The Rod and Greg Show: The Left's Use of Texas Tragedy to Further Political Agenda

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You know, if it's ninety nine or one hundred and two,
does it make a difference. I mean, we're all especially
when you pull it inside your car if it hasn't
cooled down, it's just I think it's all feeling the same.
It's just hot hot. But I'm good with it. I'd rather,
like I said, I say it every day, it'll be
hot and cold.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
I'm with you on this. Got a lot to get
to today, Greg, we're all talking about, you know, more
follow up on what happened in Texas is a tragedy.
I want to know, and I want to ask our
first guest. He'll be coming up at four twenty. You know,
everyone seems to be blaming Donald Trump or the National
Weather Service? Right, yes, how about just blaming Mother Nature?
Can we just do that?

Speaker 1 (00:36):
I'm telling you Mother Nature needs a hard stare right
now because she raised her head in a way that
we haven't seen in a long long time in that
part of Texas. I saw the records then they get
date back forever. They've not seen anything like that a
long time.

Speaker 2 (00:52):
Yeah, she knows. Go to Mother Nature needs to go
time out.

Speaker 1 (00:55):
Record setting for the most part, and in one county
maybe third, but I think the worst ahead of it
was from nineteen seventy eight. So in people's lifetimes that
hasn't they've never seen anything close to this.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
Wow. Yeah, well I blame mother nature.

Speaker 1 (01:07):
Yeah yeah, I like that.

Speaker 2 (01:09):
I like all right, we'll talking about rude, We'll talk
about that, We'll talk about how the media is responding
to this. Also, we'll talk about us AID. Apparently some
fired employees Greg are going to get together and see
if they can bring down Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:25):
Yeah. Yeah, they're so brazen about it. They Yeah, we'll
get into that story because there's a lot to talk
about there, but it's it's it sounds like a bunch
if you watch any kind of gangster movie, that's what
they sound like. They're just so brazen. It's like, you know,
I'm going to protect you. I don't need protection. Then
they beat him up and say, now you'll be needed protected.

Speaker 2 (01:44):
Yeah. Yeah. One other thing we'll be talking about a
little bit later on in the show. Most Democrats view
Barack Obama as what a savior they have.

Speaker 1 (01:53):
I don't know if the bloom's coming off the roads
made everyone.

Speaker 2 (01:56):
Be a little bit, but there's a new report out
there showing how he really pushed the Russian hoax. You
know a lot of people blame all Brennan and all
these guys. It was Barack Obama, according to this story,
that was really pushing for this Russian interference angle on
Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (02:14):
You know, the bloom's coming off the rows with him. Yeah,
I'm telling you a lot of what he did to
this country negatively, you're seeing repaired by this president. And
in contrast, I think a lot of people's opinion are
where Barack Obama sits in terms of American history. It's
changing in real time.

Speaker 2 (02:28):
Yeah. Well, there are a lot of big stories to
best News of the day, Greg. Let's be honest. Is
we don't have to take our shoes off at the airport?
Is hell?

Speaker 1 (02:35):
Oliah.

Speaker 2 (02:36):
We reported that on the show late yesterday. Word came
out and Abby had an audio SoundBite inter newscast a
moment ago from Christy Nome, who's head of Homeland Security,
and basically say, you don't have to take shoes off anymore.

Speaker 1 (02:48):
But I've read that they're phasing it in.

Speaker 2 (02:51):
I just just do it.

Speaker 1 (02:53):
I hope it's at our rare ports, but look, I yeah,
I just don't like feet. I just don't want to
see people's feet.

Speaker 2 (03:00):
Anybody who flew today this morning from Salt Lake to
Chicago and he did not have to take his shoes off?

Speaker 1 (03:10):
Yeah, Ding dong, the witch is dead. Get rid of that,
dumb I do.

Speaker 2 (03:13):
I filled all this information to get t SA pre
checked just so I didn't have to take my shoes
off in the morning. I don't need to do that.

Speaker 1 (03:19):
The line's still shorter. You know. I didn't you like
those standing there watching everyone have to just row while
you didn't. You're like, oh, look at you. Look at
you have to take your shoes off and your belt
and everything. Look at you, Look at you little people. No,
I'm just kidding.

Speaker 2 (03:32):
Well, especially this time of year when a lot of
people are wearing sandals, we don't. I mean, I have
you have something about feet?

