The Rod and Greg Show: San Francisco's Scrapped Pilot Equity Grading; How the Media Hid Biden's Issues

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now I understand that you and E Ray had a
little fun with my very white itis this week. Is
that true?

Speaker 2 (00:09):
I don't know if you consider that we said you
were convalescing all week long and that you are very wimpy,
that you have no immune system. You need some vitamin
D and some sunlight in your life. Yeah, I mean,
I don't see that as rude. I'm just calling balls
and strike.

Speaker 1 (00:23):
That's also I had someone tell me, well, well I
was gone this week, that you guys were bullies to me.
Quick pay on that. It is, thank Rod and Greg.
Is Friday. I'm brought our catalong with citizens huge broadcasting
live today from our Southern Command Post in uh in
polluted San Diego. Did you see the story in the
New York Times this week that I afford to you.

(00:45):
The New York Times finally did a story on Imperial
Imperial Beach down there and all the pollution that's gone
into that beach from Mexico, and now the EPA is
finally trying to do something about it. And it's a
you know, it's the.

Speaker 2 (00:58):
New York Times. Yeah, yeah, listen to our show more often.
I've been calling this for how long I've been this
is this has been. I've been on top of this
story for quite some time. I'll tell you what I
am on the left coast. I'm in the belly of
the beast, and I swear to you I think the
fix is in. They had all these signs for the
longest time telling you that that water was basically a
big toilet out there in the ocean, and then all

(01:19):
of a sudden, I got it. Even late last night,
they still I saw some yellow signs gone for the weekend. Rod, Wow, gone,
They're gone. Everybody can run in that water.

Speaker 3 (01:27):
Now.

Speaker 4 (01:28):
I'm not buying it. I need some we need some time.

Speaker 2 (01:30):
I need to hear from Secretary Lee Zeldon that the
coast is clear before I get in that water.

Speaker 1 (01:35):
I'll say, I don't blame you. All right, We've got
a lot to get to today. We've got some good
economic news. Elon Musk today said bye bye. We'll get
into that. We'll also talk about California, this grating equity system.
They've already canned it, but we'll get into what that
is all about, plus your thoughts on Elon Musk. We'll
get into that with our Thank Rod and Greg. It's

(01:55):
Friday segment coming up in the five o'clock hour. But
Greg good news today. Donald Trump continues to roll out
some great numbers when it comes to the US economy.

Speaker 2 (02:05):
It is killing the regime media. The experts have never
looked less, look like they've had less expertise. All the
economists were crying doom and gloom and they have to
report it. But the numbers coming out suggest that Donald
Trump knows exactly what he's doing. He's bringing this economy back,
and it's killing him to have to admit it.

Speaker 1 (02:24):
Well, the number showed declining prices today are declining rising
prices combined with an increase I'll say that again, an
increase in personal income announced this morning by CNBC's Rick Santelli.
Here's what he said.

Speaker 5 (02:39):
Personal income is up eight tenths, up eight tenths of percent.
That is almost triple the expectations, and it underscores we
could talk about a lot of issues, but when you
look at income for the first four months of the year,
they're powerful numbers.

Speaker 6 (02:56):
Joe, up six tenths in.

Speaker 5 (02:57):
January, up seven tenths in February, up a half one
percent last month, up eight tens this month. Just a
great four months start to any year now.

Speaker 6 (03:06):
With the income shooting up.

Speaker 5 (03:08):
And by the way, eight tens is the strongest income
month over month jump since May of twenty one when
it was one point nine.

Speaker 1 (03:16):
Wow, good economic numbers, greg and the numbers kept on
rolling in today. That's right, they kept on coming in today.
As a matter of fact, here's CNN talking about inflation
and where that number sits today. Some new numbers on inflation.

Speaker 7 (03:33):
This is the Fed's go to inflation metric, and we
really got good news on that front. Month over month
prices were up just barely point one percent at an
annual rate two point one percent. That is a seven
month low, and it's basically right where the FED wants it. Right,
normally they want that two percent. They're just above that.

Speaker 6 (03:53):
Normally.

Speaker 7 (03:54):
I think you'd have some celebrations at the Federal Reserve.

Speaker 8 (03:56):
I don't think we're.

Speaker 7 (03:57):
Going to have that today, because, of course, there's still
so much coming as far as tariffs, and a lot
of economists do believe that this is still the calm
before the storm that we will eventually see tariff.

Speaker 1 (04:08):
Driven price hikes.

Speaker 7 (04:10):
Not totally seeing it yet, but it is the expectation
to come.

Speaker 1 (04:14):
Expectations have to put a disclaimer on it. It looks
good now, lot be careful, well.

Speaker 2 (04:21):
You know, their faces betray them. If you watch the clip,
you'll see how sad they are. They have to report
this good economic news. You played a clip from CNBC,
the last ones from CNN. Of course they have to
say that the Fed isn't going to celebrate at two
percent of their target inflation rate that they think. This
is the call before the storm, Rod I told I

(04:41):
shared with our audience my belief that there wasn't going
to be a judge that was going to interrupt any
of Trump's tariffs when they thought that it was going
to create economic havoc, when they thought it was going
to damage Trump politically, they weren't trying to interrupt him
at all. When you see these numbers coming in, when
you see that the prices of goods were not increasing
as they said, inflation wasn't going up, that's when you

(05:02):
started to see the lawsuits and the judges getting the
way and trying to stop this present from being successful.
Really on every front, he's tride. But this call before
the storm, as they call it, because of tariffs, if
there's any uncertainty in tariffs now it's the uncertainty that
the judiciary's creating by even considering or holding off lawsuits
that could actually take these deals and disincentivize countries from

(05:25):
entering into spareer and more reasonable and honest trade agreements
with our administration. The judges and the Democrats are going
to cause the chaos on the tariff front if there
is any at all.

Speaker 1 (05:35):
Well, great thing about this too, how much pressure does
this put on FED Chairman Jerome Powell? What has he
always said we want the inflation right down to about
two percent. It's at two point one percent right now.
So if we reach the goal where he's ready to
bring those interest rates down again, I think that puts
a lot of pressure on the Fed.

Speaker 2 (05:55):
Of course it does. But you're going to find you're
gonna find situational logic here where it's just like they
said the call before the storm, they're waiting for some
of these Democrat tactics to actually work to slow down
what Trump's doing. Remember how eggs were so expensive, that's
not the case. Remember how they went immediately to the
cost of goods and how they've come down. They just

(06:15):
they every time they tell us this guy's falling and
it doesn't they just pivot to some other economic sector
that's going to be a bad Powell will have some
reason for avoiding lowering those interest rates, because sadly, I
think Jerome Powell is more political than he should be.
I don't think this fair, this chairman of the Fed is.
I think how he reacted during the Biden administration was

(06:38):
politically motivated as well. It was meant to try to
temper and you know, and try to help President Biden
during his time in office.

Speaker 4 (06:45):
And I think the opposite is the case now.

Speaker 1 (06:47):
Staying on the issue, Greg of the economy, do you
remember Donald Trump on his first day in office signed
a whole slow of executive orders? Remember that first day?
Remember the first when he signed? Do you know which
one it was? I don't unleashing American energy? That was
the executive order. Well today get this you ready? Secretary's

(07:10):
Doug Bergram and Chris Wright wasted no time, and today
US domestic oil production just hit a new record of
thirteen point four eighty eight million barrels produced per day
in March of twenty twenty five. The President has unleashed
American energy.

Speaker 2 (07:28):
Pretty amazing, and I'll tell you it, Wow, I don't
think Utah is enjoying it to the degree that we should.
In terms of lower gas prices, some people may think
that they see it. It's coming down. Let's inching down
a little bit. Our national gas prices are way lower.
They're down into the two dollars range to eighty five,
things like that. But the commodity price of crude oil
is down to I think sixty dollars a barrel, which

(07:51):
is we haven't seen anything that low for a while.
In fact, if it gets too low, that becomes a
problem itself. But it's sixty dollars a barrel, folks. We
should be seeing gas prices like we saw it Frankly
in his first term, in the two dollars range for
regular unleaded.

Speaker 4 (08:06):
So I'm looking forward to that happening.

Speaker 2 (08:08):
But the rest of the country is seeing a lot
of those decreased fuel costs, which look, we just got
out of Memorial Day, we have the summer holidays coming.
If there's ever a time, whether it's the delivering of
goods that happened through our trucks and the fuel costs
associated with that, but really family travel and how much
how much gas prices really mean to the America to
American families. This is the time where we should see

(08:30):
those those the costs lower, and they are and that's
that's all good news.

Speaker 1 (08:34):
That's where we're headed, hopefully. All Right, more coming up.
It is, Thank Rodd and Greg. It's Friday right here
on Utahn's talk rating a one oh five nine can arrest.
I missed you so much. I just had to come.

Speaker 2 (08:43):
Back, I know, I just even if it's a Friday. Yes,
I couldn't stay away. No, I could stay away. Yeah,
I shoot it. Thanks Friday.

Speaker 1 (08:52):
No, it's good. It's great to be back.

Speaker 4 (08:53):
You know.

Speaker 1 (08:54):
While I was convalescing as you and mister Yeah Ray
pointed out all week recovering from a cold, I picked up. Yeah.
I didn't want to do this, but I picked up
a copy of Original Sin, the Jake Tapper Alec Thompson
Books and started reading it. And the theme, Greg, I
told you a little disappointing, because it's just all these
series of little stories of people who recognized that Joe

(09:18):
Biden had changed, his cognitive abilities had decreased. Everybody knew it,
but they didn't say a thing about it. And that's
basically the theme of the book.

Speaker 2 (09:27):
Yeah, you know, I I was just when you said that,
I thought there might be some and I think we've
had a little bit of the more specificity that's been
leaked out about the book, different quotes, but it sounds
like it's pretty much what we're hearing in the commentary
is really what the meat of the book.

Speaker 1 (09:42):
Yeah. Well, joining us on our any Hour Newsmaker line
to talk more about this and how the leftist media
was able to cover up Biden's physical and mental decline
is the politics editor at The Washington Examiner. Jim An
told Jim, how are you welcome back to the Rodding
Greg Show. Thanks for joining us, Jim, good to be here,
Thanks for having it. Okay, how did they do it?
Because I've read through this book, it seemed like almost

(10:03):
everyone in Washington knew that Joe Biden wasn't in the
greatest shape of everything. How did they cover this up?

Speaker 6 (10:09):
Jem?

Speaker 9 (10:10):
Well, there's a sense in which they didn't cover it up,
in that they succeeded mainly in fooling themselves.

Speaker 6 (10:17):
Right, So.

Speaker 9 (10:20):
The press kept talking about how Joe Biden was in
great shape. You know, they were very hostile in their
coverage of people who were circulating videos of Biden looking befuddled,
looking slow, looking old. They were really hostile in their
coverage of age as a Republican attack line against Biden

(10:43):
and both the presidential campaigns. But the polls pretty consistently
showed that the voters continued to have concerns about Biden's age,
including most Democrats. Many Democrats wanted a different nominee in
twenty twenty four or primarily because of these concerns. And

(11:04):
in Washington, though, it was pretty much for Boten to
talk about the elephant in the room that Biden was
getting old and that there were some questions about how
up for the job he really was.

