The Rod and Greg Show: Senator Mike Lee: Ensuring Solid Lives for Utah Men and Boys

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I think this is an ongoing issue. This poor, poor
young lady that was was just brutally murdered on that
light rail train in Charlotte, North Carolina, and the subsequent
narratives and discussion that have come from this have been.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
Pretty amazing grotesque. I would call they have been. Now
before we do that, will you remind me not to
give up on the NFL?

Speaker 1 (00:23):
Yes, you did again. Didn't you to sleep.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
For the second straight night? You know Sunday? I mean,
who was it?

Speaker 3 (00:29):
The rain?

Speaker 2 (00:31):
They were going to beat the Bills, right, it looked
like the Bills. Wake up Monday morning and realized the
Bills came back. And last night in the Viking Chicago game,
Chicago's up seventeen to six. Minnesota is doing absolutely nothing
on offense. I turn it off, say it's not even
worth watching. Wake up this morning, find out you did again?

Speaker 1 (00:50):
Now that one.

Speaker 2 (00:51):
I gotta stop this.

Speaker 1 (00:52):
Vikings snuck up on the Vikings stuck up on the
Bears a little, a little bit stranger than I always
thought the Bills were in that game, even though the
score didn't show it, they were still playing well. I
didn't think I had. The Vikings looked they didn't even
have a third down conversion. In the third quarter, they
still hadn't converted a first down. So I just thought,
you know what, there's no chance. So I stopped watching

(01:13):
for a while, but I came back to it. I
came back and I saw another score from the Vikings,
but I that one. I don't blame you as much
as I did the Bills. Boy, you missed it. Yeah,
that one was a good game too, the one last night.
But the NFL looks like it's going to have an
exciting season.

Speaker 2 (01:27):
Two straight cutbacks. Pretty amazing, pretty amazing. All right, As
Greg just mentioned, a busy show today, Utah sender Mike
Lee will be joining us. We'll talk about a new
task for us, seeking to boost the well being of
men and boys in this country. We'll get into that.
We'll also talk about how prayer works, and it does
according to science, and we'll get into that as well.

(01:48):
So we've got a lot to get to today, but
let's start off. Greg. I am right now on my
monitor in front of me. I'm staring at the picture
of the young Ukrainian girl who was stabbed to death
on a train two weeks ago in Charlotte, North Carolina right,
and it is a freeze frame of her in a
fetal position, looking up at her attacker and wondering, what

(02:12):
have you done to me? At that point, not realizing
yet this something has happened, but the extent of the
injury she is about to or she has received, is
going to take her life. And what a frightening picture.
This is what a sad, sad picture.

Speaker 1 (02:27):
It just gets more heart wrenching. I mean everything. I
had avoided the video, not knowing how much of that
assault they were going to show, and I've never seen it,
but I because I guess they didn't show it before.
But they're now showing more aftermath and right after he
had done it. You're seeing it for her to be
completely aware that she had been stabbed, and that she's

(02:48):
holding her neck in her face and there's the people
around her doing nothing, and you see that, you see
the absolute terror in her eyes. I'll tell you what,
it's hard. I can't look at that very long, and
I can't think about it long because it is It
would be every father's living nightmare. Doesn't even put words
to what you what we're seeing here with this poor
young lady and what happened there, and I am. I

(03:11):
will tell you I'd been in DC when the Antifa
people are runn around at night and they do run
up and I've seen people come into the hilt the
Hyatt Grand Lobby having been stabbed. I've been in DC
during the inaugurations and things where this has happened. And
and I will tell you that when someone runs into
you and they they're puncturing you and they keep running,

(03:33):
you're being hit, you don't know. You don't know at first,
and the anyway, you don't know at first. And then
but you can see as she sits there and she's
just trying to hold her neck in her and she's
got her hand over her face. She's horrified. I don't
it's fair enough that the that the passengers around her
didn't understand it first, but at some point and I'm
watching that video and I'm never seeing those people around

(03:55):
her doing responding to that emergency in any real way.
And it's just I just it. It's hard. I went,
it's really tough. And what makes me Madam, we'll get
in layer, is that the media, the regime media, they've
made this about Trump somehow, They've made this about racism,
or about how dare you politicize this? Just report it?

(04:15):
But they can't repeat it. They're saying, they're saying that
this is being used. They want to talk about the
video that we all got to see that is actually
fomenting some fear that doesn't.

Speaker 2 (04:25):
Want driving the maga narrative about crime out of control
in this country. That's what they're accusing, those of us
who were talking about this. But you sit there, Gray,
you watch this video. She doesn't know what has happened
to her, She really doesn't. And you mentioned you and
it's not a big knife. What is a pocket knife?
I think that he used on this girl, but a

(04:46):
pocket knife, and she doesn't quite realize what is going on.
And she looks at him up in fear, saying what
have you done to me? And then he just leaves
the thing that got me There was another picture of
a guy with a cell phone and he's taking pictures
of her. Well, she is dying and you can see
a stream of blood coming down the floor of the

(05:09):
transit car. And he can't even bother to walk over
and ask her what's going on. He's taking pictures of
her dying. What has become of society that we can't
reach out and help people.

Speaker 1 (05:21):
And look, here's you know, there's a lot of journalists
there are now outside of the regime media that used
to be they used to be peers with these reporters
from the New York Times and everywhere else. But these
reporters are not right of center. They're not they're not
maybe libertarian, I don't know what they are, but they're not.
You would not call these republican or conservative reports like this.

(05:42):
Alex Berenson, Okay, he very critical of the Bush administration
during the Iraq War. I mean, this guy's just been
he's kind of stayed in his lane in terms of
a cynical member of the media that looks at all stories.
He is posting that he cannot believe that the New
York Times is framing this story with this young lady
the way they are. He's posting that that this is

(06:04):
going to this is only going to get worse for
for the regime media. They're they're going to lose every
audience except for the most extreme lunatics, and and and
we're going to see worse from them. They're going to
respond even worse. So for this this journalist who's no
friend of Republicans, but he's just really sick of the
regime media as well. He has nothing but condemnation for

(06:27):
the way that this is being reported on CNN, New
York Times, you name it, they have. They went from
ignoring it to somehow laying this at the feet of
MAGA and President Trump, which is hard, hard to comprehend.

Speaker 2 (06:40):
Well, speaking of President Trump, he made a brief statement
about this yesterday, but then issued a statement from the
White House the Oval Office today talking about this. Here's
a portion of what he said.

Speaker 4 (06:49):
Far too long, Americans have been forced to put up
with Democrat run cities and set loose savage, blood thirsty
criminals to pray on innocent people, really very very innocent people.
In every place. They control radical left judges, politicians, and activists,
and they've adopted a policy of catch and release for

(07:10):
thugs and killers. In Charlotte, North Carolina, we saw the
results of these policies when a twenty three year old
woman who came here from Ukraine met her bloody end
on a public train. She was slaughtered by a deranged
monster who was roaming free after fourteen prior arrests. We

(07:31):
cannot allow it to prave criminal element of violent repeat
offenders to continue spreading destruction and death throughout our country.
We have to respond with force and strength. We have
to be vicious, just like they are.

Speaker 2 (07:46):
It's the only thing they understand. I think it is
the only thing they understand, Greg. And then, of course,
as you mentioned a moment ago, the whole issue of
racism comes up right Well, here's Van Jones on CNN
last night talking about something that Charlie Kirk said about
this stabbing, this horrible event. Here's what Jones said, we
don't know why that man did what he did.

Speaker 3 (08:06):
And for Charlie Kirk to say we know he did
it because she's white, when there's no evidence of that,
it's just pure race mongering, hate mongering.

Speaker 2 (08:15):
Maybe maybe Van Jones needs to check his facts, because
we've both been looking at the video, the new video
that we've seen, and this guy is wandering in the car,
he's looking for a way to get out, and he
says you can hear him. You have to listen very carefully.
But what I heard, and I think you heard it
as well, Greg, is him saying I got that white girl.
He I got that white girl.

Speaker 1 (08:35):
Said it more than once.

Speaker 2 (08:36):
Yeah, he said it about three times, wandering mumbling whatever
he was doing. But for Van Jones to say, well,
for Charlie Kirk, who, by the way, will be here
in a couple of days, to say this is racist,
it is. I mean for a guy to walk around
says I got that white girl, that's pretty racist to me.

Speaker 1 (08:52):
Well, and the irony being Van Jones of all people
talking about race baiting and whatever he's calling it fear mongering.
That's that's been there. That's been the state of play
for Van Jones and every other person in terms of rape.
They have so divided this country. Identity politics is all
they know. That is all they've talked about. And I
would argue, I think this man is I don't think

(09:12):
you can commit an act like this and not have
something absolutely wrong with you. And I don't argue that
this guy is completely saying what would motivate him. But
I will tell you this, their talk about race and
their time, and when he says that white girl, you
think that the words of Van Jones and the regime
media and everyone that the left, all these leftists and
elitists that have been trying to divide this country through

(09:34):
identity politics hasn't seeped into that guy's brain. It has?

Speaker 2 (09:38):
That sure has that's for sure?

Speaker 1 (09:39):
Or is that white people?

Speaker 2 (09:40):
We have got a lot to get to today. Utah
sender Mike Lee will be joining us next. We have
not had a chance to talk with Utah sender Mike Lee,
but he's joining us now on our newsmaker line to
talk about what's going on in Washington. Sender Lee, thanks
for joining us this afternoon. Senate Republicans are reportedly prepared
to go nuclear when it comes to Trump nominees. Exactly
what does that means?

Speaker 5 (10:00):
Underly, so, there's a little background. For decades, both parties
in the Senate have creed that a president ought to
be able to assemble his team quickly. That's more or
less been the Senate's practice for a long time, or
at least the mindset. Most nominees, especially the sort of
less controversial ones, have historically been cleared either by voice

(10:23):
vote or unanimous consent. Voice vote is a procedure where
there's no role call.

Speaker 3 (10:27):
They just everybody.

Speaker 5 (10:29):
Most of the people in the room usually vote yes,
and then anybody both know is usually outvoted, and it's
a quick way of getting him confirmed. But a roll
call vote takes a lot more time, and so that's
why most nominees have historically been cleared either by unanimous
consent or by voice vote. And that's a tradition that
allowed administrations of both parties to function and to get

(10:50):
their teams staffed. Democrats have more or less shattered that precedent,
particularly with this Trump administration. Not a single Trump nominee
in this Congress has been allowed to move by unanimous consent,
and every one is being dragged through it a needless
series of we'll call votes. This has never happened like this.

