or working out well.
There's a momentum that you create when you're when you're
changing things and you're challenging the status quo. And I
(01:00:56):
think that I think that all these successes that you'll
see that the president have in the first seven months
they inform the rest of his term. They're going to
just build on each other. And that's why I'm actually
looking forward to the interview because this is this issue
of rare minerals. China is just dominating globally, dominating this market,
(01:01:19):
not only in the extraction of rare minerals, of which
we need for so many things, especially as technology grows,
but then the processing of it. Of those minerals. They
own both of those efforts, the extracting and the processing
ninety eight percent, maybe something that's just unbelievable. So my quest,
I mean, what I want to talk about is the
(01:01:40):
permitting for these has always been more than a decade
and then if they got litigated, which every environmental group
litigates to slow everything down to try and chill the
interest in doing it because they're going to have to
deal with these lawsuits. It has successfully stopped mining in
the extraction industry in the United States. Now you're talking
rare minerals, we have them in the state of Utah.
(01:02:02):
You just had this announcement in Wyoming. When do you
start digging? Like, when does the digging start? That's what
I want to know, because if you're talking anytime after
Trump's term, who's even investing in that? If they're not
going to be able to actually break ground before Trump's
out of office? Does the politics stay the same? Are
we because nobody's liked extracting up till now. This is
(01:02:24):
the first time we've been talking about it.
Speaker 2 (01:02:25):
Yeah, let me ask you about this, this race for
critical minerals. Yes, okay, have they become the new oil
of this century?
Speaker 1 (01:02:35):
Yes? Well, oil is still still very important. It still
has it's it's absolute sense. It's an essential.
Speaker 3 (01:02:43):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (01:02:43):
You know, petroleum is essential to life and everything we do.
Rare minerals will as well, especially with batteries and all
the every all of it. The rare minerals are as
valuable as as oil. But our problem is we can
get all we know where to get oil. Good luck
with the with the rare minerals. If again, I if
(01:03:06):
you have a NIPA, the you know these environmental studies
that you have to do, and you have you have
the environmentalist groups that litigated every turn to try and
delay twelve months, twenty four months, people's capital. They need
that capital to move. They can't have it frozen and
litigation in over two years?
Speaker 7 (01:03:23):
Are is it?
Speaker 1 (01:03:23):
Is it true that we can really get the extraction
industry back, the mining industry back and see it successfully,
you know, keep us independent. If if China runs ninety
eight percent of the rare minerals and processes them, I'd
love to know what kind of trade deal you're getting
with China because we need all that. Yeah, we need
those rare minerals. Well, well Apple needs it. Everything they
(01:03:46):
talked about today, they're gonna need rare minerals.
Speaker 2 (01:03:48):
Yeah. We had on the show several years ago Greg
a man by the name of Daniel Yurkin and heeds
an oil analyst considered one of the foremost oil analysts
in the world today, and started coming up, Greg, have
we reached peak oil?
Speaker 1 (01:04:04):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (01:04:05):
Have we reached peak oil? And it came back, No,
we haven't. And BP announced yesterday the largest find ever
just off the coast of South America.
Speaker 1 (01:04:15):
Yeah, I think there's.
Speaker 2 (01:04:17):
Plenty of oil out there. Let me tell you.
Speaker 1 (01:04:19):
Whatever reason they always tried to make it look like
it was a rare commodity. I think it's not rare
at all. I think you just have to get to it.
There's a lot of those deposits all over the world.
Speaker 2 (01:04:27):
It's there. Well, let's talk about America's critical mining industry
is finding itself in a deep pole. Joining us on
our newsmaker line to talk more about that now is
Jim Varney. He is with real clear investigations. Jim, how
are you welcome back to the Rot and Greg Show.
Speaker 7 (01:04:41):
Yeah, I'm fine, Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (01:04:43):
How deep of a hole are we in when it
comes to critical mining, Well.
Speaker 7 (01:04:49):
If you want to go by how dependent we are
on foreign sources for what the US has a list
called fifty key minerals that the government is supposed to
update periodically. If you look at those fifty and you
compare how dependent we are on foreign sources for a
lot of them, we're in a pretty deep poll.
Speaker 5 (01:05:08):
Now.
Speaker 7 (01:05:08):
I think it's kind of interesting to hear you guys
talking about peak oil just before you head me on,
because you know, that's one of the questions that's sort
of out there, is what kind of supply might we
have have we been as diligently and as carefully sort
of mapping our geological deposits here in the US as
we should have been, and maybe even as the law
(01:05:29):
requires us to be. And I think that's kind of
an open question, because if you go from Canada to Chile,
there's a lot of deposits, So it ought to be able.