Speaker 2 (11:18):
You know, Jim, one of the quotes that from the book,
but also you mentioned it your column, a staffer saying, look,
we just had to win. Then he could disappear for
four years. He'd only have to show a proof of
life every once in a while. It's a disturbing statement
because what it says to me is that the power
of the presidency was in their minds, not vested in

(11:38):
our duly elected president whatsoever.

Speaker 4 (11:41):
That's that's that would I would argue that's a.

Speaker 2 (11:43):
Departure from what our former government is is that a
unique situation with these staffers because or is that just
kind of a window into the soul of this party
and those that have the have power when they have power,
is that the way they see the presidency just as
a form of power in the president's really just a figurehead.

Speaker 9 (12:06):
I mean, there have been instances where we've had unwell
presidents in the past and Woodrow Wilson and things like
that where it's pretty questionable whether he was really in
charge for a period of his presidency. Not really for
basically the entirety of his presidency. Is maybe was the
case with Joe Biden. Yeah, I think that's the part

(12:28):
of the story that we don't really know the answer
to yet, but we might be getting closer to.

Speaker 6 (12:34):
Is how are decisions being.

Speaker 9 (12:36):
Made at a minimum, let's say the best case scenario,
the best case scenario that I think is still realistic
because maybe Joe Biden had good days and he had
bad days.

Speaker 6 (12:45):
So what happened in the bad days?

Speaker 9 (12:47):
So the best case scenario is the decisions were delayed
until he had another good day, which is still had
a good outcome. But it's the best case scenario. But
we really have a possibility that during periods where Biden
wasn't at his best, his diminished best, even that you
had aids making a lot of important decisions at a

(13:08):
time where they were arguing that they needed to be
re elected. As a defensive democracy. This was rule potentially
by people who are not democratically.

Speaker 6 (13:18):
Elected at all.

Speaker 1 (13:19):
On our any hour Newsmaker line Jim Mantle, he's the
politics editor at the Washington Examiner. The theme that you
constantly hear, and not only Jake Tapper's book, but other
books about what was going on there is that Democrats
were so afraid of Donald Trump going back into the
White House that they would do anything to protect Joe Biden.
You've been in Washington for a long time and reporting

(13:39):
in Washington, Jim, and always doing an excellent job. Does
Washington today still fear Donald Trump? Is there a fear
that in that city about what Donald Trump may or
may not do?

Speaker 9 (13:50):
Probably more than ever before currently, because he came back
in the second term, he was very energized. He had
a real plan of attack for wanted to do, and
some of it wasn't really going to be very favorable
to the federal bureaucracy. I can tell you that even
outside the political class. You know, federal workers during the
height of Doge were probably more afraid that I'd ever

(14:13):
seen them in my time in Washington. Certainly, the Democrats
were very discombobulated about all the executive orders that came
out very quickly after Trump returned to power. They're very
worried about what's happening with the left wing nonprofits. They're
very worried about what's potentially going to happen with Harvard.

(14:34):
They're very worried about the immigration policy.

Speaker 6 (14:37):
So, you know, I think.

Speaker 9 (14:40):
While they were everything they did to try to stop
Trump from returning to the White House backfired, including the
defense and denial about Biden.

Speaker 6 (14:49):
Yeah, Democrats are really running scared.

Speaker 2 (14:52):
Jim, you did a great job of maybe finding the
origins of this. From the twenty sixteen campaign. After Trump one,
there was and I heard I remember hearing this media
they were critical of themselves for giving Trump so much
airtime and so much attention, which they then regretted, and
also the amount of time they spent covering the Hillary

(15:14):
Clinton email server scandal, and so they were trying to
correct from that because they felt like they might have
helped contribute to Trump's victory. What changes Let's say Trumps
this set has this term in future presidential elections. It
certainly would be the case if the media finds unflattering
news or concerning news about a Democrat candidate that, by

(15:36):
extension helps the Republican candidate. Are they going to change?
I don't know that they can change.

Speaker 6 (15:42):
It would be very difficult for them to change.

Speaker 9 (15:44):
And that's really the question of the outpouring of all
of these books, Original sim just being one of several
that have come out. You know, does this reflect a
course correction or is this sort of a way of
covering for what is done in the past, sort of
having Ama Kulpa and then doing really all the same

(16:05):
things that they were going to do anyway in terms
of how they covered Trump, in terms of how they
covered the next Republican presidential nominee, whoever that is, and
how they cover their Democratic challenger.

Speaker 6 (16:16):
You know, are they really.

Speaker 9 (16:17):
Going to be that exacting, that willing to scrutinize a
Democrat who could remove Trump from power?

Speaker 6 (16:26):
And I think that really remains to be seen.

Speaker 1 (16:28):
Gonna be interesting to watch. Jim is always great reporting.
Love having you on the show and enjoy the weekend.
Thank you, Jim, thanks a lot, you too. All right,
joining us on our any hour newsmaker line, Jim Ansel.
He's the politics editor at the Washington Examiner. A news
update coming your way next on the Thank Rod and
Greg It's Friday Show and Talk Radio one oh five
to nine NRS.

Speaker 4 (16:48):
You're amongst us, You're amongst the liberty.

Speaker 6 (16:50):
Do you think I was so nice to have you back?

Speaker 1 (16:51):
Did you think I was?

Speaker 2 (16:52):
You know, you had a four day weekend and then
you spend the next three days gone, and you weren't
very chatty either.

Speaker 4 (17:00):
It wasn't like your return of my text. So I
was starting to get a little worried.

Speaker 1 (17:03):
Well, I was fine. I just didn't want to bother it. Yes,
I wanted you to concentrate on the show.

Speaker 2 (17:09):
Well, we can hear you now. The very white itis
is still you still have it. Hopefully over the weekend
you can you can get over it.

Speaker 1 (17:18):
Yeah, I'm trying. I'm trying. I don't know what it is.

Speaker 4 (17:21):
Man.

Speaker 1 (17:21):
I take a break and I get a cold.

Speaker 4 (17:24):
Yeah. See, you can't take breaks. I think that's the lesson.

Speaker 1 (17:27):
That's the lesson.

Speaker 4 (17:28):
I think you should be working seven days a week.

Speaker 1 (17:30):
Yeah, thank you, thank you.

Speaker 4 (17:32):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (17:32):
Moving on the school officials in San Francisco, this story
that came out earlier this week took a sudden u
turn on Wednesday on an initiative that would have effectively
let schools get homework, cut class and retake exams. Greg,
why wasn't that around when you and I were in school?

Speaker 2 (17:51):
I would have been a long, this is this is
my grand scheme that they formalized. This was this was
my whole goal as a student was to have no homework,
to do no homework, take no weekly tests, final examinations.
I always beg to take him over and over again.

Speaker 4 (18:07):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (18:08):
I always felt that my eighty percent should be an A. Yeah,
I just this is this is This was in my wheelhouse.

Speaker 1 (18:14):
Yeah, this was well mine too, But apparently some people
smarter than you and I said this is going to
cut it. And joining us on our any hour Newsmaker
line to talk about this is doctor lance Is Zuomi.
Doctor Azumi is director of the Center for Education at
Pacific Research Institute. Doctor zoom Is Zumi, How are you
Welcome back to the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 10 (18:34):
Beyond there. Great to be with you and Greg. Thanks
very much for having me on the show.

Speaker 1 (18:38):
Let me ask you, doctor ZOOMI. I mean, who came
up with this idea? I mean, it's the goofiest sounding
idea I've ever heard of. Who came up with it?

Speaker 10 (18:46):
Well, you know, this equity grading system, which is what
you're talking about that they were about to implement in
San Francisco, is actually a scheme that's been going around
the country. It's not just a crazy San Francisco idea.
You know, it's something that's unfortunately infected a lot of
school districts around the country. And there's a guy who
actually was going to be the consultant for training the

(19:09):
teachers in this equity grading scheme in San Francisco named
Joe Feldman, who really is one of the gurus of
this movement to impose equity grading, which is basically the
ultimate dumbing down of the classroom that you mentioned in
your opening. And I think that it's unfortunately going to
result Thankfully they dropped it in San Francisco, but it's

(19:33):
going to result in massive grade inflation and reduce the
learning of kids and ultimately reduced their chances of success
in the future.

Speaker 2 (19:42):
You know, there's no academic progress, there's no or for
academic proficiency year over year progress. This is a pure
social promotion program. If you're taking f's and making them
in the seas, then you can fail everything and be
socially promoted through school.

Speaker 6 (19:57):
I agree.

Speaker 2 (19:59):
We have seen this, this whole mindset spread across the
country for a long time. I think the big lynchpin
and why this, why they reverse course, was that you
had a Democrat Congressman Rocanna said it isn't equity. It
betrays the American dream. He spotted accurately that this ruins
these kids. They have no chance at upward mobility if

(20:20):
this is going to be a education curriculum of social
promotion only do you think Democrats are starting to tell
the truth on this?

Speaker 4 (20:29):
They always knew.

Speaker 2 (20:29):
But do you think that Rocana, Congressman Rocanna has friends
in the Democrat Party and they're going to start calling
this out because it was the bipartisan attack that made it.
I think what made gave the school district got them
weak in the knees.

Speaker 10 (20:43):
Yeah, absolutely, Greg, because it actually that wasn't just Rocana,
the congressman from the Silicon Valley. It was actually also
the mayor of San Francisco. The mayor of San Jose.
They all came out against this when they heard about it,
and they so it was not just, you know, a
conservative outcry, it was bipartisan outcry from across the spectrum

(21:03):
because it just goes against common sense. I mean, as
Roe Conna said that, you know, you can't get you know,
score eighty percent on a test and be given an A,
and you can't score twenty one percent and get a D.
You know, it's just insane because that's going to end
up destroying the learning of the kids. And so I
think that what you're going to see is parents now

(21:26):
being much more vigilant about what the school district was
going to do, because I think that's the other thing
is the total lack of transparency in this scheme, because
the superintendent wanted to basically shove this through in a
stealth move and no parent, the parents, and actually even
the most of the school board wouldn't have known what
hit them.

Speaker 1 (21:46):
We're talking with doctor Lanzuzumi. He is the director of
the Center for Education at the Pacific Research Institute. A lance.
Are those who support this idea, Are they in a
way admitting that kids today are too soft that they
can't handle the challenges that we all face going through
education and in life in general. And are they saying

(22:07):
they're too soft and we need to do everything we
can to protect them.

Speaker 10 (22:11):
Well, it's partly that, Rod, but I think it's a
lot of it. Is this is kind of woke on steroids.
This is this They call it equity grading because they
basically want to, you know, make sure that everybody gets
a high grade. And because of social justice reasons, you know,

(22:31):
notions of privilege, et cetera, and that because of that,
you know, you need to basically, uh push the kids
who are up at the top down and the kids
at the bottom up, you know, regardless of whether you know,
the merit and the effort and the hard work and
the actual knowledge warrant the grades they get. And so
I think it's really more of a social justice scheme

(22:52):
than anything else.

Speaker 2 (22:55):
Doctor, Just a final question for me, I look, is this,
uh you saw the retreat?

Speaker 4 (23:00):
Is this is this going?

Speaker 2 (23:01):
We've heard about social or equity grading for equity before.
Is this is it done?

Speaker 3 (23:06):
Now?