(11:12):
It is truly unprecedented obstruction just for the sake of obstruction.
The result is hundreds of desks sitting empty across the
federal government. It also consumes Senate four toime that could
be used, and the past was used to move other
other matters, including appropriations bills, reauthorization bills, to debate partisan

(11:35):
measures that have cleared the committee. So I don't love
changing the Senate rules. I value the traditions of the body,
but the Democrats' behavior here has made it impossible to
operate under the old norms. So it's not about one
party or one president. It's about whether the Senate can function,
and no president Democrat will Republican now are in the past,

(11:58):
should face this kind of blanket blockade. So yeah, we've
we've got some reforms that we're considering that are modeled
after a bipartisan proposal once put forward by Democratic senators
like Amy Klobashaw and.

Speaker 6 (12:10):
And his King.

Speaker 5 (12:12):
The goal is very simple, is to restore the Senate
back to what it used to be, which is a
place where you routine run of the mill historically, non
controversial nominees will approved quickly so the government could work
for the American people. It's just a shame that it's
come to this, but the Senate needs to be able
to function, and for that to happen, we can't allow
the total obstruction to become the new standard.

Speaker 1 (12:35):
So senatl let me vouch for you with our listeners.
I sat, I mean, this is just a unique experience.
But I sat in the beast, I sat in the
President's limo with you and President Trump, and I listened
to you defend the filibuster with President Trump. This isn't
during the first term, and so I know you are
you are a respector of the rules in the in
the Senate, and you defend them vigorously. What about the

(12:56):
blue slips? I heard that, you know, part of the
decorum of the Senate is that there is there needs
to be some and I think Hatch and you might
probably did this when there was a Democrat president. There
was some kind of effort to make sure there was
some buy in from the senators if they were Republican
or a Democrat with the nominees for say, US Attorney
or things like that. It sounds like that that system,
that process, which was deference and trying to work together,

(13:18):
has been completely abused as well. Is there any is
there any Senate rules you're considering that would not require
the Democrat senator to approve through a blue slip or
however you do it a nominee going forward? Is that
something that you're looking at changing.

Speaker 5 (13:34):
A short answer is not at the moment, because remember,
the blue slip is a tradition.

Speaker 7 (13:39):
It is not a rule.

Speaker 5 (13:41):
It's not put on a seated by the Constitution, biting
law or any formal rule. It is rather a tradition
for your listeners. The blue slip that he's referring to
for certain nominees like US attorneys, US district judges, US
marshalls require the approval of both statesors before they can
be nominated. Now, you alluded greg to the fact that

(14:05):
this has in the past been actually a way that
has led to bipartisan cooperation between Let's say, if you've
got a Republican president and Democratic home state senators or
the other way around, there are accommodations that can be
reached that way. In other words, we've got a nominee
who needs to clear a blue slip issue, or it's

(14:26):
a Utah nominee and there's a Democratic president. I start
the process with the understanding that the same people who
I might recommend to the White House for those positions
in a Republican administration, it might not be entirely the
same universe of people I would recommend in a democratic administration.
There's some people based on their background a Democratic president

(14:48):
might look at and say, this is as all the
hallmark characteristics of a Republican nominee, and so you work
around that. Rather than it was never meant to be
a tool of unfettered obstruction or a rule of an
absolute categorical veto on the part of the individual senators
I've always operated with the understanding, first during President Obama

(15:11):
and then during President Biden's present Biden's administration, that I
had to work with them and that if I abused
the blue slip privilege that I could get rolled. And
so I think with the blue slip we're more likely
to see that kind of understanding unfold, which is that
if there are people who are being abusive of it
and being unreasonable and what they expect the president to

(15:32):
be willing to nominate and accept, that the privilege won't
necessarily be hodered.

Speaker 2 (15:39):
Sender, you have been outspoken along with Greg and I
and many others here in this state talking about this
judicial takeover of our redistricting plan. Would you share your
thoughts on that and what you see happening and what
may in fact happen here.

Speaker 5 (15:53):
Yeah, So here's what happened there. You know, a few
years ago, there was a ballot initiatives that to the
enactment of a law dealing with congressional redistricting, putting that
in the hands of a commission. Within a few years,
that Utah legislature exercised its prerogative under the Utah Constitution

(16:18):
to amend that law and to make significant changes to it.

Speaker 3 (16:23):
Now.

Speaker 5 (16:23):
The lawmaking authority of the Utah legislature under the Utah
Constitution is Planarya and it travels on a parallel track
to that of a ballot initiative, Meaning you can create
a law either through the legislature or through a ballot initiative,
but once it's created through the latter mechanism, the legislature
has the authority to amend or even repeal that law.

(16:45):
The Utah courts have tried to invade that concept, tried
to undermine it, and tried to come up with a
solution in which Democrats, quite frankly, would would prosper. So
it's under an attack by democrats and democrats leftist allies
who are in the Utah courts. I believe that it's

(17:09):
wildly inappropriate for the Course to step in and to say, no,
you've you've got to treat proposition for this ballot initiative
the past, I think about seven years ago. You've got
to treat that as if it were still in effect
and unamended, unchanged by the legislature. In other words, the

(17:30):
court orders here are essentially treating this ballot initiative from
seven years ago as if it were protected to the
degree of a provision of our state constitution, and it's not.
It's just a statute, a statute that is open to
repeal an amendment. So this is wildly inappropriate. And make
no mistake what this is. This is a judicial takeover

(17:53):
of the constitutional process by which legislative district boundaries are
supposed to be drawn here in the context of congressional districts,
and this is wrong. It's wildly inappropriate. The way that
judge style the order of the original order purported to
issue an adjunction commanding them to convene and adopt a

(18:15):
new map. And that is not how it works. There
is such thing as separation of powers under the state
constitution as they raise under the federal And this is
designed by people who just want Democrats to win more elections. Correct,
they're not winning as many elections as they'd like. Why, Well,
because most Utahans appropriately reject what they're selling.

Speaker 2 (18:34):
Utah Cender Mike Lee joining us on our Newsmaker line
here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine knrs.
All right, welcome back to the show. Well, what you know,
there has been concern for quite some time Greg about
men and boys in this country. A lot of them
are struggling, you know, dealing with loneliness, test scores, do
you name it, finding jobs and stuff like that. And

(18:56):
here in the state of Utah, new commission has been
set up to take a look look at how they
can help struggling men and boys. You're smiling over there
as if you didn't need help.

Speaker 7 (19:06):
I did.

Speaker 1 (19:07):
I didn't help. I had a lot of help. I
continue to need help. Yeah, those formative years, Yeah, there
need to be some real go to people in that
in those years. I promise you it's true.

Speaker 2 (19:16):
Well, let's find out what this is all about. Joining
us on our any hour Newsmaker line is Nick Dunn.
He's a senior fellow, a VP of VP of Strategy
and Communications at the Sutherland Institute. They're involved in this effort. Nick,
how are you welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 3 (19:32):
I'm doing well rodding Greg.

Speaker 6 (19:33):
Great to do with you guys.

Speaker 2 (19:35):
Nick, How big of a task are you looking at?
Do you think?

Speaker 3 (19:39):
Well, it's pretty big because this issue really gets to
a sense of purpose or meaning. And what I mean
by that is usually when we explore topics of well
being or thriving, we look at economic indicators. We look
at work and earnings, we look at educational attainment. We
can look at health statistics in particular mental health rates,

(20:01):
and those are all really important and really valuable. But
more and more, as we've been getting into this issue,
it seems pretty clear that the men who tend to
struggle in these data trends, it kind of goes back
to the sense of feeling a little bit adrift, as
if they're unsure of kind of what their purpose is
in life and their community and in their society. And

(20:21):
in fact, that's the most striking finding to me so far.
Southerland put a national survey in the field to assess
how American men are doing and release some of those
preliminary findings recently. Work about thirty six percent of American
men say they are struggling to understand their place and
their community here in society. And so when we realize

(20:43):
that this is sort of a crisis of meaning for
these guys, that's a big issue.

Speaker 1 (20:48):
Nick. Let me let me just save you the whole thing. Okay,
I'm going to stand I'm going to take your whole
task for us down to just two concepts. I hate
to tell you, I got the secret formula you need
young men. You have boys that are growing up without
moms in the home or without fathers in the home.
They don't know what it means to be a man.
That's why gangs are successful. That's why they're gravitating to
male role models. You try, through your faith, through different things,

(21:11):
to have male role models in their lives examples, and
then you put opportunities to earn success, which feeds you
your self esteem. And you're done here. You don't have
to look any further than that. That is just a
two male role models and earn success, and these kids
are off to the races. Does that so an all right?

Speaker 3 (21:30):
You know, Greg, I think you're not too far off
the way I would classify. In fact, we had Ian
Rowe from American Enterprise Institute on our Defending Ideas podcast
recently essentially making that point that the role of marriage
and the family is really essential to the well being
of young men, in particular as they are growing up
and becoming men. And so the way I would approach

(21:51):
it is that when we look at Utah, and if
you were to ask the kid, what is Utah known for?
What do we do really well at? We have a
really strong economy, so there's a good work assay and
ethic around education and learning. We have really strong families.
We have some of the highest rates of married to
parent households in which kids are raised of any state
in the country. And we have a strong faith community,

(22:12):
lots of participation in faith organizations, actually practicing faith. And
so when we look at those things, and of course
national Happiness Expert Arthur Brooks has coined the idea of
the happiness portfolio, faith, family, community, and work. And then
when we look at these treadlines, we see that it's
not most men, it's a minority, but it's a subset

(22:33):
that's significant enough that these guys who are sort of
silently struggling, I think, are sort of drifting away from
those anchors of family, work, of community, purpose of faith
in some instances. And so I think sort of the
unique Utah solution should be what can we do to
help re anchor these young men to a vocation is

(22:55):
to have good job opportunities. What can we do to
help re anchor them to the institution spe civic institutions,
of family, life, of faith, because I think all those
things together can help address that sort of missing sense
of purpose that some of these guys.