Speaker 1 (03:40):
Well, let me tell you something. Here's a little life hack, folks.
If you didn't know, because I've read this okay online,
These flight attendants give you a little little hints. They say,
never take your shoes off in that plane. It's not clean.
They say, don't travel in shorts, wear long pants, yes,
because it's not all that clean. Watch the potted water
inside the the thing the pots that are the water

(04:01):
that they store there. They don't clean those those little
storage things out a lots of Be careful the potted water.
Don't be drinking out of the getting water out of
the that they have inside the airplane. It's just not
as clean as you would imagine. So walking around in
your bare, grotty feet. And then and then if you're
in shorts, you're just in fighting the shorts thing because

(04:21):
there's germs man. You know, I sitting people, but they
are going to your leg. All I know is that
flight attendants their life hacked to travelers are wear long pants.
Do not take off your shoes and socks and stuff like.

Speaker 2 (04:34):
All right, one of the a big, big win for
the president with the Supreme Court today. We'll get into
that a little bit later on. If you're a federal
employee right now, be careful.

Speaker 1 (04:45):
That's right, He finally gets to That's been the role
of every executive, you know, chief executive of every president
that's ever been elected has been able to do that.
And now finally Trump gets.

Speaker 2 (04:57):
Trump good to do it. But I think it's story
we want us start off talking about. And you're really
concerned about this, adds am I the attack on ICE agents.
Something is going on in this country, Greg, and it's scary,
it really is. It's it's a big concern. It's one
that I've I've posted on my ex account at Citizen
Hughes about this, but I've been calling it out as

(05:18):
I've been watching it because I just I've I've heard
the rhetoric over over the years. You know, we we
abhor political violence, and you know, you have the January
sixth stories, and you have the all these different types
of examples. But what it ultimately comes down to is
that people try to say, you know, there's political violence
on both sides of the aisle. There is.

Speaker 1 (05:37):
I'm here to tell you that that that is actually
not true. The political violence and the tactic of trying
to make people afraid is is the is a plan, A, B,
and C for the left. If they, if they're in power,
they will use government, their government levers to destroy their
political opponents with with with with soldiers with the U name.

(06:00):
If they are not in power, they take to the
streets and they and they cause the violence and they
and they they do this. In fact, in Minnesota in
twenty twenty, they Walls is in charge he's he's got
the he's got everybody staying there, putting troops on the
on the on the streets, keeping everyone inside because it's
COVID and they're rioting in the streets of that of
that state. But they they will go to violence, uh,

(06:23):
to to destroy their political enemies and to compel behavior.
There is no equivalent to them. That is from the
everyday Americans, the common sense Americans in this country, Republicans,
you name it, there's there's there's no equivalent to it.
So I'll give you the example. You got these nutjobs. Okay,
I didn't know it was this well organized one too,
was it? Twelve?

Speaker 2 (06:43):
Ten of them, ten of them, one individual's church, shooting
a police officer. This is one of two attacks on
ICE agents in Texas in just the last couple of days.

Speaker 1 (06:52):
So there is an attempted murder of these ICE agents
and the ICE agent was shot in the neck. And
they they they were heavy armed. This was a planned ambush,
these ten individuals, and I'm looking at their mugshots in
Alvarado on the on July fourth. They were heavily armed
with military gear guns AR fifteen style rifles, twelve sets

(07:14):
of kevlar bulletproof vests, masks, goggles, tactical gloves, two A radios,
and helmets. Here's here's what really gets interesting. I didn't
even know what a Faraday bag was. They have Faraday
bags that blocked all wireless signals from law enforcement trying
to track them. Blocks all GPS signals, calls, text pings.
They did shoot. They shot one of the agents in

(07:35):
the neck. He's going to live. But in their cars
and on their body they found on their persons they
found pamphlets and flags that said resist fascism, fight oligarchy,
fight ice terror with class war. This is all the
insurrectionary anarchy organizing for attack manual. I didn't know they

(07:58):
made a manual for it. It's very nice of them
to do. But this this is just one example. I mean,
you can go to the poor. The CEO of the
United Healthcare that was assassinated by one of these lunatics.
Talk about the Israeli. The two staffers from the Israeli
embassy in DC that were just recently shot dead from
these leftist extremists. Thirteen people severely wounded and one dead

(08:20):
from the fire bombing in Boulder, Colorado. From that Egyptian
guy pro Homas types. They estimate one hundred and sixty
million dollars of damage was done by the organized anti
Rice anti ICE riot in LA One hundred and sixty
million dollars of damage done in downtown Los Angeles from

(08:41):
the anti ICE riots. This is not these this isn't organic.
This is well funded. They are given equipment, they are
given this is this is highly organized and it is
firmly and solely on the left.