Speaker 2 (23:06):
Are we going to see common sense arrived now that
we're seeing what's happening in San Francisco?

Speaker 10 (23:11):
I think actually you are you know, I think that
this story has gotten such national exposure that and as
I mentioned earlier, that you've seen this scheme pushed and
actually adopted in a number of jurisdictions around the country.
And I think that because of this exposure, parents are
going to be more aware. They're going to ask questions,
and especially in those districts that have adopted, they're going

(23:33):
to ask why was it adopted, why weren't we involved,
and they're going to I think, demand that those practices
be changed.

Speaker 1 (23:41):
Lance. Thanks for joining us. I always appreciate your insight,
and then enjoy the weekend.

Speaker 6 (23:44):
Thank you, Thank you very much.

Speaker 1 (23:47):
All right, Donia, thank you for work doctor Lance Azumi
of course from the Pacific Research Institute. I still kind
of like that idea, Greg, no homework, cut class and
retaking them as much as you want.

Speaker 2 (24:00):
I'd have been my fifth grade class president's speech. That's
what it was. What I was trying to get. I
was trying to Yeah, I think in fifth grade I
ran with this. This was my This was my big
speech to the class. Yeah, did you no tests?

Speaker 1 (24:10):
Did you lose that one?

Speaker 11 (24:11):
I did?

Speaker 3 (24:12):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (24:12):
They didn't.

Speaker 2 (24:12):
They didn't believe me. They didn't think I could pull
it off. They might have been right, all right.

Speaker 1 (24:17):
More coming up on the Thank Rodding Greg. It's Friday
edition of the Rodding Greig Show here on Talk Radio
one oh five nine can arrests.

Speaker 4 (24:24):
So I'm citizen Hughes and I brought our quette.

Speaker 1 (24:26):
Great to be with you on this Friday afternoon Gregor Course,
broadcasting from the Southern Command Post in that polluted San Diego,
California area. The water down there, the imterial beach, wonderful
to go swim in.

Speaker 4 (24:41):
Nah, yeah, you know.

Speaker 2 (24:41):
I I'm highly suspect. I don't see a lot of
people out there. The signs have disappeared. But I think
it's a holidays I think it's a tourism motivated move,
not a cleanliness of water move.

Speaker 4 (24:51):
I'm watching it.

Speaker 2 (24:52):
I'm going to be I'm going to be in strict
communication with Secretary Lee Zelden of the EPA before I
get near that water.

Speaker 4 (24:58):
But I'm guarding it. I'm wat making sure. Yep.

Speaker 2 (25:02):
I'm just putting my watchful eye for for the Roden
greg Show audience. Let you know what the situation is
on the ground here. I'm your roving reporter.

Speaker 1 (25:12):
Well, we all recognize that music Greg the theme song
from Mash. And there's a reason we're playing this today
if you haven't heard the news, Loretta's Wit Hot Lips
today at the age of eighty seven.

Speaker 2 (25:28):
Eight. Yeah, you know, I grew up watching MASH. I
you know they used to play reruns when they've still
played the shows. You know, they had original content every week,
but they would play at night after the news, they'd
play Mash reruns and so ik that that show went
on for a long time.

Speaker 4 (25:43):
So I you know.

Speaker 2 (25:45):
I've watched Hold Hot Lips Hulahan for a long time.

Speaker 1 (25:48):
Yeah, growing up, great show. I was working at Channel
two at the time, right, and the ten o'clock news
is always the big competition back then between Channel two
and Channel five, right, and you would not believe the numbers,
the ratings that Channel five would get with Dick Norris
and the Gang at ten o'clock and then Greg. It

(26:09):
would immediately be followed by Mash. Mash at that time,
as I recall, would get a forty share, the highest
rated share of the audience anywhere in the country on
Channel five when they play Mash. I mean a forty
share if you understand that means forty percent of every

(26:30):
television that was watching being watched at that time was
watching Mash. It was an extremely popular show. And what
always I thought was interesting about it, Greg it's a
very liberal show. I mean, if you look at the
themes of that show, very funny, but very liberal and
touched into areas that were extremely liberal and in a
red state like Utah, utahns ate that show up.

Speaker 4 (26:54):
Well. Klinger was the first cross dresser I ever knew.

Speaker 1 (26:57):
Yeah, right, that's true.

Speaker 2 (26:59):
I mean he dressed like he was trying to do it,
so you get decommissioned like he was dressing like a
lady all the time. Later seasons he stopped, but he
gave it, he gave up the strategy. But but Queen Bee,
she has a she she used to as a kid.
She'd hear that music play knowing she should be asleep.
It's she should be in bed and it represents like

(27:19):
her childhood and uh having to be in better or
asleep by that hour.

Speaker 4 (27:24):
Did you hear the music?

Speaker 1 (27:25):
Did you ever see the movie with Elliott Gould and
Donald Sutherland? You've never seen the movie Mash.

Speaker 4 (27:32):
I know of it, I never watched it.

Speaker 1 (27:34):
Crazy, do you know who played hot Lips? In that movie.
If you haven't seen it, you wouldn't know Sally Kellerman.
They ring a belly does not does not. Sally Kellerman
was the original Hot Lips in that movie, and she
was really really good. And I thought lorettis Witt, who
died today at the age of seven, did a wonderful
job playing Hot Lips. And it was a very popular

(27:54):
show here and really all around the country.

Speaker 2 (27:58):
You know, they changed your I mean, she and Frank
they had quite the red hot affair going on on
that show for a long time. And then that guy,
that character left the show after a while, and she
stayed on. But yeah, no, that's like I said that,
all the cast and characters of mash are very.

Speaker 4 (28:15):
Familiar with me.

Speaker 2 (28:16):
And Radar do you remember why they called him Radar?

Speaker 12 (28:19):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (28:19):
Yeah, because they had a memory like you wouldn't believe.
All Right, more coming up on the show.

Speaker 2 (28:27):
It's not as hot here as it is out there.
You got a lot of hotter temperatures that I'm dealing
with here. But how about the temperature at the White
House at the Oval Office today?

Speaker 4 (28:35):
Was it hot? Was it was it awkward? Do you
think folks?

Speaker 2 (28:39):
Do you think it was it awkward. Was could you
tell that Elon's a little bit miffed or was it was?

Speaker 4 (28:44):
It? Was it a good thing?

Speaker 13 (28:45):
You know?

Speaker 1 (28:46):
I wonder, Well, here, here's the thing, Greg, We knew
this day was going to come. Right. He wasn't going
to hang around forever. He even indicated that, right, So
we knew this by law, even.

Speaker 2 (28:58):
By law he had so many I think he's around
that time where by law he couldn't stay in that
position without a Senate confirmation or something, so that they
was technically coming.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
So we knew this guy was going to come. Now,
the one thing that really annoys me about this there
are several, but the way this man was treated. I mean,
the Democrats and a lot of politicians always talk about
public service. What are you doing for the good of
your country, what are you doing for the good of
your community? Right, they talk about public service. Here's a guy,

(29:29):
richest man in the world, right, didn't really need to
do this, but you know, apparently Donald Trump approached him,
said I made a campaign pledge, and you heard me
on the campaign pledge talk about cutting down the sides
of government, going after the swamp, and I would like
you to do it. So he puts together Greg, this
team of really really smart people, and they begin looking

(29:53):
for waste, fraud, and abuse, and to the surprise of
no one, they found it. Yet, look at how some
Americans treated this man. I mean they yea, they went
after his cars, They made fun of him every day.
I mean they called them every name in the book
for doing a public service, and a public service that

(30:14):
most Americans want, and that is reducing the size of government.

Speaker 2 (30:18):
It's shameful, Yeah, it is shameful. Never before have I
seen this defense of the federal lebiathan, the federal you know, Hydra,
that is our federal government. I've never seen what say,
oh no, no, we have to have all this money.
We have to spend all of this, we have to
send it everywhere, we have to every every example he
gave wasn't some vague description. It was stuff that's indefensible.

(30:39):
And yet somehow he became the bad guy in the
media's narrative and the leftist narrative, and the organized NGOs
that got funded by federal dollars, that spent money to
attack him, that Tesla takedown, harming his dealerships and then
people who own the vehicles, and it was and I
think that largely many many America, too many Americans.

Speaker 4 (31:00):
Fell for it.

Speaker 2 (31:01):
If you're worried about him, And one of the big
gripes was all he's trying to profit.

Speaker 4 (31:05):
He's trying to personally profit.

Speaker 2 (31:07):
You say that about someone who's broke, not the guy
that's got more money than anybody else on the whole
planet Earth. He doesn't need to steal, he doesn't need
to take money or commit graft to do anything, because
he's got more money than he'll ever know what to
do with. Ever, that's the last guy that you have
to worry about. It's the guy that's actually doing it
for a service for the United States, not I mean anyway.

(31:28):
I just found that the narratives were ridiculous and the
attacks were contemptible, and I think they worked.

Speaker 14 (31:35):
I do.

Speaker 2 (31:36):
I think they had a chilling effect on Doge on
Elon's work, and I think he had had enough. And
I think he's looking at Congress, and as much as
I'm happy we're seeing some of these Doge efficiencies or
cuts inside the budget, I'm sure he for all the
personal sacrifice he's gone through and the attacks he's had

(31:57):
not seeing any more than you know, less than twenty billion. Yeah,
between the two, the recision Bill and re reconciliation Bill
is probably disheartening to him.

Speaker 1 (32:05):
Well, I think about this, Greg, I mean, he came
in and remember he said, we're going to cut two
trillion dollars out of the budget. Right, overstated maybe a
little bit. It's probably closer to one hundred and seventy
five billion from all accounts. But I mean the symbolic
value of all of this, I mean, really his efforts
cannot be overstated. I mean, if you think about it,

(32:28):
he did more, in my opinion, to challenge Washington and
the swamp in just one hundred and thirty days than
most cabinet secretaries have been able to do in four years.
I mean, he exposed, in my opinion, how deeply entrenched
inefficiency has become in the federal system. I think about that, Greg,

(32:50):
the inefficiency that we have in this government today, and
he exposed it and it's still there today, and he
forced conversations about the scope and purpose of government. Now
was it perfect, nothing against perfect? Mistakes were made, right,
but Musk showed in my opinion, that you can attack
the problem and it can be done. And I don't

(33:11):
think he's been given enough credit for it today.

Speaker 2 (33:13):
Well, first off, I think that the NGOs, the way
that the federal government was sending money to non government
organizations who were acting out without with zero accountability in
the billions and billions of dollars, pursuing leftist agendas and
profiting themselves mightily with generational wealth. Those are the things

(33:34):
I probably didn't understand as well. One hundred and seventy billion.
I'm going to argue that why you're not seeing that
number higher as twofold one. The left went to the
courts to stop him in his tracks, to keep him
from being able to do the work that he was
he was hired to do, and they were successful in
getting court rulings against Doje. And second, you've got a
Congress that, for some reason, even though Trump has a

(33:56):
wide lane of political capital for them to fall, every
Democrat is going to vote against it no matter what
it looks like. They aren't taking greater advantage of what
I think is lower hanging fruit of how to cut
a federal budget. It's always been vague. It's hard to
cut my percentage. It's much easier to say, here's the fraud.
It's not going to hurt anybody. We're going to take
the fraud out and and Elon gave him that that

(34:18):
those numbers and those areas to cut, and they're cutting.
And Congressman Kennedy said yesterday it's not a one shot deal.
They have more to do and they will do.