Speaker 2 (23:10):
Are feeling nick Do you hope they'll find out what
is drifting them away or do you already have a
pretty good idea about that.

Speaker 3 (23:18):
I think we're still in the process. So I think
that is a really important question in terms of why
is this happening and what is sort of causing this
rift for these young men who again maybe don't feel
as connected to these major institutions, these pillars of a
thriving life. You might call it an example that in
our survey data so far, and we're going to release

(23:40):
some additional data and reporting on this issue into the
fall and in the coming months. But is that close
to roughly one in six American men don't view their
work as meaningful or purposeful, about fifteen percent don't view
family as a source of purpose, and about twenty four
percent don't view faith as a source of perse So

(24:01):
I think we're still kind of in problem definition mode
for now. But obviously you want to look deeper and
try and understand is there something that's causing that drift
away from these anchors of a thriving life, and if so,
what can we do about it?

Speaker 6 (24:14):
As a state.

Speaker 1 (24:15):
So drift because you've some really interesting statistics about Utah,
because Utah is unique, we have more two parent homes.
You went through the list, but in here so specifically
to Utah. This subset you said of boys or of
men who feel a drift. Is it that they have
faith and family and community and they have those resources

(24:36):
around them, but they don't that they drift away from
them it's a choice or is this subset really people
whose circumstances have not brought some of those the faith,
the family, the community to the forefront as it has
other boys or men. Is it a choice or is
it the environment they're living in?

Speaker 3 (24:55):
Greg, That's an excellent question. I'll give sort of an
annoying researcher answer is that I don't know yet right now.
That's part of what we're doing, is we're we're continuing
to sift through this data to try to understand that.
But I think that is key because it goes to
the question of, well, what kinds of changes do we
need to make to help these guys. A really good
example that I think articulates what you're describing, Greg, is

(25:17):
when we look at mental health specifically, we know that
about eighty percent of suicides are men, the huge majority
that probably doesn't get talked about enough. And in our
survey data, we found that even when a sort of
men the way I would articulate, if men sort of acknowledgy,
I know, if I went to talk to my wife,
or I know I could go talk to a mental
health professional or maybe a spiritual leader in my faith community,

(25:42):
there's still a lot of self stigma that a significant number,
usually around a third of men would view talking to
even their spouse or a mental health professional about mental
health challenges they're dealing with. They would view it as
a sign of weakness. So I think it's probably going
to end up being a little bit of both of
In some instances, these men are, for whatever reason, not

(26:04):
actually connected to these institutions, and we need to help
strengthen those connections. And maybe in other instances, like in
terms of mental health, that might have access to some
of these things but still have a reluctance to engage.
And that's tough but important that we figure out why.

Speaker 2 (26:22):
Nick is always great chatting with you. Good luck with
the commission. I know we'll be talking more about this
down the road.

Speaker 1 (26:26):
Thanks Nick, Thanks so much, guys, thanks a lot.

Speaker 2 (26:30):
All right. Nick Dunn with the Cellolent Institute talking about
a new commission being formed to help struggling men and
boys in Utah. More coming up on the Rod and
Gregg Show. Pork Cracker Barrel, it just can't it doesn't stop.

Speaker 1 (26:45):
I thought they hit their stride. They went back to
the old school way.

Speaker 2 (26:48):
They have now suspended all restaurant remodels after the rebranding disaster. Well,
you know they are changing the logo, changing the inside,
repainting them, redesigning up. That's enough or stopping now?

Speaker 1 (27:01):
Well, yeah, you're going to keep it? So how can
they go and continue to rebrand when they said, we
agree our rebanning branding was dumb?

Speaker 2 (27:08):
Yeah, yep, yeah, they're they're poor, poor Cracker Barrel. What
they lose one hundred million dollars on this something like that?

Speaker 1 (27:16):
What I heard, wo go broke.

Speaker 2 (27:17):
I'm telling you it is years ago. You haven't been
in the industry long enough. You may have known that
there were radio stations around the country when Rush was
still alive and they'd call it Rush Radio.

Speaker 1 (27:29):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (27:29):
Yeah, they named their radio station after Rush. I'm well
aware of one in New Orleans. I think there were
a couple others around the country who called themselves Rush Radio.
Cool right, Yes, well, someone has picked up on that
diet idea. A station in Florida is now calling itself
Trump Country Radio ninety seven point three. Good for them,

(27:51):
and you know what, hasn't got any pushback yet from
the administration.

Speaker 1 (27:55):
Would they have just.

Speaker 2 (27:56):
Calling it Trump Radio?

Speaker 8 (27:58):
No?

Speaker 2 (27:58):
Trump Country Radio?

Speaker 1 (28:01):
Is it a talk show or is it just country music?

Speaker 2 (28:03):
It's country music in Florida, Trump Country. It's a radio station.

Speaker 1 (28:10):
I love it.

Speaker 2 (28:11):
They play the country music and probably have some liners
from the President.

Speaker 1 (28:17):
That's a smart format. We should just make all of.

Speaker 2 (28:19):
Our especially the way, especially the way Florida is going.

Speaker 1 (28:23):
Well Lee Greenwood. Probably every song, I mean, that's that
how it works. Maybe outside every Trump rally.

Speaker 2 (28:28):
Maybe that maybe that's it. But they've got yeah right.
There were several stations around the country. I remember years
ago that turned their format name to Rush Radio because
Rush was the star attraction on the station, and they
became Rush Radio.

Speaker 1 (28:41):
I like that. I miss Rush, Yeah, I do too.

Speaker 2 (28:44):
All right more coming up hour number two of the
rout Our Cat Show, along with Greg Hughes, we'll talk
about a decision made by the Murray City Councils when
it comes to working with ice. That's coming up. We
started off the show about an hour ago. Greg, Well,
it wasn't now orgo. As a matter of fact, I
do know how to tell time, showing the picture of

(29:05):
this young woman who was stabbed to death in Charlotte,
North Carolina, gathered up in a fetal position, really not
knowing what had happened to her. And we've been very
critical of people who are on that trainsit train not
doing anything about it.

Speaker 9 (29:19):
Right.

Speaker 2 (29:19):
Matter of fact, I showed you a picture during one
of the breaks of the guys standing there with a
cell phone taking pictures. Blood was all over the place,
still not offering help. Now we have another picture as
they continue to analyze the video, and there was a
young man or a man and say in his early twenties,
stepping up trying to help her. Now you don't see

(29:40):
much of it, you don't see that it's just a
still frame, but you can see someone is trying to
help her and there is a large amount of blood
as you would expect, and she's down between the seat
and he's trying to do whatever he can to help
her out. So we've been critical of a lot of
people saying you aren't doing anything. Well, apparently this man
decided to try and something about it and save your life.

Speaker 1 (30:02):
Yeah, it's it's it's it's a disturbing topic to go
into and images are horrific. But I think why, I
think why it's powerful and why we need to talk
about it is you. They people can spin anything they want,
and they can word salad whatever they want. Your eyes
don't lie to you. It's one of the senses you're
given for a reason. And when you watch that video,

(30:23):
you know all you need to know about how insane
When you see that guy's record and how many mugshots
he's had, and how many judges have let that guy go,
and then you see that animal and what he does
to that poor, poor young lady. What else do you
need to talk about? And to see the regime media
try to excuse us away or say, oh, look how
the Trump Trump and the MAGA people are trying to

(30:45):
make a big deal of this. Yeah, we're not making
a big deal. We're horrified, we're shocked, we're disgusted, and
we're also looking the fact that you're not sharing an
out of any of it. When you take on issues
where people have been harmed or maimed or killed, you
do it all the time, but you do it under
the banner of identity politics. You never do it about
the core issue of lawlessness and murderous criminals that are

(31:06):
let out by judges. You never talk about that. Yeah,
because they created that.

Speaker 2 (31:09):
You know. So there were two questions that were raised today,
Greg that I found very interesting. First question, do white
lives matter? We've heard do black lives matter? Black lives
matter whole movement following George Floyd. But someone who raise
a question today do white lives matter? If a white
person is killed, does that life matter? Interesting point? The
other one that came up, and you and I talked

(31:31):
about this briefly yesterday. We got some comments on this.
How do we hold judges accountable or should judges face
consequences in a scenario like we have here, because like
you said, this guy was in and out of jail
fourteen times? Was there not a judge in the system
was saying, you know, maybe we should let them out.

Speaker 1 (31:53):
I heard the observation today and I think this analogy,
this analogy is relevant. If you're a bartender and you
overserve a patron and that patron gets in the car,
they're drunk. The bartenders serve them clearly drunk, and they
serve them, overserve them, and they were to reckon to
someone or harm someone. Many states, and I think Utah
would hold the bartender and the establishment libel for what happened.

Speaker 2 (32:17):
Because insurance from one.

Speaker 1 (32:19):
Yes. And so if there's a liability for overserving a patron,
what is the accountability for having a person as is
clearly dangerous and is wrongfully being let go? What is
the accountability for such a terrible and horrific decision like that?
Shouldn't there be? I mean, I don't understand how there

(32:40):
Isn't there has to be. You cannot hold bartenders more
accountable than judges, or me, hold me or anyone else.
I mean, we're all kind of There's an accountability for
bad behavior, bad decisions. This is an example. This is
exhibit a on one of the worst decisions. We see
catch and release of violent criminals all the time based
on all they don't enough money. It's a cashless bail.

(33:02):
Promise to appear, put your name down and promise you'll
do it. You know, they they've wiped out the bail
bond industry in this country, and that was a free
market solution to guarantee appearance. You know, if you were
to let someone out and then what ended up having
is those bonds. Usually grandma or mom had to or
dad had to help pay for that or back that bond,
and that meant that you had family support to make

(33:22):
sure your tail was in that for that appearance.

Speaker 2 (33:25):
It's all gone. Well, we had all gone. We had
two talkback listeners. Remember yesterday Greg, One man told us
about his car was stolen, and he come to find
out the guy who was arrested for stealing his car
had stolen eighteen other cars, yes, prior to that, and
nothing was being done. Then the other case where a
man's wife was was t boned in his intersection. You

(33:45):
don't have the guy got I think he said, forty
hours of community service.

Speaker 1 (33:48):
Yep, he had. Didn't you have to pay him back?
He had no insurance. He destroyed that car. The man's
wife was fortunately not a great car.