Speaker 2 (08:54):
Well. The attack in Alvarado, Okay, they shot off fireworks
to begin with so it would distract the ICE agents.
The ICE agents came out of the building which was
temporarily being used to hold people who should be deported.
So they come out of the building distracted by the
fireworks and they start opening opening up on them. Yeah,
ten of them. I mean, this is a well organized attack.

(09:16):
This is Tom Holman, who of course is the borders are.
But this is what he had to say about what's
going on with these attacks on ICE agents.

Speaker 3 (09:24):
There's a wall plan attack and is because of the
Rhddit these these nuts that want to take it beyond
protests into criminal activity. They're getting they're getting rhetoric from
the members of Congress, the senators who compare Ice the
Nazis and Tiresman J. Paul compared to the terrorist organizations.
So these people, these these fringe groups, Film Bolden, If

(09:46):
a member the Congress can attack Dice, why can't we
the wall plan?

Speaker 2 (09:50):
I mean, it is a well planned attack. And he's
absolutely right, and no one is condemning this on the left.
Pretty amazing crickets. All right, We've got a lot to
get to. We'll talk about the weather and what happened
in Texas. That's coming up next on the Rod and
Greg Show. Great to be with you on this Tuesday
afternoon right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five
nine Knrs Hughes and I'm Rod Arquette. You know, the

(10:12):
narrative that the left, the legacy media loves to portray
right now is that it's all Donald Trump's fault that
the flooding took place in Texas killing what I think
it's one hundred and nine people now, and the governor
said today one hundred and sixty one people are still missing.

Speaker 1 (10:29):
I was shocked.

Speaker 2 (10:30):
That's an amazing number. But the blame, of course, from
the left is going toward Donald Trump or the national
Weather Service. Well, let's talk about that. Joining us on
our newsmaker line right now is Steve molloy. He's a
senior Fellow of Energy and Environmental Legal Institute of former
Trump EPA transition team member. Steve. How are you and
welcome to the Rodd and Greg Show. Steve, Thanks for

(10:50):
joining us tonight.

Speaker 4 (10:52):
Yeah, it's great, Thanks for having me, Steve.

Speaker 2 (10:54):
I started. I asked Greg this question at the start
of the show. You know, everybody out there is trying
to blame Donald Trump or the Weather Service or you
name it for this horrible event that took place. Why
not just blame Mother Nature? Can we can we do that? Steve?

Speaker 4 (11:09):
Well, Rod, you know, there's a never let a crisis.

Speaker 2 (11:12):
Go to waste.

Speaker 4 (11:14):
You know, the left is just reeling, reeling against you know,
Donald Trump. I mean, he really is an unstoppable force.
Their whole climate hoax has been falling apart, and he's
and he's dismantling what's not falling apart. And so you know,
here they just have what they view as a ripe
cherry for the pick at there's tragedy that they're trying

(11:36):
to serve. It's disgusting, it's ghoulish, but you know, their
political agenda is what comes first with.

Speaker 5 (11:43):
Them, you know.

Speaker 1 (11:44):
I'm looking at there was a post, an interesting post
today saying that a lot of the monitors that they
used to gauge floods and their severity were destroyed or
knocked offline by the right how severe this actual flood was.
So they're coming back online or they're getting the data,
and what it's what it appears to be is that
this is the rainfall and the flooding along multiple rivers

(12:07):
is as you would expect, a record number. It's it's
numbers they haven't seen before you're looking at I mean,
so anyway, and if you're looking at when it was
even close to this before, it would be like nineteen
thirty eight, nineteen thirty I mean, I think nineteen seventy eight,
eighty seven would maybe be the closest in terms of
year anyway. Point being, because this is so, is there

(12:30):
anything you could They can say it's climate change, But
is there anything that could have been done reasonably in
your mind, given the severity of this storm and Mother
Nature's clear involvement, that would have prevented what we saw happen? Yeah, Well, you.

Speaker 4 (12:44):
Know, I've seen actually greater storm figures from July of
eighteen sixty nine. So yeah, this is a flash flood country.
This happens. It happened most recently, you know, deadly flash
floods in nineteen eighty seven. So you know it does
have been and it seems like people are aware of it.
But for some reason, you know, maybe they let their

(13:07):
guard down. I mean, you know, warnings were issued. You know,
had the warning system you know, on the ground warning
system bit adequate, and that's really what we're talking about.
The you know, from between the National Weather Service and
the camp director, you know that warning system. Uh you
know there there probably was enough time. But I mean,
this does happen. This is you know, this is not

(13:29):
like just out of a clear blue sky for the
first time ever, there was a flash flood. Flash flooding
does happen in this region. You know this, this camp
must have experienced it before in nineteen eighty seven. It's
the same people running it. So but you know, I
hate to blame anyone for this because you know, it's
it's it's a it's only an occasional event.