Speaker 4 (34:26):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (34:26):
But it's I I think we ow we owe Elon
Musk a debtic gratitude, and it was good that the
President had him in the overall office today. I just
I just feel a little bad for the guy, yeah,
and for me. Frankly, I feel bad for the country.

Speaker 1 (34:39):
Yeah, I do too. Here's what he said in the
Oval office today. He took a couple of questions and
he was asked, first of all, why he thinks spending
is out of control.

Speaker 15 (34:49):
Most clearly when it is uh someone else. Let's quote
money they spent on people you don't know. And that's
that's how federal spending is. And then you kind even
blame the individuals because the way the govern works is
complaint minimization. So when you do try to do this,
the way someone within the government tries to stuff that

(35:10):
money they expend, there's usually some of that complaints and
then their manager will say it's not worth the trouble,
just pay it anyway. That happens over and over again.

Speaker 1 (35:22):
I think it was it was an important thing.

Speaker 15 (35:24):
I think it was a necessary thing, and I think
we'll have a good effect in the future.

Speaker 1 (35:27):
Yea, and all that is such a spot on statement, Greg.
It's easy to spend more money when it's not yours,
and that's what.

Speaker 2 (35:33):
They dot your money, not your money, and it's being
sent to And then if you if you do, if
you are efficient, if people that were getting money that
shouldn't have got money start to complain. The federal government
operates under a complaint minimalization approach. They want no complaints
about their agency. They don't want anybody to be complaining.
They don't want any higher ups getting mad at them.

(35:55):
So they just pay, they pay, pay, pay, they'll push
the money out for anyone and because they don't want complaints.
And that's what Elon struck on there is that is
the culture of a federal bureaucracy. They don't want any
complaints and they pay you to not complaint, which is
what's happening.

Speaker 1 (36:12):
Yeah, it certainly is. He was also asked about what's
more challenging cutting the size of the government or going
to Mars.

Speaker 16 (36:18):
Do you think it would be easier colonizing Mars or
making the government efficient.

Speaker 15 (36:25):
It's a tough call, but I think colonizing us and
making life multicitaser is hotter. And as I said, we
do we do expect to achieve over time that the
twllion dollars savings. We can't do it in like a
few months. But if you say, by the I think
the official end of doors the President make me choose
to extend is the middle of next year. Saved by

(36:47):
the middle of next year, with the support of the President,
Congress could reachieve twllion dollars savings.

Speaker 6 (36:52):
I think.

Speaker 1 (36:52):
So, you know, Greg there he's saying, you know, it's
it's a tough call. Is it more difficult to go
to Mars than it is to cut the side of government?
But he raised a good point. You know, everybody wanted
this to happen immediately. Doosh has been given a life
through what the end the middle of next year. So
we'll see what happens between now and the middle of

(37:12):
next year as to how much money is actually going
to be saved. I think the American people are expecting it,
and I think they've got to deliver, and I hope
they do.

Speaker 2 (37:21):
And I think you'll see he has very smart people
on the ground. They're now employees of say that, the
Treasury Department under Secretary of vest and they've got them
in the spots they need to be. I think you're
going to continue to see areas where you can where
the American people will see the waste of fraud. I'm
most concerned about the fraud. I hope beyond cutting budgets
so the fraud no longer can can happen. I'm hoping

(37:44):
that there's prosecutions of people that have been stealing the
federal money under false pretenses, because it's happened, but that's
going to We're going to get more and more of
that as time goes on. And this is why the
Republican Party can be the party for the American people,
the everyday people, because the way they've been spending money,
they can't defend. And if the Democrats want to try,
let him. But I think that there's there's a lot

(38:04):
more to be found, there's a lot more to talk about,
and I think Doge will continue on and I and
I actually hope Elon is saying I'm leaving. I think
he'd like to. I think he'd like to stop being
the you know, the the rented mule and all of
this being beaten all the time. But I think he's
a pretty stubborn guy. He wants to get things done.

(38:25):
I think he's going to stay involved to some degree.
I think even in an informal capacity, he'll be advising
the president. You know, this president respects him. I watch,
I watch what he does. They're sure is all right.

Speaker 1 (38:37):
More coming up on the Rodding Greg show, and your
phone calls, your thoughts on Elon Musk because he departs
the White House and the Doze effort, was he successful?
And will his desire to cut government and government waste
continue eight eight eight five seven oh eight zero one
zero eight eight eight five seven oh eight zero one zero,
or on your cell phone, dal pound two fifty and
simply say, hey, Rod, your calls, your comments coming up

(38:59):
on the Rotten Grat Show.

Speaker 2 (39:00):
One hundred and seventy billion. He's found more than that,
he knows where the bodies are buried. He's just he has,
you know, the politics push against him, and the and
even the courts, and so just curious of our listeners,
what do you think about Elon Musk's work? I mean,
is it are you? Are you disappointed? Did he did
he over promise? What do you think of Elon Musk

(39:21):
and his role so far in the Trump administration?

Speaker 1 (39:24):
Well, well think about this too, Greg. I mean, this
is a guy didn't need to do this job a
public service, was asked by the president to get in
there and take a look at things. And look how
he was attacked. You know, his car guy was attacked.
People who owned Tesla's were attacked, They were made fun of.
I mean, every politician, every comedian, every individual out there

(39:45):
attacked this man for what the American people voted Donald
Trump into the White House to do, and that was
to cut down on the swamp. I mean, just think
about the attacks he went through.

Speaker 2 (39:56):
I was on I was on I fifteen last week
and I saw it on a Tesla the words Elon
and then an F in front of so it's spelling felon.
And that's the kind of stuff that he went through.
And think if you have, if you're a billionaire, you
there's not a whole lot of opinions that you're worried
about the amount of pressure that he must have felt

(40:16):
for a guy of his accomplishments and stature in the world,
and you know, willingness to serve, to feel, you know,
to be really beat up that way. It's it's unbelievable. Yeah,
he's put up with and I and I regret it.
It's the swamp that's stronger than we actually give it
credit for.

Speaker 1 (40:32):
I think eight eight eight five seven eight zero one
zero eight eight eight five seven o eight zero one zero.
Your thoughts on Elon Musk and what he has done
or hasn't done. What do you think? And my question
is do you think this effort to cut down on
the side of the government will continue to the phones
we go. Let's go to Richard in Springville tonight here
on the Roden Greg Show. Richard, thanks for joining us.

Speaker 14 (40:53):
Yes, sir, I think that, uh, we need to expand
on that, doge. I think we need to get a
hold of Newt Gingrich and get a big team of
those people, maybe twenty or thirty, and go after the
United States Congress, get the fawed waste of abuse and
other filth out of that and make them efficiently operate,

(41:19):
and put the Supreme Court in there too, just to
just to make sure, you know, just just to tweak
up on that part and maybe put Mike Lee ahead
of that. That's what I gotta say.

Speaker 1 (41:31):
The idea, I love it. The idea of blankly being
in charge of something like that, I absolutely love that idea.
And going into Congress too and see the waste and abuse.

Speaker 2 (41:41):
You know, the Contract with America really did look for
systemic change. It did want to change all the terrible
rules and gaming up and gimmick gimmicktry that gimmickry that
had a Congress had become after forty years of Democrat control.
So in nineteen ninety four of the Contract with America,
Republicans take control for the first time, and you saw

(42:02):
those changes come.

Speaker 4 (42:03):
But you know what's happened. It's it's it's all creeped back.

Speaker 2 (42:06):
It's all gone back to the very practices that new
Congris tried to lead the charge and change and did
change for some time. But you know that bureaucracy ends
up swallowing up the most well intentioned individuals, it seems,
so I think it's it needs a it needs a
deep cleaning too.

Speaker 1 (42:24):
Well, Greg, you can blame the Democrats, but the White
House that Republicans are in there, and are they doing
anything to stop it? Not that I'm aware of. Back
to the phones, we always let's go to Phil in provo, Phil,
how w are you welcome to the Rodding Gregg Show?

Speaker 17 (42:38):
Oh man, I feel so good. I can barely stand it.
Good to shalk with you today. But I just want
to say, as as a person that bleeds red, white
and blue, Elon Musk is the greatest patriot this country
is saint since Georg Washington. I'm telling you what he
has had to go through and what he's done with

(43:01):
buying Twitter and and just just you can't say enough
just to volunteer in himself and his companies, you know.
I mean, you know, if you if you read anything
about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, one
of the things that killed it was overspending and over taxing.

(43:25):
And and that's what he's trying to stop, is just
bringing common sense into the whole picture, you know. And
that's that's That's about all I wanted to say that
he's just such a patriot.

Speaker 1 (43:38):
He is a patriot, Phil, and I would agree with him, Greg,
I think.

Speaker 4 (43:43):
I couldn't agree more.

Speaker 2 (43:44):
I appreciate Phil saying it that way and framing it
that way because it is true.

Speaker 4 (43:47):
I mean, we're not going to meet.

Speaker 2 (43:49):
There's not gonna be very many people like an Elon
Musk and in any generation. I think he's uh, he's
he's a special individual. That the money he paid for Twitter,
it wasn't worth a fraction of that. He'd did that
for the preservation of freedom of speech in this country,
knowing that he was overpaying. He knew that that all
of it, and he gave them a price that they
as much control as they had with the censorship, they

(44:11):
were too greedy. They couldn't walk away from the amount
of money they were They thought he would walk away
from and they took the money, and he restored a
freedom of speech in this country.

Speaker 4 (44:20):
That's how I see it.

Speaker 1 (44:20):
Yeah, he's a great patriot. All right, more of your
calls and comments coming up. Elon Musk says he's done.
What do you think about the job that he has achieved.
I think he's done a great job. And Phil, one
of our callers, just said, a great patriot. Eight eight
eight five seven oh eight zero one zero triple eight
five seven oh eight zero one zero or on your
cell phone dial pound two fifty and say, hey, Rod,
more of your calls and comments coming up on The

(44:41):
Rodden Greg Show.

Speaker 2 (44:43):
You sound like Barry White and you're wearing a very
very bread which a wall white shirt. Very whitey, that's
who you are. Yeah, but you're with us, you're here,
you're in studio. I'm so happy. Well I made it.

Speaker 1 (44:53):
But I show up and you leave.

Speaker 2 (44:56):
I know it's weird. But on Tuesday and he'll be
here tomorrow. And on Wednesday I said he'll be here tomorrow. Boy,
you watch. And on Thursday, I'm like, oh, we're really open.
We'll see just to start my resolves started, Wayne.

Speaker 6 (45:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (45:09):
So and then you get up and late you're broadcasting
today from the Southern Command Post and beautiful San Diego,
California in your mansion down there.

Speaker 4 (45:18):
So yeah, you know what I mean.

Speaker 2 (45:21):
But look, I am truly living my best life right now.
It happening live as we're on this show. As always
is the case with this president. I mean, we always
get the best, you know, stuff happening while we're on
the air.