It should be something we ought to be able to
find healthy amounts of let's say, I don't know all
we need, but a lot more than we have now.
Speaker 1 (01:05:46):
Yeah. Yes, And so your article and I found this
it was actually sobering. It made me sad because I
was very excited about the announcement of the mind in
Wyoming of rare minerals. Now you point out that's the
first one since Dwight Eisenhower was president and the Brooklyn
Dodgers won the World Series, which is a long time.
But you're pointing out that even if you were to
(01:06:07):
expedite that permitting process, which is already ten to fifteen
years or more, but let's say you cut it in half,
you're pointing out astuteley that this takes you past President
Trump's term potentially for this Wyoming mind to even break
around start digging and extracting rare minerals. So my question is,
is this real? Even if you have the appetite and
(01:06:27):
the need for rare minerals in the United States, do
we have the ability politically to actually extract rare minerals
here in the United States?
Speaker 7 (01:06:38):
Well, I think we do have the ability in terms of,
you know, the manufacturing and the mining and the production
side of things. The political will to keep doing it
that you're talking about, That's a very difficult thing to judge, right,
and you never know what might happen in elections going forward.
Certainly the Obama and the Biden administrations. I think we're
(01:06:59):
a lot more sympathetic to environmental groups who generally oppose
virtually all mining. So if, like you say, if this
is supposed to really start paying dividends in twenty seven
or twenty eight, we're already passed. We're right at the
end rather of Trump's last term. So what happens in
(01:07:19):
twenty thirty, I don't know, But I think that if
we do maintain the focus and the will, then I
do think yes, we can certainly improve our situation dramatically.
Speaker 2 (01:07:31):
Jim, who is the real driving force behind let's get going,
Let's get after this, Let's find out where these minerals are,
let's get mining them. Who is the driving force behind
all of that right now? Is there somebody out there
or organization or an industry that is really pushing this now?
Speaker 7 (01:07:46):
Jim, Well, that's a good question, and I think that
we see more of it coming now from like Doug
Bergram and people at the Department of Interior, maybe a
little bit from the US Geological Service, which ironically enough,
they didn't get back to me for like a week
and a half and then they called me today when
the story published, and we're like, oh, we're sorry about that.
(01:08:08):
You talk tomorrow to our Director of National Resources. So
on the private side, you know, there's a number of
people doing this, and it sort of brings up an
interesting point. There was an article in the World Street
Journal maybe three weeks ago or so where Bill Gates
is invested in some mining or some company extraction type
company in Colorado, and he was encouraging the government to
(01:08:32):
do some kind of Marshall plan, right and just invest
heavily in this this whole sector. Now, that would be good,
I guess for Bill Gates investment in that thing, it
may also pay dividends to the United States. Because what
we're talking about it's not just you know, the mining
for the companies itself. This is stuff that is used
(01:08:53):
like in the cell phones, it's used in kevlar. The
greens ought to love it because the solar and the
wind farms, all that equipment, all of this stuff is
using these kind of things we've never heard of. So
I think that there are people in the private sector
that are trying to do this right. You mentioned the
(01:09:13):
Brook mine in Wyoming. There's a place called Mountain Pass
in California there which the Defense Department's just bought four
hundred million dollars worth of the stock. So you do
see evidence here and there that people seem to be
getting their act together and focusing on this. But I
can't pinpoint one person or one organization like you're asking.
(01:09:35):
That's sort of in the driver's seat here.
Speaker 1 (01:09:37):
So we have this hits close to home for us
because we have the same permitting problems, whether it's for
a crude oil, for drilling, for mining for coal, things
like that. The NIPA, the you know, the environmental studies
that take three to five years, and the environmentalists that
litigate everything and stretch everything out to try and chill
investment and make them move on, because they just are
(01:10:00):
going to stretch out the game too long. Grand County
has rare minerals, Grand County has uranium. If we were
to just look at past performance, I would argue that
it's going to be very difficult to see those come
online and start extracting, you know, rare minerals processing. I
guess my question is, if China is going to extract
(01:10:21):
and process ninety plus percent, ninety five plus percent of
the of the Earth's rare minerals and processing, how do
you ever get to a straight faced trade deal that's
fair with China. How does China not just rule the
school with the advantage they have today and the challenges
that we have trying to extract and process our own
rare minerals.