Speaker 2 (33:56):
Yeah, she was in a solid but that.

Speaker 1 (33:57):
Car is destroyed. The man has no insurance. He's not
even required to pay back what he did. Yeah, I mean,
there's just I'm I am just I've had it with
how how we've all made criminals into victims. When I
say we, I'm talking to the liberal left, the leftists,
the elitists, and the regime media. And it's not a

(34:19):
sustainable The trajectory is wrong, and we have to if
we're we're in a phase right now or a time
of common sense carrying the day, which I believe we are,
or our best shot at it, this has to be
part of the discussion of how we get rid of this.
You can commit crimes, you can get let go, catch
and release, it doesn't matter you're we feel sorry for you,
your your income so low, you get to go out,

(34:40):
you have to leave jail, whether you're a threat to
society or not. It just there just has to be
something change.

Speaker 2 (34:47):
You know, we're going to talk about something different, but
I think we should pick up on this a little
bit more and have a more of a conversation with
our audience. Because the only way greg in our current
system to hold a judge accountable for the rulings that
may have made is the vote that you have what
every six years, every ten year to retain a judge. YEP,
that's the only way the public has an opportunity to

(35:09):
say you're wrong here, judge, we don't like your track record,
so we're getting ready you. It happens rarely, yeah, I
mean rarely in this yes. And is there a better
way or is there a danger in holding our judges
more accountable to face the consequences of their rulings.

Speaker 1 (35:28):
Well, simply put, if there's something wrong, because federal judges
don't go through retention elections, so maybe you want to
go that route and just appointed for life. But if
we have and we do a retention election, the state
of Utah has pulled the public into its process of
retaining our judges. If you have that and we do
it is disrespectful to the public and the voters that

(35:49):
are you're asking for them to vote yes or no,
to not give them any information whatsoever. And they have
a conduct commission that's made up of attorneys that have
to appear before these judges. I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about transparency. I want the neighbors of judges
to know, or there to be a clear way to
find out how judges make decisions on a regular basis,

(36:13):
because I believe if there was that high scrutiny, you
would see some of this nonsense and some of the
stuff that you wouldn't see it happen. Yeah, it's a
mind hive that they all work with each other and
they have somehow made criminals into victims. You got to
get outside of the wasatch front to get a judge.
It's going to really be tough on a criminal, really
you do. You have to go down to the into
the Royal Utah. You get into this wasatch front, and

(36:36):
every one of these judges just want to throw their
arms around these criminals and they just want to love
them to death. And I'm telling you, if that's you
what you want to be great, But we should know
when we see a name every six years to decide
whether we're going to retain the judge or not, we
should know what that looks like. And I think there's
ways to do it. And I think that that You've
got a website l et Utah dot gov that's for

(36:58):
you can look up every bill that's ever been run,
and you can see in committee and on the floor,
and you can hear the archived committee hearing and the
floor video of how lawmakers vote. And it's quick. Once
you know how to do it, you can do it fast,
and that's judges should have some some way transparent.

Speaker 2 (37:14):
Years ago, Greg, I don't know if you recall this movie.
There was a movie called The Star Chamber. Yeah, and
I think the premise of the movie was that a
group of judges got together and determined how the law
was going to be enforced and what kind of rulings
would be made and they all and I think that
was the premise. I may be off. It's been a

(37:34):
long long time since that movie's been out and I've
seen it, but I worry some days, Greg, these judges,
many of them are coming out of very liberal law schools,
would you agree, Very liberal, very liberal law schools, and
they all kind of think alike.

Speaker 1 (37:49):
Yeah, it's a mind It's like I said, it's a mindset.

Speaker 2 (37:52):
Mind hive, mind hive. And are we getting true justice?
And that's why someone raise a question today, what is
a way that we could hold judges accountable for the
consequences of their decisions or is that something we shouldn't
even touch? Are we going in a direction that this
country does well?

Speaker 1 (38:10):
Here's the argument I've heard for no transparency and no accountability.
It is you need a judiciary that's independent, whether it
is not subject to the whims of the people or
momentum or social movement, that they are a staid, independent,
you know, very just a body, a branch of government

(38:34):
that is just not going to be swayed by the
politics of the day. And they can make these decisions
without consequence because then they're free to make they're not
getting pressured into it. That all sounds great until you
get to twenty twenty five and all these criminals are
getting let out and they're attacking the people and the
victims are not. Actually, they don't give a wit about victims,
and they actually think that criminals are victims. Once we've

(38:57):
gotten into that lunacy there is that isn't an independent thought,
that that is something they learned from my law school.

Speaker 2 (39:03):
All right, we need to break but we want to
hear from you on these judges. Should judges face the
consequences of the decisions that they make. We're bringing this
up because of what happened in Charlotte, where we had
an individual who was in and out of jail charged
with fourteen felonies. Why is he walking the streets and
should the judge in this be held accountable? Eight eight

(39:26):
eight five seven eight zero one zero triple eight five
seven eight zero one zero, or on your cell phone
dial Pound two fifteen say hey Rod, or leave us
a comment on our talk back line. We'll get to
your calls and comments coming up. Where a twenty three
year old woman from Ukraine only been here a couple
of years stabbed to death on a transit train by
a man who's been in and out of jail fourteen times,

(39:48):
and people are saying, well, what about the judges? Should
judges face consequences? And we're getting your thoughts on that
eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero cell
phone dial Pound two fifteen s say hey Rod, or
on a talk back line. Just download the iHeartRadio app
and you can find Canterest and leave a comment there
as well.

Speaker 1 (40:07):
That's right. So let's we've asked you for our listeners
to call in and give us their take. Let's go
to the phones. Let's go to Bobby who's been waiting
in Harriman. Bobby, welcome to the riding, Greg show.

Speaker 7 (40:18):
Hie.

Speaker 10 (40:20):
Not only should the judges be held responsible, but of
his fourteen charges, how many did the DA pry prosecute E?
Why isn't the DA being held responsible and for these
states that have bell reform, why can't the state be
held responsible overall for when something.

Speaker 6 (40:37):
Like this happens.

Speaker 1 (40:39):
It's good you look, these das are just as liberal
as these judges. They really go to the same schools
because they say, I don't know what they're doing, but
they're drinking out of the same they're drinking the same water.
I'll tell you that. And yeah, it's a good point.
And I will tell you that Utah doesn't. We have
misdemeanors where there can be some bail that the sheriffs
can set at the jail. They can be the they
can set a bail. But on fellon they we do.

(41:01):
We Sadly this passed in nineteen when I was gone
twenty eighteen. I was my last session twenty nineteen. This
cash is bail, catch and release. There's been attempts to
try and change that, reform it. It's just been a
disaster ever since we let this state lets people go
that we just used to not let go, or there'd
be a bail schedule and there had to be a
lot of skin in the game if you were going
to let them go, which also inherently meant there was

(41:23):
a lot of supervision and participation. If someone did make bail,
that's all gone.

Speaker 2 (41:28):
Yeah, so sadly, Jim is an orum tonight here on
the Roden Greg Show, Jim, go ahead. Thanks for your comment.

Speaker 5 (41:37):
We need to find some way to hold them all accountable.

Speaker 3 (41:39):
I'm going through a similar situation. Nobody's being held accountable
for what's being done here.

Speaker 11 (41:47):
Fighting.

Speaker 1 (41:49):
Yeah, you know, Jim, it is true. I mean, when
we face government as a citizen, we're outgunned and outnumbered
and and and so there has to be some checks
and balances inherent to that process.

Speaker 2 (42:00):
I agree hold people accountable in Cash County or Cash Valley.
We're talking with David tonight here on the Rodden Greg Show. David,
how are you welcome to the show?

Speaker 5 (42:09):
Doing well?

Speaker 12 (42:09):
Thank you for taking my call. Listening to you yesterday
and today. It's funny because I was going to call
and say, yeah, I vote know on all the judges. Also,
if for no other reason, well, if for no other reason,
we have no information to go by. But if no
other reason, at least they might look at the results
and say, hey, there are people voting against me, and

(42:32):
maybe it would keep them on their toes. But it
seems to me that in the Reagan administration we went
through this the three strikes and you're out. Then it
was that a federal law. But if it was three felonies,
you were like in for life. And it seems to
me it was just recently that they started because they
tied the hands of the federal judges to certain criteria.

(42:56):
It seems to me it was not that long ago
that they lightened that up and loosen that up. And
I think Mike Lee was part of that. And it
just seems like this pendulum keeps swinging back and forth.
But we really really need to crack down and hold
people accountable. And and I'm at a loss as to
why there are prosecutors and judges. If I may, I

(43:20):
would like to suggest that people read in the Book
of Mormon and that in third and Ephi chapter six,
what it talks about the corruption of their legal system.

Speaker 2 (43:30):
Yeah it does. It does, David, thank you, Yeah it does.

Speaker 1 (43:33):
He touched on this pendulum. I mean, I don't know
why we can't just chill out. I mean, it's the
one extream or the other, the three strikes, you're out.
It was starting to shape whether they would even be
charged with the fenlony because it would be a third strike,
they'd be life in prison. But the felony was, you know,
maybe a third degree fieny or whatever, so you would
they would they would drop it and it tied to hands.
But okay, so you didn't want to tie a hand.

(43:54):
So what you want to just let everybody out? I mean,
can honestly, can't we get to a system that makes
any kind sense on either side? It's just I to me,
I just don't know how you can. You can have
a rule of law and if you don't have consequences
sentencing that is not without regard to race, color, and creed,
but to the crime that's been committed and what that

(44:14):
sentencing aught to look like the sentencing guidelines. How these
people are getting let loose. This guy was nuts. I
mean the judge we know he's nuts because the judge
asked for a mental evaluation. If he's that bad, why
did you let him run walk around amongst the public?
I mean even the guy's mother said that they came
to him out of the house, that he was out
of his mind, and then the judges lets him out

(44:34):
and go, Okay, we'll hope to see you back, promise
you'll come back. The loon says yeah, the murderous animal
says yes, and then you let him out there to
pray upon people.