Speaker 5 (13:52):
It doesn't happen all the time.

Speaker 4 (13:54):
So you know, I don't think it's anybody's fault. You know,
I suppose if people really had been vigilant, and maybe
there's no excuse for not being I don't you know.
I hate to judge people about something like this. I mean,
this is you know, when it very extreme weather happens,
it's happened before, it's going to happen again. As we
can do is learn from from the terrible tragedy.

Speaker 2 (14:15):
Yeah, and Steve, can there be such a thing as
warning fatigue? I mean we get warnings here all the
time about you know, violent thunderstorms that we have in
this area or strong winds. I mean, you know, do
people you know, become they don't pay as much attention
to them as we probably should. There is such a
thing as warning fatigue, isn't there Steve?

Speaker 4 (14:32):
Yeah? Well, yeah, it depends on what you're warning people about.
You know. Once again, it's it's really hard to broad brush.

Speaker 1 (14:41):
Any of this stuff.

Speaker 4 (14:44):
I mean, when this stuff does happen, it's obviously catastrophic
and if no one is aware, oh my god, the
price is terrible. But you know, we do the best
we can. You know, the adults in the regions should
know what's what's possible. What's not possible if you're in
a low lying area, if you're in a flash flood region.

(15:04):
I mean, you're right, you know, we're we're being scared
about what the weather is going to be like in
one hundred years. Of course, we're all going to be dead,
and who really cares. We have much bigger fish to
fry right now anyway. So but you know, I mean,
you're right, there's there's a lot of warning fatigue. I mean,
you can't pick up the newspaper. But it's I think
it's always been like this. You know, everything is going.

Speaker 1 (15:24):
To kill you.

Speaker 4 (15:24):
It's the food, it's the air, it's this. It's that,
you know, and everyone's got an agenda behind how to're
trying to scare you.

Speaker 1 (15:33):
You know.

Speaker 4 (15:33):
It's why I've been in business doing what I do
for the last thirty years.

Speaker 1 (15:38):
So I'm looking at four regions. I'm looking at the
top three, uh, you know, highest water levels that they've seen.
And to your point, I mean, this does span the years.
It's not something that's just you know, coming upon us
now because of climate change. But I'll tell you this,
of the twelve I'm looking at, of these four areas
with the top three all of them, but two are

(16:00):
in July and one is June twenty seventh. The other
one's in October. That's the only outlier. It seems like
not only is this something that happens in this area
flood flash floods, It looks like July is a month
you might want to start squinting that from now on.
I mean, does that does that? Does that play to
the whole climate change thing? If it was all this
climate change, would it be this? Would there be such

(16:21):
similarities over such a long period of time in terms
of this region?

Speaker 4 (16:25):
Yeah? No, Look it's it's flash flood alley or flash
flood country. And if what you're you know, it's if
it always happens in you know, July, late June something
like that, well you know, then you have to be
extra vigilant and and people weren't. And you know, I
don't have an explanation for that. I hate to blame

(16:46):
people because this is a rare occurrence, but it does happen.

Speaker 5 (16:51):
You know.

Speaker 4 (16:51):
I think that we just need to pray for these
people and learn from the tragedy. And that's really, you know,
all that can be taken out of this. It should
not be used by people for political agendas or anything else.

Speaker 2 (17:03):
That's so true. Steve is always great chatting with you, man.
I appreciate some of your time.

Speaker 1 (17:08):
Yeah, all right.

Speaker 2 (17:09):
Steve malloy joining us on our any hour Newsmaker Line.
Steve is a senior fellow at the Energy and Environment
Legal Institute. More coming up on the Rod and Gregg
Show and Talk Rady on one O five nine kN rs.
We could come up with a list that is as
long as our arm right. Yes, but killing children with
a flash flood is a bit of a stretch, isn't it.

Speaker 1 (17:30):
There's no there are no bounds when it comes to
the left and what they're willing to meet with mental yoga.
Accuse President Trump of so this seems to be on brand.
Yeah me, Yeah, it's not true, but it's of course
where they go.

Speaker 2 (17:42):
Well, let's talk about the media's coverage of the tragedy
in Texas. Joining us on our Newsmaker Line right now
is Tim Graham. Tim mccourse, executive editor of Media Research
Center NewsBusters. Tim, How are you welcome back to the
Rod and greg Show.

Speaker 6 (17:56):
Thank you very much.