Speaker 4 (45:34):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (45:35):
Donald Trump has just been named an Honorary Steeler Pittsburgh
Steeler by Rocky Rocky Blyer. He's been giving US forty
seven Jersey, and he's in Pittsburgh because they're announcing this
incredible deal for US steel Even Governor Democrat. Governor Shapiro
is quoted in the papers saying in the news as saying,

(45:57):
I tried to work with the Biden administration. I couldn't
get caught. I kept making calls. I was disappointed with
what they're doing. And it is this president that made
made this deal happen, made it even better. And then
he attributed it to the President's negotiating style. All in praise,
by the way, And you don't see that much today,
and you know in our politics in twenty twenty five,
but you have a Governor Shapiro that was very appreciative

(46:19):
of the of the President and his leadership, which is
why I'm living my best life right now. He's an
honorary Pittsburgh Steeler. And you have even Governor Shapiro praising
the president.

Speaker 4 (46:30):
So how does it get better?

Speaker 1 (46:32):
And as I mentioned, you're in San Diego, you're going
to see your pirates, one of the worst teams, that's
right right now, take on the San Diego podcast.

Speaker 2 (46:42):
Right, that's right, I've got I'm going to be watching
the Pirates are in town to see play the Padres.
I will be there loud and proud as you can imagine.
I'm not a quiet fan, I really And it doesn't
really change my venue either. I just you know, people
around me don't appreciate my passion.

Speaker 1 (47:02):
But why when you and I this year had a
chance earlier this year to take in a Utah Mammoth
hockey game. They weren't the Mammoth then they were the
hockey Club. And we're two we're two roads off the rink,
off the ice, right and I think it was a
fight or a goal or something. You jump up, run

(47:23):
down to the glass and start pounding on the glass
like a crazy fan.

Speaker 4 (47:29):
Well, dutifully, that's what you do.

Speaker 2 (47:30):
I mean, I've never had I've never been that closed
to the place and glass that I could do that.
I was definitely taking advantage of it. When they check
them into that board, you gotta be on the other
side of that board, just pounding on it, telling.

Speaker 4 (47:39):
Them you're there.

Speaker 1 (47:40):
And that's yeah, you're doing it.

Speaker 2 (47:42):
And I and when it comes to my Pittsburgh Steelers,
Pirates Penguins, I get very very passionate. It's a family thing. Well,
I was raised that way. I didn't have a choice if.

Speaker 1 (47:54):
We're if you're joining us out. We're talking about the
departure today of Elon Musk. He was at the White
House the President today talking about the fact that it's
time to do something different. He's been given a charge
by the President. He came in there, did everything he could,
I think, exposed the fraud, the weights, the inefficiency that
goes on in the government. And earlier today Walter Isaacson,

(48:16):
he's a historian I think at Tulane University down there
in New Orleans, is the author of Elon Musk. It's
his biography, and he talked about the fact that Elon
Musk he kind of got frustrated with having to deal
with the government.

Speaker 18 (48:30):
He owns Tazla pretty much, so he owns SpaceX. He
can do things like say, hey, let's do this radical
thing with the Raptor engine where it's leaking, or take
off the heat shield, or get rid of these servers
in Twitter.

Speaker 6 (48:43):
And sometimes it works, sometimes he doesn't.

Speaker 18 (48:45):
But he's all in, you can't do that in government
because he doesn't own the federal government.

Speaker 1 (48:50):
You know, Greg and I've talked about this. I saw
this article on. I keep on referring to it, but
I think it is spot on that Elon Musk and
Donald Trump have a founder's mentality when it comes to
being successful. They you know, they created companies. He created
you know what, Tesla, Starlink, SpaceX, all these companies with

(49:11):
a mission. He knows what he wants to do with them.
Donald Trump, his approach to government is the same thing.
He is a patriot. We all own the government, and
he knows how to straighten it out. And I think
that was so frustrating with Elon Musk is he wanted
to get things done, he wanted them to move faster.
They didn't. I think that's a frustration. And now I
think it is the challenge of people within the administration

(49:34):
to carry out his message, and that is to get
rid of the waste, to get rid of the fraud,
and to make government not necessarily smaller, even though I
think we would agree it's a smaller government, but make
it smarter and use the technology that we have today
to make it for more efficient. And I hope the
American people see that, realize that, and that they're willing

(49:56):
to carry on that message.

Speaker 2 (49:57):
Greg right, size be the term overcue the government. It
needs to be right sized. He has a story where
he would sleep on the factory floor. He had a
desk and he was on the factory floor as Tesla
was just coming up, and he was working so hard.
And I compare that to when they were able to
access the Department of Treasury and they just stayed in there,

(50:18):
and they said, it's amazing. All these people, with all
these bureaucrats go home on Fridays. We're going to stay,
We're going to keep working, and they are not in
our way. And so he took that work ethic and
he talked about how the workers at is Tesla Factory
when they see the owner of the company sleeping on
the concrete floor under the desk so he can get
going the next morning. It's set a tone of leadership
but also of pace and how hard you have to

(50:40):
work to get certain jobs done. And he gave that
his best shot. And you know the federal government.

Speaker 4 (50:46):
He does it.

Speaker 2 (50:47):
It's not like a company that he would own. He
doesn't have that complete control. He immediately started getting sued.
Lawsuits started flying, They started telling him he had to
leave the building and much much more difficult. And then
I would have I'd like to see the republic plans
back him and his work a lot stronger. I'm just
I'm hoping that comes in time. I'm not giving up
on our Republicans in Congress just yet.

Speaker 1 (51:08):
Well just think about this, Greg. He went to the
Democrats with Barack Obama and he said, hey, I can
do that. They kicked him out. They didn't want to
him to be a part of it. But they all
love these electric vehicles, right, And I have a son
who owns a Tesla. He absolutely loves it. You talk
to Tesla owners, they all love it. But now the Democrats,

(51:29):
because he sided with don Donald Trump, they attack his company.
They're going everything that he touches, they attack. And that's
too bad. All right, let's get to your phone calls
on this. Let's go to David in Cedar Hills tonight,
are on the Rodding Greg Show. David, how are you
thanks for joining us.

Speaker 3 (51:47):
To look at Trump in a realistic light. He's against
all opposition, as you just said that. He also is
a huge thinking he said, as long as you're going
to be thinking wayams will think big. He also has
cognitive and I think he's looking at Congress.

Speaker 8 (52:06):
As though this is the bill we have. We know
there's junk in it, we know there's waste in it,
we know there's broad in it. But this is the
Congress that I have.

Speaker 13 (52:17):
To deal with today.

Speaker 8 (52:19):
I'll deal with them more over the.

Speaker 13 (52:21):
Next three years.

Speaker 8 (52:22):
Now is it time to get work done, and I
need these things that they're also.

Speaker 13 (52:29):
Offering to get that work started and completed. So I'll
deal with the rest.

Speaker 8 (52:35):
Of the swamp in the next three years. Also, I
was wondering if you do things locally.

Speaker 13 (52:41):
Like promote local activities such as Peter Hills.

Speaker 8 (52:47):
Is having a big balloon takeoff from six point thirty
to eight o'clock tomorrow morning, and they're going to launch
tomorrow morning at eight o'clock all these balloons in Mere.

Speaker 1 (52:59):
David, where is that if people want to go see
it just in case, real quick.

Speaker 13 (53:03):
It's at the elementary school on Cedar Hill's Drive and
they're going to start heating up the balloons from six
thirty to eight and then I guess they all lift
off at eight o'clock.

Speaker 1 (53:17):
All right, all right, David, thank you from Cedar Hills.

Speaker 4 (53:19):
The two point two follow the balloons. You'll see him
from a far away.

Speaker 1 (53:22):
Yeah, two points on that I think Trump may not
like this bill completely. Certainly Elon Musk does like the bill,
but he is being a pragmatist and he says, I'll
take what I can get now and work on him
down the road.

Speaker 3 (53:36):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (53:36):
No, David, Actually I really appreciated his comments because as
I am disappointed and I can, I feel like I
see it in Elon Musk's eyes that he thought there
could be more that's done, the idea that they have
a three member majority in the House and we're able
to keep that majority to get what they have accomplished,
which does prevent a massive, massive tax increase, along with

(53:59):
some important cuts in that Reconciliation bill and the recision
bill that's coming. It's not that, I mean, we are
in far better hands of Republicans right now than if
the Democrats were in control. And I and I do
think that that it isn't a one shot deal.

Speaker 4 (54:15):
Congressman Kennedy said it. David pointed it out.

Speaker 2 (54:17):
I'm sure that the president's looking at he's got he's
got more to come, and there will and it will come.
I so I do I do want to highlight that
I think that that this bill is absolutely essential and
I think that he is showing some his ability to
work with and persuade more than work with Congress, persuade Congress,
which I haven't seen any president do for a long time.

Speaker 1 (54:38):
Yeah, you're right, all right, more coming up mare your
phone calls eight eight eight five seven oh eight zero
one zero. It is the Rotten Greg Show right here
on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine KNRS. A
full hour of our list back Friday segment coming your
way at the top of the hour, real quick before
we go to a break. Both you and I have
seen The Mission Impossible movie, right, final reckoning.

Speaker 4 (54:58):
That's right? Your take, absolutely your take.

Speaker 2 (55:00):
Oh, I absolutely loved it. I mean you texted me
saw it before I did. You texted me during the
holiday saying you saw it. People cheered in the theater. Yeah,
it was a great and and I same deal. I
went to I have him into a movie theater in
a long time, and uh, everybody cheered at the end
of the movie too. I just again, I think the
Mission Impossible formula is good versus evil, right versus wrong,

(55:21):
and and it's it's the first one was in nineteen
ninety six, and here you are thirty what thirty years later.
I think it's what Hollywood doesn't get.

Speaker 1 (55:29):
Yeah, and how many movies since he made him put
are there?

Speaker 6 (55:32):
Are?

Speaker 4 (55:32):
There?

Speaker 6 (55:32):
Eight?

Speaker 1 (55:33):
Seven or eight of them, I think, And all of
them are good?

Speaker 3 (55:35):
Eight.

Speaker 1 (55:35):
Yeah. The only ballar was Mission Impossible to which is
kind of goofy, I thought. But the rest of them
I loved.

Speaker 4 (55:42):
I liked all of them. I liked every single one
of them.

Speaker 2 (55:45):
And I think that we will never see an action
hero like Tom Cruise again.

Speaker 4 (55:49):
I don't think you'll use you'll see him.

Speaker 2 (55:51):
He is so into the these stunts he's doing, and
some of the background, even the underwater stuff was just, uh,
no one, no one in the right mind will try
to do what he's tried to do in those movies
or what he did do.

Speaker 1 (56:02):
That was some intense stuff, that underwater stuff. Go see
the movie if you're looking for a good movie this weekend,
Mission Impossible, The Final Reckoning. All Right, that does it
for this hour, The Rodin Great Show, A full hour
of our list back Friday segments coming your way next
right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine
a n RS. Stay with us.

Speaker 4 (56:21):
But he's in here.

Speaker 2 (56:22):
Look, he's grinding, he's not gonna You can't turn them away.

Speaker 13 (56:26):
You know.

Speaker 1 (56:26):
I feel fantastic, but I sound like a bullfrog, you know,
But we.

Speaker 2 (56:31):
Were having the audience to tell you I was I
was wondering if we'd see you back. As I said
earlier in the program, you can't be thwarted, you can't
be deterred.