Speaker 2 (44:43):
Yeah, pretty amazing. All right, more of your calls and comments.
It is the Roden greg Show right here on Utah's
Talk Radio one oh five nine n RS. If you're
just joining us right now, we're talking about the consequences
judges should face for their decisions, their rulings. You know,
a lot of people are aware of what has happened
in Charlotte. You've got a man who was in and

(45:07):
out of jail fourteen times, charged with fourteen felonies, but
of course he was out on you know, he was
out walking the streets, riding a trendsit train and stabbing
a woman to death. And we're seeing more video of this,
very very disturbing. But we're asking you about judges and
what do we do about judges? Greg, You had someone
right in and really challenge us on our thinking on

(45:29):
this too.

Speaker 4 (45:29):
Well.

Speaker 1 (45:29):
Yeah, so a great listener. His message us that I'm
saying they should be held judges should be held accountable
like lawmakers. And they're saying, well, that's the legislative branch
is this is the judiciary, you know, they the judiciary
makes the laws, and then the judges, you know, rule
based on laws that the judiciary makes. All say is
this I'm not looking to blur the lines of the

(45:51):
judiciary and the legislay branch. I think the judiciary has
just done that. But what I will say is if
we are unlike federal judges which are appointed and do
not go through any action process whatsoever, if we are
going to leave the public with some kind of idea
that there is a retention election, which means that that
they are only going to stay if the public feels
that they should, it is a mockery to that election

(46:12):
cycle to give the public, the voting public, no information whatsoever.
So either do away with it because you don't want
the public's input, or give the public something to provide
informed input. But you can't have it both ways.

Speaker 2 (46:24):
No, you cannot. To the phones, we go, Let's talk
with Jerome in Leighton tonight here on the Rodden Greg Show. Jerome,
how are you welcome to the show?

Speaker 7 (46:33):
I'm great. First the comment California passed three strikes and
you're out, and also ten twenty life later, Liberal legislatures, etc.
Watered it down greatly. But my question is there's a
fill out there name of Georgia Crows. I just wonder

(46:56):
if his money is involved in either the judiciary or
the Justice department in.

Speaker 13 (47:04):
That state.

Speaker 1 (47:05):
So, Jerome, I'll tell you this. I've seen a map,
it was on x on the social media just recently,
of map of the United States and in the areas
the jurisdictions where either district attorneys or county attorneys have
been elected successfully with George Soros funded organizations, and it's
every metro, major metropolitan city and includes Salt Lake City

(47:27):
or Salt Lake County. So yes, we have our current
county attorney at least and certainly probably the in Salt
Lake City. Their attorney have have organizations that George Soros supports,
funds that have supported these county attorneys and district attorneys
and their elections here in Utah. So we have it
right here. And if you look at our laws and

(47:49):
how they're being interpreted and how how cases are being
you know, prosecuted, it's consistent with what you're seeing from
the vision of George Soros.

Speaker 2 (47:58):
My bet, Greg and I don't know this. I'm just
speculating right now that George Soros, either directly or very indirectly,
has his very liberal money in about in almost every
liberal cause that takes place in this country today. I
think that it is so widespread. If you have a

(48:19):
great investigative journalist really dig into this, and it may
take a while to find out how far his influence reaches,
I think we'd be shocked.

Speaker 1 (48:28):
I think Data Republican has done it, I think, but
I try. I think her research is so exhaustive you've
got to hang on to watch all the flow charts
and see how it all works. But I think right
now we have the receipts of how much he is
involved in every one of these efforts you're talking about.
I think I think that you can only say his
name so many times before people stop hearing it. But

(48:50):
I'm going to tell you that it's a wake up
call when we see images like we've seen. And by
the way, don't let anyone tell you that that as
The New York Times is trying to tell you, as
CNN's trying to tell you that we're somehow making this
a bigger deal than it is. We're not making it
a bigger deal. The fact that crimes have been dry.
You know that they're not charging them for what they are.
We're not getting accurate crime statistics. We are seeing crime

(49:13):
that is on the rise. We're seeing lawlessness, we're seeing
catch and release. And I don't care what New York
Times article wants to argue that the statistics say they're
going down. Just because you're not charging them, it doesn't
mean that the crime is going down. This is madness.
These are monsters that are out there, animals and they're
just praying upon the everyday people. And the people are

(49:34):
not seen as victims here. The regime media wants too constantly,
and including George Soros, make the victim the criminals. The
criminals are the victims in their world. And if you
don't believe that, then you're the problem.

Speaker 2 (49:45):
Yeah, And if you listen to CNN, you'll listen to MSNBC,
you'll listen to any of the regime media. That's where
you're hearing today, That's what you've been hearing the past
few days. It's the victim. No, it's the villain who
should be thought about. All right, let's go to our
talk back line. We have a caller wanting to weigh
in on this. Go ahead.

Speaker 9 (50:04):
Roden Grigg regarding the election of judges in Utah.

Speaker 2 (50:10):
Whoops, I'm sorry, here it is again.

Speaker 9 (50:12):
Roden Grigg regarding the election of judges in Utah. I
grew up in Minnesota. I've been overseas different elections. They
come to Utah and way different because I just don't
vote for the judge because I have no idea what

(50:33):
they stand for. And I think what Greg recommends is
really needed in this state. So we know who these
people are.

Speaker 2 (50:41):
I would agree, and I'm not sure what's different in
Minnesota if they do something differently, Greg. But why is
the judiciary branch that we have in government today not
as transparent as the other two branches of government. Well,
they're kind of a secret, hidden star chamber, whatever you
want to call them. Well, why is it more transparent.

Speaker 1 (51:01):
Because they want to be. They think it's independent, to
not be subject to the opinions or even the angst
or scrutiny of the public. They are above that. There
their branch should receive, should have none of that. That
should be for elected officials and not for them. And
I'm just going to tell you, I then then get
rid of her attention elections, because it's it's double speak

(51:22):
to say we want to be so independent. We want
a paywall if you ever want to research how a
judge rules. But then even after you pay the paywall,
you have to take a court. You cannot aggregate, you
cannot find information. You don't know what you're even looking for.
When they do it, it is it is. It's a
labyrinth on purpose. And then if you ask, if I thought, well,
let's ask attorneys that appear before judges, I will be

(51:43):
disbarred if I said anything negative about a judge. So
I can't say anything negative. Oh wouldn't that be nice?
Wouldn't that be nice? So you know why, because they
think that by design, the judiciary should have no they
should not have to face the public or it's scrutiny
in any case. But in Utah we have retention elections,
so there's a so we have we have said we

(52:05):
want public scrutinies, and we don't have the tools to
really scrutinize how these judges rule.

Speaker 2 (52:10):
You know, why are people so afraid to criticize judges?

Speaker 1 (52:14):
I'm not well, we are.

Speaker 2 (52:16):
I mean, what's your name, Diana Johnson Gibson, whatever her
name is on this whole redistricting thing. We heard Mike
Lee caller out as well. I mean, I don't think
we should be afraid to criticize judges when it comes
to their rulings. It's just my opinion.

Speaker 1 (52:30):
Well, look, if they don't want attorneys who have to
appear before these judges to be able to say what
they feel about a judge and how they how they
run the court room, or how they how they make
their rulings or the processes they go through, I would
think that's your best front row seat to get that feedback.
But if that's somehow you could be disbarred if you
were to do that, then you better give us something

(52:50):
that would that where people can look at how we're voting.
If you're asking us to vote in a retention election,
we should have some kind of we should know how
they're voting and catch and release. There's a lot of
examples out there that the public never is there we're
not privy to.

Speaker 2 (53:04):
Yeah, we've got some calls coming in. We'll get to those.
We also have some comments on our talk back line.
We'll share those with you as The Ronning Gregg Show
rolls along on this Tuesday afternoon in Utah's Talk Radio
one oh five nine. Dan are us back to the phones.
We go, let's hear from Dan in Salt Lake City. Hi, Dan,
welcome to the show.

Speaker 11 (53:24):
Hi guys.

Speaker 13 (53:25):
Hey, there's one thing that's kind of missing in this thing,
and maybe this is a solution, and that is if
there was a commission or call it whatever you want,
a group of people they got together every three to
six months and they got to question these judges over
their you know, decisions, and they and the judges had
to defend those decisions. But you'd make it you turn

(53:45):
this into not lawyers, not legislatures, because we all know
that they have contemptible legislature. But it was a group.

Speaker 2 (53:54):
Like jury duty.

Speaker 13 (53:56):
Yeah, you get their chance to throw two or three
or four bad apples out. Regular people that these judges
never face, get to ask them questions.

Speaker 2 (54:08):
That'd be that then you're cutting in and out. That's
why we dropped you off here. But that'd be an
interesting exercise to see judges never talk about their decisions.

Speaker 3 (54:17):
Do they know.

Speaker 2 (54:19):
I've never heard them talk about a decision.

Speaker 1 (54:20):
And some would argue that that that they well, they
have they can they can write their decision as to
why they built the way they do or what constitutional
principles they've applied. Uh, but when you get to some
of these crimes and things that they're seeing, you know
they're making even the decisions of whether to hold without
bail or hold with bail. You can say bail, but
we don't do that anymore, but but cashus bail. Those

(54:42):
circumstances I think are the ones that become most relevant,
at least on issues that are that are so front
and centered to us, like our public safety. And so
his idea of a jury almost like a jury that
says we're going to keep or or boot And I
think more than every six years is the screen me
ought to be more frequent.

Speaker 2 (55:01):
Are they worried if they comment on their decisions that
you know, likely the decision could be appealed and that
may be brought up during the appeal process.

Speaker 1 (55:09):
I don't know, maybe, But I'll tell you what really
is behind no information. Then there's you don't comment because
you don't give anyone any fought or to vote against you.
It's if you if you if you stay quiet and
you don't have any way to get information, you're gonna
get We're gonna get retained. It's a ninety eight percent
or more chance, So why would you do it any

(55:30):
different than that.

Speaker 2 (55:31):
Here's what's coming out. Yeah, here's a comment on our
talkback line.

Speaker 11 (55:35):
Hey, Rod and Greg, maybe we should keep stats on
judges instead of just getting our voter information packet that
tells us, hey, this is the judge, this is what
they've done. Tell us, hey, they they have convicted this
many criminals that have spent this much in jail, or conversely,
they've let this many people out on cashless bail who

(55:58):
then committed the following crimes and vote them out.