Speaker 2 (17:57):
Tim. Are you surprised at all as to how the
media has handled coverage of this and blaming Donald Trump
again for just about everything.

Speaker 1 (18:05):
Only with the speed.

Speaker 6 (18:07):
Yeah, you know, they had about twenty dead, you know,
and they were already saying Trump did it, you know
Sunday morning. I mean a little bit of it on Saturday,
but Sunday morning it really broke out with Stephanopolis and
Dana Bash and CNN basically implying could Trump and Doge
have played a role in the death of little girls?

(18:31):
You know, I mean it's really gross material. And you know,
this is something that if we did this to the Democrats,
it would you know, the fact checkers would all break
their legs and trying to rush to their computers. Doesn't
happen when it's Trump.

Speaker 1 (18:46):
I saw, really, I thought of a video that on
social media that just tells a story. They had Dana
Bash getting that at Laura Trump. Laura Trump was talking
about the inaction of the Biden administration and FEMA with
the hurricane victims and the Carolina and she really, Dana
Bash was just absolutely beside herself that such a suggestion
would be made. And we're talking once it's been months

(19:09):
after a disaster. And then it shows her within twelve
hours of this flash flood, laying the blame right at
President Trump's feet without i mean, just contradicting her own
very words. Do they know when they're doing it that
they are that duplicitous or are they just so I'm
just self unaware?

Speaker 6 (19:29):
Yeah, I think the question I asked myself are they
wildly inconsistent on these disasters or are they perfectly consistent
that they always seem to land on the Democratic spin?

Speaker 1 (19:41):
That's actually bad?

Speaker 6 (19:44):
Yeah, I mean it's it is. She knows that if
you get a member of the Trump family on CNN,
you have to scream at her or else your audience
is going to get mad.

Speaker 1 (19:55):
True, true, absolutely true.

Speaker 6 (19:57):
So yeah, yeah, I mean I think that there is Uh,
Laura Trump was trying to make a point about how
so much money emergency management money was going to feed
and how's illegal migrants. It was like, that's how is
that an emergency? Why do you put that under FEMA?

Speaker 1 (20:16):
And she's like, those.

Speaker 6 (20:17):
Are stubborn accounts.

Speaker 2 (20:24):
Let tim, let me ask you this. Why can't they wait?
I mean, it seems like you just mentioned, you know,
they they had only discovered twenty children were dead at
the time, and already uh, you know, ABC and CNN
are jumping all over this. Why they rush to get
to this criticism? Why can't they wait and give people
time to understand what happened and honor the victims, honor

(20:47):
those who tried to save people, and then if they're
going to criticize, but they just can't seem to wait,
it happened so quickly.

Speaker 6 (20:54):
Why Yeah, because they're shameless and their partisan And yeah,
I think in a breaking news events, real journalists, real
news people would try to be neutral in their tone,
they would try to be respectful and sensitive to the victims.

(21:14):
They would try to be humble about how much they know.
And they can't do any of that. They're arrogant, they're
smearing people. They're shameless, and and you know, I think
we could all use media people who are humbler and
more neutral. Wouldn't that be nice?

Speaker 7 (21:33):
You know?

Speaker 1 (21:33):
They they started out attacking by saying we have a
you know, the union representative for the whether the National
Weather Service employees organization, saying that they were understaffed. But
what ended up happening was there was a CBS news
on just yesterday where the legislative director for that union,
Tom Fahey, said, you know, there's very few times I'll

(21:55):
be in a position that I have to agree with
President Trump. But President Trump was right when he said
the National Weather Service offices did their jobs, and he
went on to explain how they were fully staffed, they
had people staying over, and they were their warnings were
timely and important, completely rebuking the narrative that they all

(22:16):
started out with within a you know again, hours of
the flash floods happening, with the union person himself correcting
them on CBS News, do they pull back or do
they just keep digging with this false narrative.

Speaker 6 (22:30):
Well, there has been a little bit of pulling back,
but there are still people pushing that storyline, you know.
And to me, it's like, yes, the right time for
trying to say was the government response everything it should
have been, is for hearings and stuff weeks down the line.
You could certainly wait until the rescue operations are over

(22:53):
to start pointing fingers, but they can't do that because again,
we're CNN and our people expect stuff. You're Stephanopolis and
I'm like the DNC at ABC.

Speaker 2 (23:05):
Tim, Where would we be today if we didn't have
organizations like yours? Who's pointing out the hypoc recey of
everything they say conservative media out there, like Fox News,
conservative talk radio. Where would we be today if these
type of organizations like this radio station and your organization
and others, if they weren't around.