Speaker 7 (01:10:42):
That's a good question, and I think it's pretty easy
to get pestimistic about it, right because you see the
numbers you're talking about, there are actually the real numbers,
right they can China controls apparently about ninety percent or
more of the processing of these things, and then even
other sources like places in the Congo were terrible things
gone with them mining there, right, You think that the
(01:11:02):
Greens would be against that, but in any event, China
has an equity stake in those operations. So I think
what you got to do is say, we're not going
to solve this overnight. We're not going to be able
to reverse our position in these supply chains in twelve
months or twenty four months, but we have to get
(01:11:22):
the ball rolling in a way that it can't be
stopped in that same period, like in one or two years.
And then you know, once these things start to come online,
like the brook mine in Wyoming or the MP or
another one that's getting liftium in Nevada, once those things
start happening, they'll have a momentum of their own, and
(01:11:42):
those figures you're talking about that China controls right now
will start to level out a little bit.
Speaker 2 (01:11:48):
We can only hope. Jim as always love your insight.
Thank you for being with us tonight, Jim, Thank you,
thanks for having me appreciate it all right, Jim Varney,
real clear investigations. I think, you know, I'm not sure
if Jim's said this or if Bill Gates said this,
but maybe Greg, we do need a Marshall plan, a
nationwide marshall plan to attack this problem and get things going.
Speaker 1 (01:12:08):
You're gonna have to strip out a lot of federal regulations.
Speaker 2 (01:12:11):
Sold seven years to get a permit to do something.
That's gotta change.
Speaker 1 (01:12:15):
There are laws that that you will prevent this from
happening unless they suspend them or eliminate them.
Speaker 2 (01:12:20):
Yeah, yeah, all right, more coming up the Rod and
Greg Show and Talk Radio one oh five nine can
arrest citizen Hughes and I brought our cat. Uh. Maybe
this is frightening to think about, Greg, but maybe a
little common sense is starting to creep into California. You know,
think so, don't believe me.
Speaker 1 (01:12:36):
It's hard. It's hard to comprehend. You have to You're
gonna have to come with one heck of a story
well to make me think that this is maybe just
a little bit of a tease.
Speaker 2 (01:12:43):
Maybe. The Public Policy Institute of California highlighting an example
of what they called mismatched responses when they did a
survey of Californians. Right six and ten adults and likely
voters favor a state law that requires one hundred percent
of the state's electricity to come from renewable sources by
(01:13:04):
twenty forty five, okay, large percentage, Yes, okay. But when
asked a follow up question, would you be willing to
pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources such as
wind and solar, under forty percent of California.
Speaker 1 (01:13:22):
Said yes, that's the lunacy of California. We're sixty percent
or more. One wanted to be all renewables and nobody
wants to pay for it. Welcome to La La Land.
You know that's not even real.
Speaker 2 (01:13:33):
They're already you know, I think we are we. I
think we're fortunate. Here in the state of Utah. Our
electricity rates, power rates are pretty good.
Speaker 1 (01:13:41):
The lowest in the cart. We're still using coal. We
have clean coal, we have low carbon high BT hot coal,
and we use it. And we also use natural gas
and we have a lot of natural gas deposits in Utah,
so our power generation costs are a lot lower. Thanks. Also,
this is inside baseball, but the legislature noticed that the
(01:14:03):
Warren Buffett's what's at the Pacific Core, that's the power
power company, but also California is in you know, Oregon
and Washington, idahos. They were looking to shut down the
power generation without having the new renewable like the new ones,
they switch the flip the switch to go to the
new one. They were going to shut these down without
having the new energy up and ready. And so to
(01:14:26):
the legislature I know that said we sooner you leave, Yeah,
and we'll go ahead and handle this ourselves. We're not
turning anything off if we don't have something to turn
on at the same time. And that slowed their role
big time. And they didn't leave. They just stopped that talk,
that nonsense. And now you look at it. That was
just a couple of years ago. Now you look and
you think, duh, I'm glad they did it.
Speaker 2 (01:14:47):
So will all right, coming up in this corner, Kamala
Harris and her new book. In that corner, Joe Biden
and his book Their Collision is about to take place.
We'll talk about it coming up next right here on
the Rod and Greg Show and Talk Radio one off.
I'm nine knrs. Following our news update at the top
of the hour, I'm Rod Arquette, I'm citizen Greg Hughes.
All right now, Kamala Harris has released her book One
(01:15:09):
hundred and seven Days. I'm just laughing, ye. Joe Biden
we're waiting. So the question is going to be will
it be a battle royale between these two when it
comes to release of their books? And what will they
say about each other?