Speaker 1 (56:03):
I agree with that. So my thought was, you know,
let give make that information publicly available, make it open source,
and then those that care can aggregate information like that,
and then they can present it pro and con of
judges that they like or they think have deserved to
be retained those that don't. But let that be open
information for people to aggregate. Just exactly as the caller described.

(56:26):
But I wouldn't leave that job to somebody. I wouldn't
say someone within government, you give us that information and
do it. I think it should be open source so
that we can really understand how judges are making decisions
and see what that jurisprudence looks like. Or if you
don't like that because you think that's too much like
a legislative branch or executive branch and an election, then
get rid of retention elections because you cannot do both them.

(56:48):
By the way, Wisconsin has elections for judges. Texas has
elections for judges. We don't, but it's not like it's
not done.

Speaker 2 (56:54):
Maybe we should transparency. Wouldn't that be interesting? Yes? All right?
How are number three of the run in right show?
Comp All right?

Speaker 14 (57:03):
Now?

Speaker 2 (57:04):
Before we talked to Brianna Lyman from The Federalist, I've
got a story that just warms my heart tonight. You're
ready for this one, Greg Yes. Former Vice President Kamala
Harris has reportedly lost the Los Angeles Police Department protection
after the move was criticized by officers who were pulled

(57:24):
from the crime prevention efforts. So she lost federal protection.
Donald Trump is zank fat and now LA police were
so upset that they were being pulled off the crime
prevention unit that they are not going to provide her
with protection anymore.

Speaker 1 (57:39):
Well, given that she had like a ninety seven percent
turnover in her staff. Can you imagine how she was
treating the Secret Service. So when this LAPD people start
taking the duty, I'll bet you she was. I know
it's the crime, they want to go fight crime, but
i'll bet you she was treating them pretty poorly as well. Yeah,
and that was that was a thankless detail to be
a LAPD said.

Speaker 2 (58:00):
Bye bye, bye bye do I don't want to see
you anymore? All right? Speaking of police, this bizarre story
that happened in Michigan and Dearborn Heights, Michigan, where a
police patch with an Arabic saying on it. Apparently some
people saying it is a badge of surrender. We're giving
up our identity and we don't want to do that.

Speaker 1 (58:19):
I saw this and I couldn't believe we're going to
put this Arabic on a patch for a police department
in miss Dearborn Heights, Michigan. I just couldn't believe that
was a thing. But apparently it was for at least
some time.

Speaker 2 (58:33):
Yeah. Well, digging into that and joining us on any
hour Newsmaker line right now is Brianna Lyman. She's elections
correspondent at the Federalist. Brianna thanks to the show. Tell
us all about this, give us the background on this story. Brianna.

Speaker 8 (58:45):
Yeah, so it's kind of turned into a lesser story
than it was. But basically, there was a proposal that
was sent around to include Arabic on the police patch
and it would have been optional, and after a lot
of necessary backlas, the city officials smount and said, well, look,
we're not actually doing that right now, and if we
were to do something like that, we would of course

(59:07):
get more public input. And I think the fact that
study officials response was to say like, yeah, we're not
doing it right now, but we might in the future,
but don't worry, we'll let you know, is just as
bad as if they did it.

Speaker 1 (59:19):
I think we're seeing this separation many nations inside of
the United States, where you're not seeing you make a
great argument about you know, you come to America or
a melting pot. There's a simulation here. We all work together.
It's Atlanta, the free home of the brave. But where
you have this separation. You're seeing this play out in
Europe and in the UK you're seeing that they they're
not there's not a community coming together. There seems to

(59:40):
be bigger and bigger divisions amongst them. Isn't it isn't
isn't that patch the biggest warning sign for all of
us that if you don't, if you don't address this,
it can get out of control. I thought that patch
was one of the most offensive things I've seen, just
because how many different languages we have in this country.
Why why would you memorialize one at the ex defense

(01:00:00):
of the rest in a country of immigrants.

Speaker 8 (01:00:03):
Well, I would actually push back first ball and say,
we are not a country of immigrants, and that's an
important distinction.

Speaker 5 (01:00:08):
That we are countries.

Speaker 2 (01:00:09):
Thank you for correct.

Speaker 1 (01:00:16):
Figure speech. But I agree with you. I've had that
someone walked me through as before and I just fell
back into old habits. But I I the words matters,
so I.

Speaker 10 (01:00:26):
Do it too.

Speaker 8 (01:00:26):
And I think it's important that we that we correct
that because if we are just a country of immigrants,
but that means that the dominating immigrant community, whether it's
like in Dearborn Heights or right now it seems to
be Arabic, that means that they get to set the tones,
but they don't. Whenever someone comes here, no matter where
you come from, you are required to assimilate. And learning
English is the most basic requirement of assimilation. So the

(01:00:48):
fact that you have city officials even contemplating it, whether
it was you know, one percent or one hundred percent
contemplating it, is disgraceful because if you do not have
a common language, time you to get other you suddenly
create these ethnic enclaves, which is what I wrote about.
And it's not just Arabic, right.

Speaker 10 (01:01:05):
It's Hispanic.

Speaker 8 (01:01:06):
We see with every type of different groups of people.

Speaker 5 (01:01:09):
That come here.

Speaker 8 (01:01:09):
The Italians did it post ell As Island in the Bronx.

Speaker 3 (01:01:11):
I live by there, I know it.

Speaker 8 (01:01:13):
So the point is is you have to require assimilation
otherwise you have different passworks of groups and there's no cohesion.

Speaker 2 (01:01:19):
Has anybody stepped forward and admitted to the media and
to the public that this was their idea. Has anybody
come forward said well, originally that was my idea and
I still stand by it.

Speaker 8 (01:01:31):
I haven't seen any of that, and I think people
are wise enough to know that this is not a
winning position to take, because it's not you know, Dearborn
Heights is different from Dearborn Dearborn. I think has even
more of a problem. Right, you have a majority of
Arabic individuals who do not want to assimilate. They do
not want to assimilate the way of life, and they're
bringing with them their cultures, their habits, and their language.

(01:01:53):
And the founders are very clear on this. Washington, Ben Franklin,
they all spoke about how language is basically the their minimum,
but it's so important because it creates a unity with everyone.
That's what unifies us to the next person. If we
can't speak the same language as our neighbors, you're not unified.

Speaker 1 (01:02:11):
Let me ask you this is there is the resistance
to assimulate, really an effort to assimulate, but going the
other way. I mean, I look at this. I look
at the violence that's starting to break out in the
UK and Europe over different groups that have come into
different countries and they want it their way. They want
to assimilate everyone into their culture, or they see you
as an infidel or something like that. Do you worry

(01:02:32):
that worse than that we're not coming together as a people,
we might be seeing if we don't do this, a
more violent side or something worse in terms of consequence.

Speaker 8 (01:02:44):
I really do fear that there is going to be
some kind of class just because you cannot have so
many different foreigners a bunch of different enclaves, not only
conflicting and classing with American culture, but classing with other
immigrant groups. And at the end of the day, if
you're not assimilating, you're appeasing, right, If we're not requiring
a similation, that means that we are appeasing all of

(01:03:06):
these different groups. And if we want to have people
come here, and they come here legally in very small numbers,
we must require assimilation. And that is the problem with
mass migration. When you have too much legal immigration at
one clip, there is no time for assimilation because if
people end up living in these ethnic enclaves that they
create and that we allow.

Speaker 2 (01:03:24):
Brandon, is there a possibility they may bring this back.
I mean they realized, whoo, this was a mistake this time,
but could it come back in the future.

Speaker 4 (01:03:33):
Yeah.

Speaker 8 (01:03:33):
I think the mayor made it clear. You know, it
said should efforts on quoting, should efforts like this be
formally undertaken to make changes to the police uniform. Then
you know they would include more stakeholders and more conversation,
which means they're not fully taking it off the table.
They're saying, we're not doing it now, but it's still
on the back burner. And that's in and of itself
a problem.

Speaker 1 (01:03:53):
You know, my theory, and this is I think there's
something deeper going on here. I think if you wanted
to break this nation apart, and you want to to
the way you see communism, socialism, marks, and whatever it
may be, destroy the foundational institutions of whatever country and
really turn people against it was really by class. It
was the elite versus the poor, and they would turn

(01:04:14):
people against each other through class warfare. In a country
like America where there's such upward mobility and a land
of opportunity, Really the best way to turn the United
States against each other would be through ethnicity. If you
do have a country and you have different groups and
you aren't coming together, and you turn one against each
other by race, color, creed, you name it. That is

(01:04:35):
the greatest difference in the United States, even though it's
been our greatest strength. Do you worry that this is
not just people not understanding what it means to migrate
and to come together as a nation, and it might
be an attempt to really destroy our foundational institutions.

Speaker 4 (01:04:49):
Oh?

Speaker 8 (01:04:49):
Absolutely. And Alaxander Hamilton, I think he put this best.
He wrote an eighteen o two and quoting, he says,
the safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy
of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles
and habits, and on the exemption of the citizens with
foreign bias and prejudice. So what he's saying is that
without a uniformity of principles and habits, which includes language, culture, religion,

(01:05:13):
you have a country that ends up faltering. It's cracking, right,
because there's nothing tying you to your neighbor, and you
guys aren't fighting for the same things. That's the problem
with having mass migration and no requirement for assimilation. And
it's not the immigrant's fault. It's really our fault because
we should be putting the requirement to assimilate. We're not
requiring them to do it, so why would.

Speaker 11 (01:05:32):
They do it?

Speaker 2 (01:05:32):
Brand alignment from the Federalists joining us on any our
newsmaker Lione talking about what's going on in Dearborn, Dearborn Heights,
Michigan and this happening around the country. I thought I
saw a patch in in Austin, Texas the other day
that had Arabic writing out.

Speaker 1 (01:05:50):
Yeah, well, oh yeah, I like we said in our
discussion with Branne, just look at if you want to
know how that goes. It doesn't go well, go look
at Europe, Go look at France, go look at look
at me UK and the the madness going on in
that country right now. And because the people that that
that you know, want to stay their own and don't
want to asimilate. They actually, at the end of the day,
want to ssimilate. Youkay, You're going to You're going to

(01:06:12):
if you're not your acadels until you are looking at
shri a law and them as the boss. And so
they're not looking to stay separate. They're staying away from
your stuff until they can get enough of them to
then make you do what they do.