Speaker 6 (23:23):
Today, right, And this is where you know, I would
tell our supporters never expect when you donate to the
Media Research Center, we're going to fix it. We're going
to somehow, you know, make Stephanopolis get it right. The
whole point of this is to document it, to expose it,

(23:43):
to show people the video, and to basically say in
every news cycle, you got to watch these people.

Speaker 8 (23:49):
They're going to be.

Speaker 6 (23:50):
Shameless and so yeah, I mean, obviously we are all important.
The thing that's so annoying about arrogant liberal journalists is
that they think the First Amendment is just so that
if you oppose them or criticize them, you're against the
free press the First Amendment, to which I always say,
we are also the free press. We are also using
our First Amendment rights to say you stink.

Speaker 1 (24:13):
I thank you, Tim, straight, I love it.

Speaker 2 (24:16):
That's the way to do it, Tim, Tim has always
great to haven you know this show. Thanks Tim. All right,
that's Tim Graham, Executive director of Media Research Center and NewsBusters,
And it's right. We'll just say, you stink. Yeah, yeah,
you stink. That's free speech.

Speaker 1 (24:32):
Yeah. And every time I see their lies, I put
the O. I put the truth out there. I'm gonna
post it every time.

Speaker 2 (24:38):
All right, more coming up. It is the Rodin Greig
Show right here on Utah's Talk Radio one O five nine.
Knrs Cash Bettel and Dan Bongino are launching a criminal
investigation into John Brennan and James comy Man.

Speaker 1 (24:52):
I am surprised because I thought statute of limitations that expired.
I thought that it was still important to get out
because I knew that they perjured themselves in front of Congress.
I know what they've said or lies, and we've actually
known this for a while, but I really didn't think.
Everyone said they need to go to jail. There needs
to be a charges. And I just laughed, that's great news.
I'm so happy.

Speaker 2 (25:10):
Well they're doing this, of course because the wrongdoing in
the Trump Russia hoax probe coming up at six thirty
five tonight, we're all talking about Barack Obama's role in
all of that. Yes, he's much deeper into this than
a lot of people think. And we'll get into that
as well.

Speaker 1 (25:24):
Yeah, it's you know, and it's I think the longer
this goes, history is not going to remember President Obama
his cabinet, what they did to Resident Trump. Uh, it's
it's going to be a real stain.

Speaker 2 (25:36):
I think just because they had a nice crease in
its pants didn't matter. Said crooked as crooked can be.

Speaker 1 (25:42):
I'll say, hey, have you seen the protests in Mexico City.
I love this, this is you just love. I've been
waiting to talk about this. I think the people in
Mexico have had it with all these people from America
coming into their country. They've really done. They say, you know,
you guys keep coming into our country. Really is our culture?
We lose? They We know we have a housing crunch

(26:03):
because you you Americans, you gringos are in here. I mean,
this is a real deal. So with all the gringos
that have been coming into this is a story I
pulled it from the La Times. It says that they're
the neighborhoods. They're just being transformed, and not in a
good way for the Mexicans. They're very mad at these
Americans that keep coming into their neighborhoods. They're taking their
corner stores and barbershops and they're turning them into wine

(26:24):
bars and pilate studios. Okay, and they've had it. They
have a housing crunch, the costs are going up. They
got thirty five thousand airbnbs. They are just mad. So
they just decide they're going to protest. So they got
these signs, gringo go home. They got American imperialism, we
don't need it. And they said graffiti says, my culture

(26:45):
is not your trend to kill a gringo.

Speaker 2 (26:47):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (26:48):
So I am here to make peace. I am here.
I've got the solution, neighboring countries quick going to each
other's country. Okay, here we go. So you in New Mexico,
you stay out of our We'll stay out of yours,
and we'll just call it good good. These are like
two three foot putts there where you and I are
looking at our three foot puts. You know, good, good,
good good. Pick up the ball, Go to the next screen,

(27:09):
go next tea box. I think we can fix all this.
I feel for these Mexicans that hate all these Americans
invading their border, making their housing harder. Making it harder
for them to live enjoy life. You know, I just
think you know what, I feel your pain, and I
think we ought to have a two way street. Will
we'll we'll get out of your way. We're gonna get

(27:30):
out of your way, you get.

Speaker 2 (27:30):
Out of ours. Still a lot more to come as
we helped get you home. On this Tuesday afternoon here
on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine, can r
Us got a few more things to say about the
TSA today. Christine Ohman announced that taking off the shoes,
they're done with done good about time, about time. It
never worked to begin with. Yeah, right, it was just
a silly, silly regulation. We'll talk about that coming up

(27:54):
our number two of the Rod and Greig Show. On
his way here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine,
K and R.