Speaker 1 (01:15:25):
I have my thoughts, but I want to hear from
someone in the know.
Speaker 2 (01:15:28):
In the know, Okay, joining us on our Newsmaker line
to talk about that is Jim Antel. He is a
politics editor at The Washington Examiner. Jim, how are you
welcome back to the Rod and Greg Show.
Speaker 3 (01:15:40):
Good to be here, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (01:15:41):
Jim, what are you expecting from these books?
Speaker 3 (01:15:45):
Well, they both have a lot of incentive to spill
the tea on each other if they're interested in selling
books or being all that interesting. But it's possible that
that's not primarily what they're going to be interested in.
You Knowrris is a very cautious person. She's very risk
averse person. And Biden gets to speak last, and so
(01:16:09):
does she want to do anything that will entice the
former president and his ghostwriter to get into stories about
how they probably tried to prepare her better to maybe
become president someday and it just didn't quite pan out.
Maybe some Sarah Palin esque stories or worse from Harris's
(01:16:32):
time as vice president. But Harris, if she wants to
be president, and now it's a very open question whether
she's ready to sail off into the sunset and.
Speaker 1 (01:16:43):
Have some margaritas or whatever she does, that.
Speaker 3 (01:16:49):
Maybe it's a false choice. Yeah, exactly if she has
twenty twenty eight ambitions still, and I think at least
on some level she does. Whether she wants to do
the work involved is another story, but I think she
still has the ambition. She needs to do a better
job of distancing herself from Biden than she did at
(01:17:09):
any point in the twenty twenty four campaign, and that
could set them up to be on a collision course
unless she just, once again, is just way too cautious.
Speaker 1 (01:17:21):
You know, I watched her own Colbert and she did
duck this question or didn't want I didn't want to
throw any shots at Biden just recently when she was
on And so what the scenario I see playing out
as the one that you said where she's always over
overally cautious. She's never said I mean, when she was
on the View, there was a moment where she really
(01:17:41):
didn't need to separate herself and she couldn't do it.
Then so why would she do it?
Speaker 7 (01:17:45):
Now?
Speaker 1 (01:17:46):
I could see a scenario where she whimps out and
then Biden's ghost writer, who could be hot Hunter, you know,
decides to singer anyway because they love money. I think
they love money more than anything. So then she plays
nice and then they go for the throat so they
have a book that sells. Does that sound plausible?
Speaker 3 (01:18:05):
It's certainly a possibility, and you have to think on
some level, especially if the ghostwriter is someone like Hunter.
You know, the Biden theory of the case, because all
they have to go for is legacy at this point,
he's never running for anything ever. Again, you know that
their theory of the case is that every time Joe
Biden listened to the smart people in the Democratic Party
(01:18:27):
and didn't run for president, Donald Trump got elected and
Harris was, in many ways, like Hillary Clinton, a good
foil for Donald Trump. Now, I don't think there's any
real evidence that Biden would have done any better, and
I think there's some reason to suspect he would have
done worse, but it's not a falsifiable thing.
Speaker 10 (01:18:48):
At this point.
Speaker 3 (01:18:49):
Whereas we know that Hillary lost and we know that
Harris lost, we can Biden, you know, had twenty twenty
and we can always wonder what would have happened in
twenty twenty four, even though I think most Democrats feel
they already know the answer to that question.
Speaker 2 (01:19:04):
Yeah, Jim, not that I'm going to read the book,
but we did read a section of the book in
Kamala's book yesterday talking about happy Tim and you know,
they said, you know here he is. They tried to
toughen him up. They sent him hunting, they sent him
to football games, They did all these things to try
and get him to appeal to young men and men
(01:19:26):
in general. But then when he'd be at a campaign appearance,
he'd come out prancing around and waving his two hands
in the air. And she said, the polls went immediately down.
I mean, so there's a little bit of truth in there,
isn't there.
Speaker 3 (01:19:39):
Jim, Well, that's that's certainly true. I think it's been
disputed whether that thing that's circulating is really in her
book or not the book. But yes, it's absolutely true
that he was a disaster of a pick. He has
said he's not going to run himself.
Speaker 5 (01:19:58):
He tried to.