Speaker 2 (01:06:24):
That's true, all right, More coming up the Rod and
Greg Show right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh
five nine CANNIS. The National Assessment of Education Progress, often
dubbed the nation's report card, is in okay, and many
are going to wish it wasn't because it is a
train wreck. American students, according to this story, started showing

(01:06:45):
declines and learning even before the COVID pandemic, but once
that hit, things got even worse. Here are the numbers.
A record high forty five percent of high school seniors
scored below basic in mass.

Speaker 1 (01:07:01):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (01:07:02):
Well, I probably been the ilere, a big math fan.
I was never good math.

Speaker 1 (01:07:06):
I'd be bad. I'd be bad for their study. Yeah,
I wouldn't do but there's there's a cause for it.
But yeah, none of this is disappointing or surprising me.
It's disappointing, but I'm not surprised.

Speaker 2 (01:07:16):
Here's the scariest one. I think nearly one in three
seniors were below basic reading. That is also a record. Well,
they see you first, you learn to read, and then
you read to learn.

Speaker 1 (01:07:27):
That's right. And I hate to say it, but not
when you're in high school by third grade. You need
to be to be at grade level at third grade,
that's your big crossroads. If you're not there at third grade,
you're in special education. Rest away.

Speaker 2 (01:07:37):
I learned that from was it State Center? In is
it Miller or Milner? Milner Milner who at one time
was president but weaber stab. Yeah, she's a great and
a state center, right, And she said, Rod, you know
between kindergarten and third grade.

Speaker 1 (01:07:51):
That that's true.

Speaker 2 (01:07:52):
You learned a wheelhouse after that? If you don't know
how to read, You're just going to continue to fall behind.

Speaker 1 (01:07:59):
I have to say thank my grandmother and mother for books.
We had books around my house the whole time, even
the little Sesame Street books when I was really little,
and I mean just there was a lot to recognize.
And I think Sesame Street did me really well too.
I think did it help I still have. I have
the number of songs in my head right now. If
I if I could carry a tune, i'd sing it
for you. But yeah, I think I think that part

(01:08:19):
of my ability to read a grade level at third
grade was a lot of books and uh in Sesame Street.

Speaker 2 (01:08:25):
I learned from Captain Kangaroo.

Speaker 1 (01:08:27):
I loved Captain Kangaroo. Watch it told no he was
going he's he was. I think he was a long
in a tooth when I was watching him. But I
will tell you because remember the ping pong balls would fall.

Speaker 2 (01:08:37):
Remember I don't remember it, but I do remember mister
green Jeans.

Speaker 1 (01:08:40):
Yes I haven't heard that name forever, but yes, I
remember mister green Jeans.

Speaker 2 (01:08:44):
And that's why I think I looked but I was.
I've always loved reading. I don't do as much enjoy
enjoyment reading unfortunately as I used to, because we're reading
all the time, and sometimes I get you just I
can't read anything more. I've got to take a right.
But here's the disturbing thing. Twelfth grade math twenty two

(01:09:05):
percent proficiency, the lowest in twenty years. Yeah, twelfth grade
reading thirty five percent proficiency. So does that mean does
that mean sixty five percent can't meet the level? I
guess I don't think it does.

Speaker 1 (01:09:19):
And for the amount of money spent on public education,
talk about yeah, money not being used for its highest
and best use. That is not a product you can
really be proud of.

Speaker 2 (01:09:30):
Yeah, yeah, I mean, okay, let's say they leave, they
go to school, do they how do they deal with it?
In college? I hear greg more and more colleges and
the universities are having to offer remedial courses.

Speaker 1 (01:09:42):
Oh oh, certainly absolutely.

Speaker 2 (01:09:44):
Kids coming in aren't ready for it yet.

Speaker 1 (01:09:46):
Yes they're they have clous Yeah, yes, there are remedial courses.
They don't even you could take a semester of classes
just to get ready for your college level classes. And
there's a lot that Dore's a that is common. I
think we tried to deal with that in the legislature
in terms of this U Biscuit test way back in
the day, and it was basically tenth grade curriculum that

(01:10:07):
by a senior you couldn't get. You couldn't graduate from
hig school unless you could pass it.

Speaker 2 (01:10:11):
Uh huh.

Speaker 13 (01:10:11):
Man.

Speaker 1 (01:10:11):
I can't tell you how many people, whether it was
the school districts or the parents, given us heat saying
don't make them. Some kids are just not good test takers.
You can't put that kind of pressure on them. Tenth
grade curriculum at twelfth grade, and it used to be
that test. If you didn't pass it, you couldn't graduate.
And that was too much. We were told that was
just too much of a standard, high, too high of
a standard, and you were disadvantaging kids and ended up

(01:10:33):
getting rid of it.

Speaker 2 (01:10:33):
Were you a good test taker?

Speaker 1 (01:10:35):
I don't even know what that means, because I mean
you either study for a test and you do well,
or you don't study for the test and you don't
do well. I don't know how you're not a good
test taker. If you know the curriculum and you're tested,
then you should test well. At least that's what I
would say. I don't know how you can have a
mastery of a curriculum have a testing from it. You say,
I know this all, I just don't take this test. Well,
I don't know. I don't even understand what test taking is.

Speaker 2 (01:10:57):
I mean, if you know the subject, well, why can't
take the test?

Speaker 1 (01:10:59):
Yes, I don't. Again, I don't. I don't. For me,
I don't see that. That is a real thing.

Speaker 10 (01:11:04):
I see.

Speaker 1 (01:11:06):
If you know the curriculum, you can take the test.
If you don't know the curriculum, then the test isn't
going to work. And some of it's multiple choices, It's
like it's almost like one and process of elimination. You
can just read every multiple choice and say does that
actually fit what I know? No, that doesn't. That doesn't.
This is the closest thing. I'm not even sure it

(01:11:27):
means that, but I know it means that more than
the other options.

Speaker 2 (01:11:30):
I hated when they tried to trick you.

Speaker 1 (01:11:32):
Well that, yeah, there are some. There are times the riddles,
you know, where they try to trick them in there.

Speaker 2 (01:11:38):
I have no idea what the answer is on this one.

Speaker 11 (01:11:40):
You know what?

Speaker 1 (01:11:41):
You know what that? What was it called math? What
was the new math? They make these kids take Oh,
what's it called? And they yeah, it's common core. But
they had a name for this kind of math. And
you weren't supposed to just remember your timestables or anything.
You were supposed to do it a certain way. And
I'm talking my kids were young and I was tapping out,
said them out, I can't do it.

Speaker 2 (01:12:01):
Was that the one where you could justify the two
plus two equals five?

Speaker 1 (01:12:04):
It is like deductive math or something like that? Was Yeah,
it was some bizarre thing where you had to like
make a word sentence out of how you came to
this answer. And it is just I would kids would
come home with these workshop I don't even know what
it says. I don't understand the words you're on there.
If my grandkids came to me and said, today, Grandpa,
could you help me with math? I'd be totally lost.
The big fight, the big fight about common core math

(01:12:26):
is that we set for the for the kids that
were lucky enough to have parents that would sit down
at a kitchen table and do homework with them. We
had alienated every parent. And when I say we, this
new common core math standard did alienate parents. They didn't
know how they were trying to get to these answers.
It's because it's not how they were taught. And I
don't know that test scores have gone up with all
that common Core and everything else they were trying to
push by way of curriculum. I don't know that we've

(01:12:48):
seen any kind of difference in our tests, at least
for the positive.

Speaker 2 (01:12:52):
All Right, more coming up the Rodi greg Show on
Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine n RS.

Speaker 1 (01:12:57):
So when we get out of the off the show,
we apparently we both listen to Just on the way home,
and he is ripping. I'm like, I just said that,
I just got done saying soft on crime. I probably
said it sixteen times now. He's just absolutely berating anybody
that would do that, would under sell what's going on
in this country as soft on crime. It is so
much more severe than that. And and to and to

(01:13:19):
use that phrase is uh is diluting the severity of it. Well,
Jesse believes every Democrat is a COMI correct, you have
to understand that. So he says, this soft done crime
language that they're foisting upon us is really they're trying
to fake us out, because what they really want is
violence and murder. Yes, right, yes, and I, you know

(01:13:42):
I I honestly you see the when you see the dismissal,
either the justification or the dismissal of this this monster,
this this you know animal that they murdered this poor
young lady when they have when their criticism is aimed
at MAGA and Trump and you know people online, and

(01:14:02):
it's not aimed towards this murder, and when they talk
about his mental health and you know, homeless to whatever
it is for them to try and softshoe or to
soft pedal. What we saw that that is someone who
advocates that kind They are advocating that kind of grizzly
violence when they can't condemn it. When you can't condemn it,

(01:14:23):
then you're doing something else and it's not good.

Speaker 2 (01:14:25):
Well, a lot of people were condemned following the tragic
shooting at that Minneapolis church and school for offering thoughts
and prayers.

Speaker 1 (01:14:32):
Yeah, that drove me crazy.

Speaker 2 (01:14:33):
And the liberal media came out and said, how can
you offer thoughts and prayers when these children were praying
when they were gunned down? Where was their God at
that time? Well, joining us on our Newsmaker line to
talk about the power of prayer is Andrew Fowler. He
is the editor of Real Clearer Religion. Andrew, thank you
very much for joining us tonight. I want to get
your thoughts first ball on the criticism that was directed

(01:14:54):
toward Christians when it came to that idea of thoughts
and prayers.

Speaker 6 (01:14:58):
Well, my react, well, first of all, thank you for
having me on. And my first reaction was, actually, we
need more thoughts than prayers. We're a society that has
increasingly lost the sight of prayer and what that actually means, it's,
you know, it's developing a relationship with God, but and
also just religious practice.

Speaker 11 (01:15:19):
So when.