Speaker 1 (28:09):
I am just not going to get like Charlie Brown
and having Lucy pull the football away from me and
have me kick again and miss so I'm not gonna
get overly excited. But even just the exercise of pulling
out all you know, just all the you know, subpoenas
and all the information to show how shamelessly and horribly
they lied to the American people, and how they tried
to actually take put a president away, try to undo

(28:31):
a duly elected president at his ability to be the president.
It just it's all the stuff. It's that projection that
Democrats do. They accuse you of what they're guilty of.
It it's a tried and true practice. They are saving democracy,
all this stuff. They have done more to try and
damage and destroy this country than we've ever seen.

Speaker 2 (28:49):
And here you have the Democrats running around sat Trump
is a threat to the democracy, to the constitution.

Speaker 1 (28:54):
Pleae.

Speaker 2 (28:55):
What did these guys do. They tried to run their
own government. They tried to set up someone for failure
by creating this hoax, which, by the way, a little
bit later on we'll have someone talk about Barack Obama's
role in this. He's another one that should be under investigation,
in my opinion. And here you had the Democrats saying,
we've got to defend the constitution. They, as you've pointed
out on numerous occasions, when they're in power, they will

(29:18):
use the power of government to destroy anybody who is
against him correct or who scares them.

Speaker 1 (29:23):
Correct.

Speaker 2 (29:23):
Donald Trump scared the hell out of them, and they
did everything they could to bring this guy down.

Speaker 1 (29:28):
Yeah, And what they were doing is because this is
what Peter struck when they got to his We knew
this years and years ago with his text messages to
his you know, FBI attorney lover was that we have
this plan. Don't worry if he gets elected, We've got away.
They planned on impeaching him, They planned on framing him
for for collusion with Russia, and they were going to

(29:49):
impeach him. I think it's actually, to be honest with you,
I think it's why Mitt Romney ran for the Senate
in Utah. I believe he thought that Trump would be impeached.
He had been the last rep Publican nominee to run
for president, and he wanted to do it from a
perch of maybe running again or being considered to run
for president, from as being a senator, not a former

(30:09):
governor from Massachusetts. That's why I think he ran. That's
just a theory. I don't have anything. I have no
information to buttress that theory. But that's my that's my
gut feel because that was the longest six years of
my life. Is that term trow It was so bad?

Speaker 2 (30:27):
All right? Well, there are a couple of other big
stories out there tonight a big one, another important ruling
coming from the nation's highest court. The court ruled today
that the Trump administration GREG can move forward now with
plans to slash the federal workforce and dismantle federal agencies.
Can you say bye bye to the Department of Education?

Speaker 1 (30:49):
Oh it's it's you know what. And also NPR and
all these all these things that have just been propagandists
from the beginning. Look even now where NPR and people,
they would love to say that we're just you know
the I don't defund us because we perform this important
service of informing people. They can't call a ball and
strike to say their lives. They have to just completely

(31:09):
ninety three percent is still negative coverage from public radio
right now. They can't do it. They prove every single
day they're on the air and every minute that they're
on the air, that they are incapable of being a
government funded, fair broadcast network. They are just absolutely a
propagandist machine.

Speaker 2 (31:28):
Well, what is so important about this rolling today? GREGS
was pointed out in a number of analysis on all
of this. Donald Trump can now move forward with reorganizing
the government, greg without congressional approval. Yes, so he can
move forward and do what he thinks. Now. I wonder
Greg how much of what Doge did and Elon Musk recommended,

(31:48):
how much he'll take all of that into consideration in
reorganizing government. I think it'll be my I takes a
lot of interest to it.

Speaker 1 (31:56):
There was a lot of disappointment on what Doge was
able to do or not able to do. But the
Worts and the Democrats and how they shopped for judges
was they were putting roadblocks in front of their efforts
at every every move. But I will tell you that
that Trump's White House is uniquely You've you spotted this.
I think this is going to be a guest potentially
for tomorrow. I'm excited about this interview that we're going
to have tomorrow. But to just give you a little

(32:17):
bit of a hint, folks, Trump has I didn't know this,
but Trump has shrunk the payroll of the White House
by almost thirty percent twenty nine percent. So without even
this judicial ruling, he's already by example saying we're going
to pull back all this spending and all these full
time employees and how much people are being paid. We're
going to pull this back responsibly. Already has cut his

(32:38):
year over year payroll from the Biden years to his
year his time right now by twenty nine percent. So
he's he's walking the walk himself. And I'm I think
that now with this ruling, we're going to see some
real efficiencies being found in government.