Speaker 4 (56:40):
You came in.

Speaker 1 (56:41):
Well, I have an obligation of my audience, not so
much to you, but to the tremendous audience. So we
have each and every day on the show or to or.

Speaker 4 (56:50):
To bail them out.

Speaker 2 (56:51):
I think they were all missing you as much as
I was, or maybe more so.

Speaker 4 (56:54):
You know, there's that.

Speaker 1 (56:55):
Every time I get a touch of a cold, it
goes right to my voice box. Every time he's been
through this, probably about a half a dozen times.

Speaker 4 (57:04):
Yeah, he called the shot before you did.

Speaker 2 (57:07):
You said I'm feel a little bad today, and he
Ray said, up, he's done.

Speaker 1 (57:10):
He's done.

Speaker 4 (57:10):
We'll be lucky to see him this month.

Speaker 1 (57:12):
So it's not that bad. It's got a close, but
not that bad, all right. You know, you did such
a fantastic job and in your solo flights this week
that we have got so many great interviews that a
lot of people may have missed that we're going to
take this entire hour and make it our list back
Friday hour. So good you are.

Speaker 2 (57:33):
We really had to make up with you not there.
I had to make it up with some good interviews
and I had to. I think we did. I think
we Eray did a great job. We got some great
people to respond on all the important issues that we're
still dealing with that are still timely right now in
this very hour.

Speaker 4 (57:49):
So I think it's good to go back to some
of these interviews.

Speaker 1 (57:51):
Well, one of the interviews you did, and you can
tell us about this Greg with with Sabrina Schaeffer. She
is vice president of public Affairs at the R Street
In What exactly did you talk about with her and
what was the message?

Speaker 2 (58:03):
So it's an interesting interview. She comes from a think
tank inside of Washington, DC. There libertarian. You know, they've
spent their whole careers really trying to help advise what
a conservative budget cutting administration would look like. I think
she expresses in this interview. You'll hear folks some frustration
on her part about how much they've been involved, or

(58:25):
how Elon Musk's work or Doge's work has been implemented
by Congress. But it's a good perspective. It's one from
inside the bel way. She admits that, But I do
think it's a conversation worth having for sure.

Speaker 1 (58:36):
Well, it was a conversation that started when you asked
her to share with the listeners what she meant when
she said Trump's message might not be capturing the American people.

Speaker 8 (58:45):
Yeah.

Speaker 16 (58:46):
Of course, we all want to see Washington get something done,
and I think it's frustrating when we see years go
by and more of the same. That being said, I
think there was a tremendous sort of sense of possibility
when Trump came in the second term, that we were
really going to be able to streamline.

Speaker 12 (59:02):
Government and make government.

Speaker 16 (59:04):
More efficient and get government back to what it's supposed
to be doing. Where I work at our Street, we
talk a lot about limited effective government. But one of
the concerns that I think a lot of us have
is that there's been.

Speaker 12 (59:18):
Sort of a slash and burn mentality, and it feels
as though there's little in the way of a policy roadmap.

Speaker 16 (59:26):
And because there's no roadmap, it seems there's no message
that's really helping hold it all together and get the
public excited about these changes rather than sort of fearful
of them.

Speaker 2 (59:38):
You know, I'm surprised a little bit because I think
that there's been a I think Doge and the Doge
effort has brought out almost a overly prescript not overly
that sounds bad, it's brought a super prescriptive narrative to
this over twelve point three million Americans ages one hundred
and twenty and older that still had what the government
considered active Social Security numbers department sending checks and payments

(01:00:02):
without a simple purchase order number or what we would
consider that if you were in a small business you
would call a po number, but without knowing where that
money's actually going. I think those stories sound very specific
and relatable to the people, versus if you look at
the and I would argue successful efforts of the Clinton
Gore administration. They had the palettes of regulation. If you
remember the reams of paper, I don't remember the specificity there.

(01:00:25):
I do remember it, I do not remember it with
the efforts of Doge and what Trump's doing, but I
see a very aggressive campaign out there to undermine his efforts.
Is it he's not sharing the information or that his
messengers are being their knees are getting cut out from
under him.

Speaker 12 (01:00:44):
I think it's maybe a little bit in between.

Speaker 16 (01:00:47):
Absolutely, I should reinforce this idea that I think, the
idea that we need to write size government and make
it more efficient and make sure that it's doing the
jobs that it's supposed.

Speaker 12 (01:00:59):
To be doing for the American people. We are on
the same page.

Speaker 16 (01:01:02):
I think what's concerning is that it seems as though,
and look here I am in Washington, v see, so
I'm experiencing this maybe differently than some of your listeners,
because we see, you know, there are lots of colleagues
that work in these agencies, but it's a much more
sort of arbitrary.

Speaker 12 (01:01:18):
Approach to eliminating jobs.

Speaker 16 (01:01:20):
And it's unfortunate because it seems as though there have
been roadmaps to how.

Speaker 12 (01:01:25):
Best to do this for years and years and years.

Speaker 16 (01:01:27):
Right, we have all sorts of organizations and think tanks
and lawmakers who have been advancing this, and then when
it comes to the actual messaging, it's that there's a
sense that you know, yes, there's waste, broad and abuse, absolutely,
but it's sometimes simpler than that. Right, we have all
sorts of programs that are duplicatous. We don't need we
have we do have tons of waste, but people need

(01:01:48):
to understand what that means so that when they hear
that people are losing jobs, they don't feel like there
we're doing it in a way that that isn't compelling.
And so it may be that there is a little
bit different PERSPECTI here inside the Belway, which of course
you know, I'm aware of that Delway mentality, But at
the same time, I think it's that we're we're close
to a lot of these people who are losing jobs

(01:02:11):
and making sure that we're doing it the right way, Sabrina.

Speaker 2 (01:02:14):
During the Clint administration, they offered furloughs for federal workers
that would want to retire earli or give them some
incentive to leave if they wanted to. Could you appreciate
that maybe after one term the President Trump served where
he felt maybe undermined even within his own administration or
certainly from maybe government agencies or departments that wanting to
not believe, maybe not having the confidence that the people

(01:02:34):
on the ground on the job that are holdovers from
the Biden administration would be as aggressive in cutting federal government.
Could there be that worry in terms of how you're
trying to right size your federal workforce and keep the
people that would actually want to do what you're doing,
and worry that some people wouldn't want to they'd want
a Trump proof the government. Could that be in the
equation for the president?

Speaker 4 (01:02:55):
Do you think?

Speaker 16 (01:02:57):
Yeah, I don't know exactly what's happening.

Speaker 12 (01:02:59):
Around the the table in the White House, but you know,
I'm sure.

Speaker 16 (01:03:02):
That there are reasonable political concerns, right, you know, one
administrations in, one is out.

Speaker 12 (01:03:09):
I think that's all the more reason why that compelling
story is so important.

Speaker 16 (01:03:13):
And it can't just be with people who already support you, right,
it has to resonate with with all citizens, all voters.
And I think without that that story, you really sort
of risk some of these what I view as principal
policies being misunderstood.

Speaker 2 (01:03:29):
So and I agree with you essentially, And this is
why I'm excited to have you on the program, because
I do believe that there is an I've never seen
the American people be defensive of a federal government. They
might like their member of Congress, they might like certain things,
but who in the world says no, this federal government.
You don't ever change it, don't ever fire anyone, be protective.
I look at Elon Musk, I look at Doje, I

(01:03:50):
look at some of the commentary and some of the issues,
and I feel it's actually a very transparent administration. What
do you think this administration is missing by way of
its story? I worry that it's not the story. It's
this Tesla takedown, it's some of the aggressive offense that
the swamp or the bureaucracy is engaged in. Were those
of profit from it that are drowning out? Maybe the

(01:04:11):
message of how the government needs to shrink. If it's
a message, I guess, Sabrina, what is the message that
President Trump should be refining better?

Speaker 18 (01:04:21):
Right?

Speaker 16 (01:04:21):
And I do think that there's you know, we know
that President Trump does a great job at connecting with
voters when he's on the campaign trail. There's no doubt
that he understands how to connect with voters. I would,
as someone who is in the public affairs communications space,
I would sound insane if I didn't acknowledge that. But
I think what we see that's missing is sort of

(01:04:41):
I think a little bit more of that gravitas with
a message now that he's in the White House. I
think I referenced in the article that I recently did
here an interview with Secretary of State Rubio.

Speaker 12 (01:04:52):
He did an.

Speaker 16 (01:04:53):
Excellent job explaining not just why they were making cuts,
but how the cuts were going to make the department
more efficient, and how it was going to make sure
that people were on the ground and the places that
they needed to be to.

Speaker 12 (01:05:05):
Have the impact that we all want them to have.

Speaker 16 (01:05:07):
It really did a great job in sort of demonstrating
how some of these inefficiencies are slowing down progress, slowing
down changes or advances in human rights missions, and he
really made it kind of come to life for what
can be done so that we're actually moving the needle.

Speaker 2 (01:05:27):
I think Secretary has been great and I don't know
if we even recalling the same moment, but he had
He shared there are three three principles, and he went
through those three and I had that same moment you're
describing where I understood clearly how they how what their
decision tree looks like. A final question, I would argue
that tran this Trump administration is one of the most
transparent administrations in terms of what their policies are, what

(01:05:50):
they're what they're looking to do what their concerns are,
and they're big moves, they're big lifts, tariffs. You know,
you've got national security. Do you think that the trumpet
menstration is as or more transparent than past administrations.

Speaker 12 (01:06:06):
No, I think you're right. I think there is a
lot of transparency.

Speaker 16 (01:06:09):
No administration is perfect, but I do think there's a
lot that they're that they're doing right. But I also think,
you know, look, I work for an organization that you
know we are we are sort of we're proudly steeped
in classically liberal values.

Speaker 12 (01:06:22):
We believe deeply in in.

Speaker 16 (01:06:23):
Free markets, limited effective government. But we also recognize that
we are stronger when we when we when we engage
with people who don't necessarily agree with us, and when
we bring other.

Speaker 12 (01:06:35):
People to the table to challenge our ideas.

Speaker 16 (01:06:38):
And I think that that's something that is important for
any administration. I think it's challenging right now. President Trump,
you know.

Speaker 12 (01:06:46):
Did face a tremendous amount of opposition.

Speaker 16 (01:06:50):
But at the same time, I think recognizing that that
everybody doesn't didn't necessarily vote for the president, everybody may
have different perspectives that can be something that will actually
help him achieve these shared goals in the end.

Speaker 1 (01:07:06):
So Brina Schaeffer, vice president of Public Affairs with the R.
Street Institute, talking earlier this week with Greg about the
message of Donald Trump and the message on Doge and
what is taking place out there. All right, more coming
up on the Listen Back Friday segment one hour tonight
here on the Rowden Greg Show in Utah's Talk Radio
one five to nine.

Speaker 4 (01:07:24):
Canterrest, I knew this is gonna happen.

Speaker 2 (01:07:27):
No days you predicted this sixties, eighties, nineties just went
just skipped the whole seventies.

Speaker 1 (01:07:33):
World and a inies world it went to ninety.

Speaker 4 (01:07:36):
Yeah, we get ripped off.