Speaker 6 (01:15:22):
When you had these political commentators, you know, basically belittling
the idea of thoughts and prayers. Sure there's you know,
righteous in dictation from their point of view, right that,
time and time again, these tragedies keep happening and it
is a tragedy and that needs to be solved. But
you know, you had others who were quick to emphasize,

(01:15:43):
you know, prayer is is much needed, it's actually important,
is vital in times of anguish and darkness. So that
was my initial reaction, and then going further, it was, well,
you know a lot of people have propose gun reform
or mental health changes to mental health policies, et cetera,

(01:16:06):
et cetera, which you know, or could be well intentioned,
but I think that it's just masking the overall issue,
which is there's this sort of happiness crisis, a lack
of prayer crisis in America, because you see with some
stats and the science proves it that prayer is not

(01:16:27):
just a spiritual sort of you know, mumbo jumbo neurosis,
but actually physically, emotionally and spiritually effective for the individual
and society at large.

Speaker 1 (01:16:38):
I was very intrigued. I love I love the article.
You're saying that even for the agnostics or atheists out there,
the heathens as I call them, they there is scientific
evidence out there that that this does work. So my
response when seeing this nationally of people berating or demeaning
the power of prayer is I got on social media.

(01:17:00):
My thing was that sounds like a you problem.

Speaker 10 (01:17:02):
I don't.

Speaker 1 (01:17:02):
I don't think you can take the percentage of Americans
who identify with a religious faith and summarily reject them
all or say that none of them know what they're
talking about and none of them have any right to
find strength and prayer. So my question is, do they
do the math. Do they understand that they are actually
condescending to and attacking a great majority of Americans in

(01:17:22):
this country when they demean the power of prayer.

Speaker 6 (01:17:26):
I mean, I would think so. And also I think
it's just ignoring the overall crisis that I that I
see going on. It's you know, I think this is
a Pew research survey found that people who are more
religiously inclined or at least practice their faith regularly or

(01:17:47):
more typically engaged. And what you have now is you
have you know, a generation or two that have been told,
you know, spiritual rigor is not totally necessary, that everyone
is just fine and that you know, and that leaves
the door open to you know, for it to pursue
world the ambitions and pleasures. But as as they say

(01:18:08):
in the article, I quote Saint John Across who says,
you know, none of those things can fill the infinite
caverns in our hearts. You know, only God can do that.
But you know, you really have this crisis of faith
or these these crises for younger people who you know,
who you know went through and during the pandemic, who
there you know, see that the American dream is more unattainable.

(01:18:32):
You see these wars and crises, these pop up across
the world and widening, you know, political divide. It's like
where else can we turn because we've turned too much
from God? And I think it's uh uh you know, prayer.
If we want to try to fix I think the
American society and city, inherent and dignity and other people

(01:18:55):
and in ourselves that we are loved by an infinite creator,
is the place to do it first. It's the place
to seek wisdom. It's the place to cultivate love for
not only ourselves and for God, but for others. And
I think that's why you see these you know, it's

(01:19:17):
like the.

Speaker 3 (01:19:17):
Shooter of this.

Speaker 6 (01:19:20):
Immense tragedy, uh you know, he obviously wrestled with his
you know, the demons and uh you know the unfortunately
he lost. But and also too for these commentators to
to to to mean in a way, the last things
that these survivors were doing, which was prayer. I mean,

(01:19:44):
you know, being Catholic, I think they're I would think
that they're martyrs for the faith. It's it's just it's
it's insulting to the last thing that they were doing.
And hopefully that that this point that they're you know,
and also means the families who are going through that
tragedy as well. I can't imagine the pain and suffering

(01:20:05):
that they're going through. And uh, you know it's God
is not absence in our in our suffering. In fact,
he's with us even more in our suffering.

Speaker 2 (01:20:13):
Andrew, you mentioned that people are turning away from God
or there has been a generation that has turned away
from God, but we're learning now studies are showing that
some generations, probably more so with gen Z, are turning
back toward prayer. What do you think is going on
back toward finding of faith?

Speaker 6 (01:20:30):
Yeah, so I don't I want to express some cautious
optimism in a way. I mean, it's it's definitely good
that that there is a sort of this return to uh,
to some truths and people are searching for meaning and
for uh again the truth, and and Christ is the truth,

(01:20:54):
and uh, that's the old He's the only one that
can satisfy our hungry hearts. It's the you know Saint
Augustine quote.

Speaker 7 (01:21:02):
You know, he can't.

Speaker 6 (01:21:03):
You know, our hearts are not a rest until they
rest in you, O Lord. I think that's that should
be the the motto going forward for these these gen
zers and millennials who are returning. It is encouraging. I
think it is an encouraging science. But hopefully the Holy

(01:21:24):
Spirit is at.

Speaker 2 (01:21:25):
Work on our any our newsmaker line. That's Andrew Fowler.
He is the editor of Real Clear Religion, talking about
prayer words. That's according to science. All right, more coming up, Yeah,
more coming up on the Rod and Greg Show. Charlie Sheen, Wow,
what a what a crazy story.

Speaker 1 (01:21:41):
Well, it turns out all my observations from thirty thousand
feet away are up in the air. We're actually true.
He was out of his mind and he was doing
some crazy stuff. He was consuming so many drugs that
the cartels thought he was dealing without permission.

Speaker 3 (01:21:53):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:21:54):
I just say that.

Speaker 2 (01:21:57):
He was buying so much no person could use this.

Speaker 1 (01:22:00):
Yeah, he was running through that stuff so much. They
thought that he was actually becoming a dealer without their permission. Wow.

Speaker 2 (01:22:07):
Yeah, kind of crazy. Speaking of nutcases, there is a
certain congresswoman from the state of Texas. She represents the
area of Houston. Her name is Jasmine Crockett.

Speaker 1 (01:22:19):
Yeah, she makes Charlie scene look totally sane even in
his worst days.

Speaker 2 (01:22:23):
She okay, well, you know we've been talking a lot
about police and what police do in this country of
ours to protect us. But Jasmine has a different take
on the role of police.

Speaker 1 (01:22:35):
Yeah, I've heard. I haven't actually heard this, but you
described it from me looking forward to hearing it. What
police are supposed to.

Speaker 2 (01:22:42):
Do there is Jasmine Crockett on the role of police.

Speaker 14 (01:22:45):
I want to be clear that like law enforcement isn't
to prevent crime, law enforcement solves crime.

Speaker 1 (01:22:52):
Okay, that is what they are supposed to do.

Speaker 14 (01:22:55):
They are supposed to solve crimes, not necessarily cream didn't
them from happening, per se.

Speaker 2 (01:23:02):
So to all the police officer or listening to us
right now, and I think we have quite a few,
if you see a crime taking place, you know, or
something in progress, you should not step in to prevent it.

Speaker 1 (01:23:16):
You should wait till the crime has been committed.

Speaker 2 (01:23:18):
Because according to Jasmine, you should wait until the crime
is committed and then work to solve it.

Speaker 1 (01:23:25):
So there's no crime prevention in her world, only only
the cleanup. You know, I have to tell personal story
of a business, so in my own apartments and things.
And we had this young, you know, this couple that
moved into an apartment and they burned my kitchen down
and so there was quite a bit of damage and
they didn't know how to work the the you know,

(01:23:46):
the gas stove, and so it ended up torturing the kitchen.
They thought that their security deposit was all that was
ever required for the damage that was done. They thought,
we paid our ex whatever it was, so then we
can damage as much as we want because we paid
the positive the security deposit. For that, we can They
could go up to any amount because that was the
amount that covers them for any any damages. I said, no,

(01:24:09):
it actually doesn't work that way.

Speaker 2 (01:24:11):
They didn't agree.

Speaker 1 (01:24:12):
No, they actually took me to small claims and then
they they we got invited to like a people's court,
and they were really excited. They want us to go
to LA and I said, no, I'm not doing that,
and then they lost in small claims. But you know,
but that that was the logic that I just remind
this Jasmine Crockett's logic there about you know, you're not
supposed to prevent crime, You're only supposed to slve. It

(01:24:32):
reminds me of the logic that was shared with me
that they could damage anything as much as they want
because they paid a deposit. It's just about that. About
that clear.

Speaker 2 (01:24:39):
I bet there's some officers out there who would be
fine with just not preventing crime, but just solving it. Yeah, yeah,
it makes what an idiotic statement. A couple other quick notes.
The estranged husband of Kristen Cabot know who she is?
She is the then astronomer HR executive caught on the

(01:25:00):
cold Play jumbo tron. Yes remember her?

Speaker 1 (01:25:02):
Yes I do.

Speaker 2 (01:25:03):
Well. Apparently they had been heard her husband and separated,
apparently before the whole cold Kiss, Cold Play Kiss Kim
thank yeah, well now he said we're divorcing.

Speaker 1 (01:25:14):
Well, you saw that coming and that was that's not
a That's not a surprise to anybody. You saw that
one coming a mile away. But but why why were
we so quick to be able to get both of
their names and where they Who were they? You know
who they were and where they worked. But we can't
get this skunk lady lunatic that was at the game
that took the ball away from the kid. We still
don't know who she is.

Speaker 2 (01:25:33):
There's a search going on for this.

Speaker 1 (01:25:35):
That should have been way easier. I thought we'd have
known days ago. You have been to Vegas and have
seen this sphere fear of what the sphere? The sphere. Yes,
it's brilliant. I thought you've seen the fear.

Speaker 2 (01:25:47):
I haven't seen it yet. I'll be there in November.
I look forward to it.

Speaker 1 (01:25:50):
It is awesome.

Speaker 2 (01:25:51):
But you know they have put the Wizard of Oz
movie on that that would be wild, and it is
drawing anywhere from four thousand to five thousand fans two
or three times a day.

Speaker 1 (01:26:03):
Imagine an IMAX theater that surrounds you and if you
can look to the side, you can look up, you
can look to your side, and everything, everything in this
this whatever the movie is, is around you. You are
immersed in it. It's it's pretty wild, it's very it's
very entertaining.

Speaker 2 (01:26:18):
Three to four thousand people a day, three times a day.

Speaker 1 (01:26:22):
That's amazing. Wow. Massive thought that they did it for concerts,
but I think it's it's making money elsewhere.

Speaker 2 (01:26:28):
On the movie. Yes, that'd be interesting movie to see. Yes,
it would all right. That does it for us tonight,
head up, shoulders back, May God bless you and your
family in this great country of ours. Thanks for joining us.
We'll talk to you tomorrow at four

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

24/7 News: The Latest

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

.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: Senator Mike Lee: Ensuring Solid Lives for Utah Men and Boys

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

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

All Episodes