Speaker 3 (01:20:00):
He'd made the rounds a couple months ago on various
podcasts and stuff, and he's still the same disaster that
he was during the campaign. If she can produce that
kind of honesty about the stick, because I think if
she wants to run again, even if it isn't for
the voters, even if I think she's going to have
to convince the donors that you know, blowing that billion dollars,
(01:20:22):
that she's learned something from that experience. And it looks,
based on the title of the book that she's going
to blame how short the campaign was for how badly
it ended up going, Whereas I think, to me, you know,
she'd have been better off if the campaign was three
days long, that was that would have been her. But
you know, if the election was the day after they
(01:20:44):
made the switch, that was her best shot at winning
the election.
Speaker 1 (01:20:48):
So I'm watching some of my sports you know, podcasts
and things and some of the fantasy football leagues that
are starting up for the fall. The loser, instead of
having to get an embarrassing tattoo, they're going to force
the loser to read the one hundred and seven of
her book. They're gonna sequester them and they have to
give a presentation and if they don't like it, they're
going to make them listen to it on audible. So
(01:21:11):
so already the expectations are low, but there has to
be some says, well, she doesn't go after Biden, what
is there anything in that one hundred and seven days
it's going to be you know, it's going to pull
the book off the shelf. Do you think.
Speaker 3 (01:21:26):
Really tough to see? I mean, anybody else who she
could go after other than Biden. Walls are just not
very well known people. So she could blame it on
all of the campaign staff that she largely inherited from
Joe Biden and the fact that she didn't have her
own people to the degree that she's held together a
staff long enough to really have her own people, you know,
(01:21:48):
nobody's ever hurry. Only political professionals know who any of
these individuals are. So it's hard to see how that
would be good enough. I think she's either got it.
She's going to take a shot either at somebody well
known in the Democratic Party. If she doesn't want to
do Joe Biden, she could maybe go after Nancy Pelosi,
maybe Barack Obama say they didn't do enough to support her.
(01:22:10):
But I think it's going to be a tough seale,
and I think you look again, even if she can't do,
you know, making an interesting enough book to sell, well,
she could at least send a message to donors that
she's learned some kind of lesson from the last campaign
to make them willing to pony up money again.
Speaker 2 (01:22:28):
Yeah, that's going to be interesting to see how this
all pans out. Jim, as always, thank you for joining
us tonight, and enjoy the rest of your evening. Thank you, Jim,
Thank you you too. Take care of thanks right, Jim Antle,
politics editor at The Washington Examiner. You know, I wonder
if by there were rumors throughout her four years as
vice president that she's a horrible office manager, nobody liked
(01:22:49):
working for. The staff kept on quitting on her.
Speaker 1 (01:22:52):
Yeah, that turnover was what if he's going to.
Speaker 2 (01:22:54):
Get into that or mention that at all, because that
was the rumor out there that people just did not
like working for this woman.
Speaker 1 (01:23:01):
So I I think that it will play out that way.
I think that she'll play nice and she won't have
a book that has much to say negative about Biden,
and then he's going to launch on her. You think,
I do think he will. I think he's I think
that they are going to want to try and create
a scenario where as as Jim pointed out that all
the smart people who always told him not to run,
and he didn't run when Hillary did and Hillary lost,
(01:23:23):
and then they told him not to run drop out late,
so he did and Kama lost too. They're going to
want to try and say that that he had the
answers all along, and that none of these people were smart,
and none of these candidates were capable of being Trump,
and he's the only one that ever did bet Trump.
That's that's going to be the book. But they're going
to have to slam her to to make him look better.
And I just think that's what the Biden crime family
(01:23:45):
can do. I just don't think they're held to any
loyalty anything other than themselves. Then they're going to want
to sell books.
Speaker 2 (01:23:51):
It all depends on how much input Jill has. Oh,
and it will be a book that will be a
lot of Given.
Speaker 1 (01:24:00):
That he's at best, he thinks he's Batman, I think
it is up to Jill. So then I think it's
absolutely going to be a brutal, you know, expose.
Speaker 2 (01:24:08):
If she tells him right, here's what you here's what
I'm thinking. This needs to get into the book because
we know that she is very upset with the Obamas,
with the Pelosi's, with Harris for forcing him out of
the race.
Speaker 1 (01:24:22):
And they're in a unique position. As he said too,
they're just looking at legacy. They can they can torch
Nancy Pelosi, and Republicans will love that. They might even
buy the book if you're going to torch some of
these people bad enough. So I think I think you'll
see it. I think that I think it'll be a
I think it'll be a barn burner on his side,
but they're going to keep it close to the vest
till they see what puts out, and Kama will play along.
(01:24:44):
She's not going to burn down Biden at all. I
don't think if I'd love to be wrong, because I'd
love her to be honest and have an honest account
of what was on.