Speaker 1 (01:07:39):
And now the big news of the day, of course,
is a news conference the President held with Elon Musk
in the White House. As I said earlier today, Greg,
and you may or may not agree with me, I
think Elon Musk has done more to shake up Washington
than any cabinet secretary that has ever served this country.
I really think he.

Speaker 2 (01:07:58):
Has to Rod, And I'll tell you, folks, he has
brought you, me, the people along with him. He's I mean,
we only have freedom of speech, and we only see
the Democrats searching for podcasters and voices in America that
they hope would resonate because they don't want to change
their message. They just want to trick you. But all
those conversations are born from Elon Musk acquiring Twitter and

(01:08:21):
ex actually being a platform for free freedom of speech,
which then allowed guys like Joe Rogan on Spotify and
others to not be censored as they were. It really
changed the trajectory of this country. And then he went further.
He went and worked and helped President Trump win elect
this election and heading up the Department of Government Efficiency,
they were able to put details and specificity to items

(01:08:43):
and concerns we've had for a long long time, but
we really couldn't put our finger on it.

Speaker 4 (01:08:47):
Elon Musk did well.

Speaker 1 (01:08:48):
You had a conversation earlier this week with Congressman Mike
Kennedy about codifying some of those cuts. What was your
question to him, Greg, So my.

Speaker 2 (01:08:55):
Question to Mike was this, The Speaker of the House,
Mike Johnson, announced they were going to have a decision
package from the White House and that they were going
to look to codify that some of the DOGE cuts,
and I wanted to know how much of it I
know we were all hungry for all of them, but
how much of those Doge cuts could we expect to
see in this recision package that the White House was
sending in.

Speaker 19 (01:09:15):
Yeah, I'm totally excited about this opportunity. We just passed
last week our reconciliation package, which is totally separate from
this precision package, and I'm excited that with our leadership,
the Republicans can move forward on the significant work that
Doge has done. We're looking at nine point four billion
dollars of recision that has been identified from the White House,

(01:09:37):
and next Tuesday it's going to be sent to us
to have a look at to vote on. And I
can almost guarantee, although in Washington you can never guarantee anything,
that the Republicans are going to unite behind this. For one,
this is a great opportunity for us to save the
taxpayers a bunch of money nine point four billion dollars.
And for number two, President Trump has a lot of

(01:09:59):
wind the sales with Speaker Johnson and President Trump, and
we have leaders soon in the Senate. They've been working
lockstep to try to execute on President Trump's mandate, which
seventy seven million people voted on them. We can save
nine point four billion dollars, good inness sake, and let's
jump on it.

Speaker 2 (01:10:15):
It was good news for me. I've received it well.
It says that they're looking at that USAID some of
the foreign expenditures, foreign money going to for nonsensical things.

Speaker 4 (01:10:25):
That's been pointed out by Doge.

Speaker 2 (01:10:26):
Social Security, anyone over one hundred and twenty years old
shouldn't be getting a check anymore. I'm glad you guys
are staring getting rid of that. That's a that's a
big that's a big red flag. Some critics are saying
that with Doge identifying one hundred and seventy billion dollars
worth of cuts, that nine point four billion is a
little bit, not a kneemic or small.

Speaker 4 (01:10:45):
What do you say?

Speaker 2 (01:10:46):
What do you say to those that think that you
should be cutting maybe more or and it's not even
a cut. It's what you're doing, is the president's asking
you to reduce the current budget that hasn't been spent
by a certain amount. It's a recision package. Is there
more that could be done than what's being proposed.

Speaker 19 (01:11:03):
There's always more that can be done. The reality is
we need to qualify these spending cuts, make sure that
they are what they are, that we need to quantify them.
How much can we save. We're going to use a
scalpel and not a not some sort of acts to
do these things. And then we need to codify and
that's where these codifications are coming in. You and I
both know that to pass into law these kind of

(01:11:26):
budgetary issues, it requires debate and Congress needs to weigh
in on these things. But to look at that one
hundred and seventy billion dollars that you're talking about, well,
let's start with our first installment nine point four billion dollars.
I know to Washington, DC, that's not much, but to
us regular people, that's a massive piece of money. So
I'm excited about that. People could call it an emic,

(01:11:47):
as you're suggesting, but it's the first installment of many.
And we take seriously this one hundred and seventy billion
dollar proposal that those just given to us. And since
the Clinton administration, we haven't rained in spending life this.
I think it's high time for us to look at NPR, USAID,
and PBS and ask the questions of whether these people

(01:12:07):
are really doing the job. And when you look at MPR,
for example, eighty seven of their board members are registered Democrats.
There's not one registered Republican on NPR's board, and we've
brought that out in hearings. So going back to that,
we need to qualify, and we need to quantify, we
need to codify, and this nine point four billion dollars,

(01:12:29):
it's gone through that process. The remainder of the one
hundred and seventy billion, we need to do this those
same process with that money as well.

Speaker 2 (01:12:37):
So speaking with that Congressman Mike Kennedy and talking about
the Doge cuts and putting codifying them. So you just
mentioned that President Trump has a mandate, the people are
behind him. There's just this embracement of common sense, and
so he's seeing this popularity giving you a lot. I
believe Congress, especially Republicans' political cover to make the cuts necessary.

(01:13:01):
You're saying, you're pointing out this is just a beginning.
It was mentioned yesterday in an interview we did on
the program or it was questioned whether Congress felt, if
Republicans really felt that wind behind their sales that the
President Trump is bringing, do you have the political cover
even for those Republican colleagues of yours that may come
from New York or states or districts where Kamala Harris

(01:13:23):
might have won. Do they see that cutting government waste
and get cutting much deeper that Trump has given them
the political cover to do it, or is it going
to be a lot of hand ringing from your colleagues.

Speaker 19 (01:13:34):
It's actually the people have given President Trump the cover,
and then President Trump and the people can give House
the cover. We have a mandate, just like President Trump
has a mandate. You and I both believe, and your
listeners believe the people are in charge of the government.
We should work for the people, not government, not government.
We have to work for government. That's often what it

(01:13:55):
seems like with the bureaucrats is that we're actually funding
our government and then they're weaponized against us. So the
answer is I can say yes in a certain fashion
because we've passed a budget resolution Speaker Johnson and the
leadership team on the House side, that was miraculous to
pass a budget resolution which started this process of budget reconciliation.

(01:14:17):
We also and you and I both know continued resolutions
are not ideal, but we passed that as well. In
the media, it was dismayed. The Democrats have been dismayed
because that was the first time in many years we've
actually done something substantive moving us forward, giving us time
on this continued Resolution. We actually saved billions of dollars
on this continual Resolution, and we funded the government through

(01:14:37):
September to avoid a government shutdown. We stuck that on Schumer.
You and I have talked about that on this show
several weeks ago, and then we just passed last week
this budget reconciliation package. So that reconciliation package, recognizing it's
not perfect, it's an eleven hundred page bill, there's stuff
in there to still be worked on. The Senate's going
to have their way with it. You and I both
know the House of Lords.

Speaker 4 (01:15:02):
We know them.

Speaker 19 (01:15:03):
The slow and the fact that we passed it, we
sent it over to the Senate is the reflection of
President Trump working with the leadership team and the Republican Party.
They're on the move and they're doing things that are historical.
So there's more to be done, but I believe that
the cover is there, and if people are going to
try to vote against these efforts, they're going to face

(01:15:24):
the wrath of President Trump, who is not forced to
be ignored.

Speaker 1 (01:15:29):
As part of our list back Friday segment or hour. Today,
you're on the Rod and Greg Show conversation with Mike Kennedy,
Sharp Congressman. I hope they do Greg codify some of
these cuts. That's the only way they're going to get done.

Speaker 2 (01:15:40):
You know, Rod heard in the interview you were here.
There's a difference between the recision package that the White
House is sending for discretionary funds that can be cut,
that would be PBS, that would be a Department of Education, NPR,
versus the Reconciliation Bill, the Big Beautiful Bill. So we've
got two, both of which only require fifty one votes
in the Senate. So they're both really really important budget

(01:16:03):
tools that the Republican controlled Congress and Senate have at
their disposal. And we have high expectations, and it sounds
like Congressman Kennedy has high expectations too.

Speaker 1 (01:16:12):
It is the Thank rodin Greg Friday edition of The
Roden Greg Show right here on Utah's Talk Radio one
oh five nine.

Speaker 2 (01:16:18):
Cannais, Yes, Logan has been a he's legal counsel for
Alliance Defending Freedom. Great gentlemen, Scotis just decided not to
hear it at all, So I asked, logan censorship. I
guess from this means it's all the rage you can
censor people and kids in public schools now. Is that
an accurate description of the state of things right now?

Speaker 20 (01:16:38):
Unfortunately, too many schools are engaged in unconstitutional censorship, and
I think it's really important to emphasize. Though the Supreme
Court did decline to hear the case, two justices dissented
from that decision, and Justice Alito in particular wrote a
lengthy opinion dissenting from the denial of search your Ari
or the refusal to hear the case. It lays out

(01:17:00):
exactly what the right decision here would have been. It
recognized that the lower courts unconstitutionally refused to stop the
lower the schools from doing what they were doing here.
It recognized that there was viewpoint discrimination happening, and recognized
that the First Circuit effectively created a new free speech
test that departs from well settled precedent. So it's true

(01:17:22):
that this is an ongoing problem, and it's it's one
that we're going to continue to work on, and I
think eventually the Supreme Court will correct. But unfortunately, there
just weren't enough votes to get this particular case before
the court.

Speaker 2 (01:17:33):
So you bring and I think that the sense brings up,
I mean, the most obvious point, and that is, if
you have First Amendment rights, but now we're going to
pick and choose which ones when you're a student in
a school, which ones they're actually going to apply. I
think it creates an enormous amount of confusion across this
country in terms of what free speech actually means. So

(01:17:54):
do you do you so you expect this case to
be heard maybe in another form from from a school
that may do the same thing or something that's similar.
Let me just ask you what will be different this
time around? So was there a technicality in this case
that that got it to be declined at? What would
be different in a future case?

Speaker 20 (01:18:13):
I think the question for a future case will be
what do other circuit courts do with this? One of
the challenges in school speech cases is that the existing
correct test from a nineteen sixty nine case called Tinker
versus des Moines, is that it is very fact specific.
It's a question about material disruption, and so it is
possible that another case exactly like Liam's simply won't come

(01:18:37):
up again. It may be that other circuit courts and
other panels, even of the First Circuit, sort of confine
this case to its facts. But if in other courts,
for example, explicitly embraced the test that this panel of
the First Circuit created, I think that would catch the
Supreme Court's attention. And just here, listeners understand, the rule

(01:18:58):
is that schools cannot silence students speech unless it is
materially disruptive or unless school officials have facts to show
a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption. But what the First
Circuit did was was to create a new test that said,
number one, if there is speech that is assertively demeaning
about another student's deeply rooted characteristics, such that school officials

(01:19:22):
can forecast disruption or other symptoms of what it called
a six school, then that essentially always qualifies as material
disruption under the existing test. And so Justice Alito lays
out exactly why that's mistaken on multiple levels. There's extreme
deference to school officials on whether something is demeaning, and
it's a fundamentally viewpoint based test. All of these things

(01:19:45):
are problems, and so I think if another circuit was
to explicitly adopt this test and apply it, I think
the Supreme Court would be very likely to hear a
similar case and then to explain why that's wrong or
if more, you know, get more opinions out of the
first circuit instead of sort of confining this case to
a limited set of circumstances, expanding it to more circumstances,
I think there's a good chance the Supreme Court would say,

(01:20:05):
enough is enough, we need to hear this and we
need to correct it.