Speaker 2 (01:24:52):
All right, more coming up, final segment of The Rod
and Great Show on Talk Radio one oh five nine. Canna.
Speaker 1 (01:24:57):
Yeah, I'm very proud of you, Rod, you are coming
so far along here. I am your you are. I
am just so impressed.
Speaker 2 (01:25:05):
In my radio professional career.
Speaker 1 (01:25:06):
In your televisioning prowess the show that you are watching
right now. I am so happy to hear. Well, I
think I'm I'm I'm crediting myself for this.
Speaker 2 (01:25:17):
You ever clipped.
Speaker 1 (01:25:18):
I'm clumped over the fact that, Yeah, I think I
did this for you. I think I gifted.
Speaker 2 (01:25:23):
You're watching reruns of Miami Vice. Yes, right, yes, well
I've started watching reruns of Magnum p I in the
Rockford File.
Speaker 1 (01:25:30):
It's so good.
Speaker 2 (01:25:30):
I'm so happy.
Speaker 1 (01:25:31):
That is such a great move. No, it's it's like
going by a time machine. Both of those shows were great.
I love both those shows. And you know, matt mustaches
weren't all the rage when Thomas Magnum showed up with
his mustache and he wasn't he wasn't shaving it. So
uh anyway, so rest is history.
Speaker 2 (01:25:48):
I remember you when we went to why this was
when the show was still in there. My wife and
I went and you could rent the Ferraris and remember
that drive around Hawaii and one of the Ferrari I believe.
Speaker 1 (01:26:00):
Right, Yeah it is, And it was interesting. I've read
something where that it wasn't their fastest one or the
most expensive one, but it was the one that fit.
And but he's at six foot fur they had to
like move that far back so he keep his body
into it.
Speaker 2 (01:26:11):
Yeah. N b A r W n b A hans
a few problems.
Speaker 1 (01:26:16):
As we've discussed on the show. Are you aware of
the latest you bring that up?
Speaker 2 (01:26:21):
Well, they're they're they're telling people who go to the
games to quit throwing sex toys on the floor.
Speaker 1 (01:26:27):
Yes, I don't. This is a family program, Ron, I
can't believe you're bringing this up.
Speaker 2 (01:26:30):
There have been due incidences where someone in the stands
is throwing a sex toy on the floor.
Speaker 1 (01:26:36):
It's green, it looks like a it looks like a
stuffed animal, but yeah, animal. It's been funny because no
one knew who it was. I think they finally caught
someone find.
Speaker 2 (01:26:45):
Out they did. It was charged with something. I don't
know what it was. Yeah, I know there was a crime,
but apparently it was and God bless Sophie Cunningham. Now,
Sophie Cunningham is on the same team as Caitlin Clark. Yes,
and she's kind of her protector. Oh really, she's a
white woman like Kitlin Clark and protector. Well apparently, during
(01:27:07):
a recent edition of a podcast, she revealed that She's
been hit with yet another fine for throwing some shade
at the Zebras. The refs, oh yeah, this time around
is because once, she said on the debut episode of
her pod, she said, the WNBA find me, They find
me fifteen hundred dollars. I was like, this was just
(01:27:29):
the beginning. So she's out there protecting Kitlyn Clark and
going after the ref saying, hey, what on earth are
you doing? That was a foul? Why are you calling it?
Speaker 9 (01:27:36):
In?
Speaker 2 (01:27:37):
THEAWNBA find her fifteen hundred dollars. This is about the
third time this year.
Speaker 1 (01:27:41):
You know, I'm reading the headline. You know what the
you know what the WNBA penalty is if you get
caught throwing something like that on the court, throwing. According
to the Babylon b WNBA warns, if you throw anything
on the court, you will be forced to attend ten
more WNBA games. O. There you go. So that that
would be a severe punishment, and I don't I think
that might the punishment outweighs the crime at that point.
Speaker 2 (01:28:03):
Simply because of that. I would never do that in
a WNB a game.
Speaker 1 (01:28:06):
Yeah, I'm not going to be forced to watch ten
more of those games. Actually, how about How sad is
it that what they throw on the court is getting
more attention than the game?
Speaker 2 (01:28:14):
Yeah the players, Yep, all right, that doesn't for us tonight,
Head out, shoulders back. My God bless you and your
families and this great country of hours. Enjoy your Wednesday.
We're back tomorrow with a brand new addition of The
Roding Grad Show. Talk to you four
The Rod & Greg Show News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!