Speaker 2 (01:20:08):
So if I were to flip the script, and let's
say we have a rural county in Utah predominantly conservative
and some student want to wear a gay a pride
flag T shirt or something like that, applying this, will
it cause disruption? Will does it do kind of all
those circumstances that were laid out that a Lito didn't
agree with. Does this ruling allow for school districts to

(01:20:29):
say no, no, no, you can't bring your pride paraphernalia to
the school for the same reasons that this student in
Massachusetts couldn't wear a shirt that said there are two genders?
Can you apply it the same way?

Speaker 20 (01:20:41):
I think if a school or a court was following
this reasoning, they very well might be able to do that,
and we would say it's wrong in both cases. Right,
I think Liam had the right to wear his shirt,
and we think a student in a different school district
would have the right to wear a shirt with a
different message. That's the right rule to protect everyone. But yeah, unfortunately,
if another court or another school was to follow this rule,

(01:21:03):
it really permits officials just to shut down speech that
they don't like on important matters like what does it
mean to be male or female?

Speaker 6 (01:21:10):
Et cetera.

Speaker 2 (01:21:11):
So it's been a while since I was a kid
going to school, but you have in every school and
every high school, you have kids that want to make statements.
They want to make statements about different things. It could
be sports, it could be politics, it could be whatever
it is. It's it's it's inevitable that it's going to happen.
What is What do you think the state of play
is for American high school students their families given that

(01:21:32):
this ruling, Because I really I'm very upset that it
was declined. I think it does open a Pandora's box?
What what do you see?

Speaker 4 (01:21:38):
Do you what? What? What fate do these kids face?

Speaker 6 (01:21:41):
Uh?

Speaker 4 (01:21:42):
By expressing themselves in their opinions.

Speaker 20 (01:21:45):
Well, so to the extent other schools or courts follow
this rule, it does put them in a bad position.
I want to emphasize that that is not mandatory. It's
not it's not it's not a foregone conclusion that everyone's
going to do this. And one important power that we
all have is members of our communities, is to influence
school officials to protect speech. Even if the constitutional rule

(01:22:06):
that they're subject to they might think they're allowed to
crack down on it, that doesn't mean they will, because
they're also subject to democratic constraints. And I think it's
important to use every avenue that we have to protect speech.
But I do think that this you to the extent
this ruling is followed in the meantime until the Supreme
Court intervenes and explains why it's wrong, it certainly does
put students in a bad position. And it does, unfortunately

(01:22:28):
permit administrators to pick and choose which speech they don't like,
and we should all understand, regardless of where you're coming from,
that undermines one of the important functions of public schools,
which is to serve as what we call nurseries of democracy,
or to prepare citizens who are fit to live in
a world where not everybody agrees right. What we want
is for people to be able to be exposed to

(01:22:49):
different ideas and to live peaceably alongside with others who
do reject even the most important things that they think
are true. That's an important skill for citizens, and public
schools should be preparing people to live in a world
that is built around those principles, especially in our country.
But under this rule it undermines that important purpose.

Speaker 2 (01:23:09):
What I heard you say is that we should embrace
a diversity of thought, and we should raise kids to
be able to accept that, handle it, and be able
to think through a diversity of thought, especially in our schools.

Speaker 1 (01:23:20):
Absolutely as part of our list. By Friday seven, mens
a conversation Greg had with Logan Spina. He is a
legal counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, talking about the
Sterncoreing Court's refusal to hear this case involving a T shirt.
Pretty amazing freedom of speech, all right, More coming up
on the Rotting Greg Show. The President is determined. I
think there are a lot of people out there, Greg

(01:23:41):
who want to see funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,
which provides money to PBS and NPR cut and I
know you talked about it earlier this week.

Speaker 4 (01:23:51):
I sure did.

Speaker 2 (01:23:52):
The lawsuit is that it's almost laughable because it talks
about the First Amendment rights and freedom of speech. So
in talking to Tom de Lorenzo, I just asked him, Tom,
I thought freedom of speech was free. I guess not
so read this lawsuit, I guess freedom of speech is
taxpayer funded.

Speaker 11 (01:24:11):
What say you, Well, that's exactly right. I'm the president
of the nonprofit organization the MESA Institute, an economic research organization,
and we speak very freely. We criticize the government all
the time on our website and our publications, and we
have never received one penny of government money, taxpayer money.

(01:24:31):
Where did this idea come from that you need to
be subsidized by the taxpayers in order to have a
free speech. And you know, they're saying that it's unconstitutional
for President Trump to do this, But what's unconstitutional is
the existence of public radio and public TV because they're
not in the delegated powers of the US Constitution in

(01:24:52):
Article one, Section eight. They're just not. And so the
existence of these things is just unconstitutional. But what they
are consistent with is the sixth plank of a communist manifesto,
which says, this specialization of the means of communication in
the hands of the state and public radio and public

(01:25:13):
TV moves us a great deal in that direction of
a monopolization of communication in the hands of the state.

Speaker 3 (01:25:23):
You know.

Speaker 2 (01:25:24):
And what's puzzling is that you would think, at least
if they thought they were entitled, they thought they were
a non discretionary fund. Apparently you're not allowed to touch
them because they're like they think of themselves like social
Security or whatever it is, because you're not how dare
you even think of cutting their budget? But you'd think
at least they'd be calling balls and strikes, trying to
play it pretty fair. They don't. In my opinion, they
are firmly left of center. They discounted and helped censor

(01:25:46):
the Biden the Hunter Biden story, and October of twenty twenty,
they've been.

Speaker 4 (01:25:53):
Their chorus.

Speaker 2 (01:25:53):
Their voice has only been left of center, attacking a
good portion of the duly elected members of you know
of in Washington, but also of the country. Tell me,
how does it How does a broadcast corporation like this
who demands that the federal government fund them feel that
they can be so left of center at the same time.

Speaker 11 (01:26:14):
Yeah, well, it's been true since their creation in nineteen
sixty seven. And the absurd thing about it all is,
you know, it's a different world today, isn't it. In
nineteen sixty seven there were three television stations, but now
there are hundreds, you know, of streaming you know, programs
and networks and everything like that and the Internet, and
so there's certainly from a technological viewpoint, there's no need

(01:26:38):
at all for them at all. They've always been a
government propaganda outfit, and you know, in defense of everything
the government wants to do. In fact, that's harmful to
free speech, you know, you know, those of us who
criticize the government, it's an uneven even you know, ballgame.

(01:26:59):
There's stuff, and we're not in the South American, you know.
Thomas Jefferson famously once said that to compel a man
to contribute to a cause for which he disagrees is
sinful and tyrannical. And that's exactly what this is. Compelling
people taxpayers to pay for something ideas with which they disagree,

(01:27:21):
and that's that was a hallmark of purity. In Jefferson's opinion,
and I think he was right about that.

Speaker 2 (01:27:27):
You know, I think this has a relationship to the
book that was just released Original Sin Jake Tapper, the
other gentleman that wrote it with him from Axios. They
really explain in this book something that it's just a
clear principle amongst the journalists, and that was if any
reporting of the of President Joe Biden or his administration
would be seen as helping Republicans, but specifically even helping Trump,

(01:27:50):
they couldn't. They wouldn't report it. They would not they
wouldn't further it. It was it was a politic bureau,
as some have called it. So what's scary is you
have people in government, but then you have reporters, so
called journalists, who have skin in the game. They are
not willing to tell the truth. They are not willing
to expose government lies without regard to political party. Doesn't

(01:28:14):
that book it's released, they're kind of confessional of how
that worked during the Biden administration. Doesn't that make the
case that NPR and PBS should absolutely stop being funded,
especially with the free market alternatives that you've described.

Speaker 11 (01:28:28):
Yeah, what they do is so valuable, as they say,
they should have no trouble attracting investors in an audience
to what they do, just like anybody else, I'm sure.
And it's not just a Biden administration, as all administrations
since nineteen sixty seven, all Democrat administrations anyway, that they're
basically you know, I think about twenty or twenty five

(01:28:49):
years ago, all the big journalism schools announced that what
they're going to start teaching now is what they call
advocacy journalism, which basically meant advocating what whatever was the
agenda of the Democrat Party rather than straightforward journalism. And
so they've probably announced that they were going to just
abolish journalism as it used to be known and become

(01:29:11):
advocates basically for the Washington establishment. And there you go.
That's where you have it today, with the exception, of course,
of a lot of talk radio and Fox News in
some podcasts.

Speaker 2 (01:29:25):
You know, here's my final question. I always believe, I'm
a recovering public servant myself, that the danger of accepting
federal funds is that you have to play by their
rules and do what they say if you want those funds.
Here you have a president who's looking to cut public radio,
public PBS NPR and being told or at least judge

(01:29:45):
shopping to try and stop him from being able to
do it, which apparently means he's not able to make
the rules or do what other presidents have done the past.
What is the future of this lawsuit? Where do you
see this going? You have a lot of institutional memory,
a lot of institutional knowledge. Tell me where this lawsuit goes.
Does it go into the round file and the garbage
or or does this actually get legs.

Speaker 11 (01:30:05):
Yeah, well, even the Supreme Court seems more and more
inclined to just defend whatever the Washington establishment wants for
whatever reasons. But what President Trump is doing is what
the American presidents used to do in the nineteenth century,
when it was understood that it wasn't just the Supreme
Court that had a say on what's constitutional, that the

(01:30:29):
president had an equal say, the Congress has a say,
and the people of the states that were thought to
have an equal stay on constitutional interpretation. Because there's nothing
in the constitution that creates a monopoly of five government
lawyers of lifetime tenure to tell us what our freedoms
are to be. That's just something power grab by the
court and over the decades, and so President Trump is

(01:30:52):
doing what presidents used to do and saying my interpretation
of the Constitution is different. And so thank you for
your opinion in PR.

Speaker 1 (01:31:01):
And I think he's right on our newsmaker line. Tom
de Lorenzo, president of the Mesas Institute, talking about the
NPR suit over Donald Trump and the cutting of funding.
All right, Greg, that does it for us this week.
We'll be back next week. Enjoy your time in San Diego,
save travels when you return to Utah.

Speaker 4 (01:31:18):
So tell all our listeners are you going to be
Are you still gonna be very white?

Speaker 2 (01:31:21):
Are well this silky smooth, deep baritone voice.

Speaker 1 (01:31:26):
Or I'll be back to normal on Monday, I promise you.
All right, as we say thank you, as we say
each and every night, head up, shoulders back. May God
bless you and your family this great country of our.
Enjoy the weekend, Stay cool, everybody, Greg, and I'll be
back on Monday. Have a good weekend.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

24/7 News: The Latest

True Crime Tonight

Dateline NBC

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Rod and Greg Show: San Francisco's Scrapped Pilot Equity Grading; How the Media Hid Biden's Issues

Episode Transcript

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

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}24/7 News: The Latest

True Crime Tonight

Dateline NBC

All Episodes