Speaker 2 (32:53):
Yeah, it's going to be interesting to watch what happens here.
And now that he's given been given the freedom to
do what he and he should be he controls. He
is the chief executive of this country, right, he has
a role to run the country how he sees it.

Speaker 1 (33:07):
Do you know what's so exciting?

Speaker 2 (33:08):
And that's what he should be doing.

Speaker 1 (33:10):
So I've only learned this because of his presidency, because
I didn't know this before. But a recision package is
when the president says in this executive branch that I run,
and of the money Congress that you appropriated for all
of our departments, turns out we don't need it. We'd
like to give back. We liked you to not appropriate

(33:32):
all of this. Okay, So he did about fourteen billion,
I think in a recision package. The fun thing about
a recision package is in the Senate it only requires
fifty one votes. See everything. When anyone has a bill
and you like it in the House or even in
the Senate, if it doesn't have sixty votes, which it
won't because you don't have a sixty member of Republican
majority or enough Democrats to cross over, it's dead on arrival.

(33:54):
Everything's dead on arrival in the Senate. But if you
only need fifty one, now you're talking like you have
a chance. So Trump, and when it when Pat when
Paul when Ryan, when UH Speaker Paul Ryan was a speaker,
he put a decision package together and the Congress just
ignored it. The Republican majority ignored it, did never passed it.
This one was passed. The last one that you know,

(34:15):
the one that Speaker Johnson did, was passed. He's going
to be bringing more. He's going to be saying, you
know what, Congress, yeah, I know you appropriate this money.
But turns out the part as you said, the Department
of Education, they don't need this much money. N PR,
they don't need this There we are going to see
some very I think, some fun times ahead of us
right now. It's going to good.

Speaker 2 (34:34):
Another interesting ruling coming out today from from this time
from the the Internal Revenue Service Greg the i r
S has now lifted the ban on churches from endorsing
political candidates. You know, they used to they wouldn't allow
him to do it because that would take away their
tax exempt status. Now there are some churches that kind
of wiggle around through it.

Speaker 1 (34:54):
I was going to ask, should I be tactful here?

Speaker 2 (34:56):
Should Yeah? Sarcastic, but I mean they can now open
endorse candidates. Black churches have been well known to do this,
and they you know, you know, so it's going to
be interesting to see if churchill step up and try
and get involved in political theater, even though they can.

Speaker 1 (35:11):
Cast you a question, So, do you think that some churches,
in an attempt to not risk their tax exempt status,
have tried to play maybe more moderate than they they
were naturally, just so that they were signaling to the
swamp that they please don't take away our tax exempt status.
We're kind of we're trying to be like Switzerland. We're
trying to be neutral but being a little more moderate.

(35:31):
But now that they can, will they do they pivot
a little further to the right and become a little
more conservative.

Speaker 2 (35:37):
No? I think some may, but I don't think all
of them will well, I want all of it. I
want them all to well. I don't know why not.

Speaker 1 (35:50):
It would be a peculiar people that would be to
the right of center, I would say, I think anyway.

Speaker 2 (35:57):
Well, apparently this whole cage hims on what was called
the Johnson Amendment, which restricts political activity from religious institutions
that enjoy tax exempt status. It's been around. I didn't know.
This has been around since nineteen fifty four, and it's
part of the US tax code and prevents tax exempt
organizations including churches, universities. Come on, no universities have been

(36:21):
involved in political statements. Please really and nonprofit groups from
endorsing or opposing political candidates. I think churches are the
only ones who followed them. I mean, you're telling ethical, Yeah,
you're telling me that universities have not been involved in
endorsing candidates.

Speaker 1 (36:37):
And really, look at this. One hundred percent of every
one of these professors, when they look at where they
work and where they donate, that's all Democrats. It's one
hundred percent. It's just one side. That's all they are.
But yeah, no, I was hoping that maybe with this
kind of space, because if I was in charge of
a faith, and you did a lot of charitable work
in charge of the work faith. I know that's kind of.

Speaker 2 (36:59):
Scary, scared the daylight sid of me.

Speaker 1 (37:02):
If I was, I would take it very seriously that
you have to really watch your you know, where your
money goes. Because you're helping charitable, you're helping people in need.
You would never want your tax exempt status taken from you,
so you might want to not you know, make you
waves now that you can do it, do it if
you can, If you can endorse a candidate, I wouldn't
mind seeing a little more conservative.

Speaker 2 (37:21):
Wonder, yeah, I wonder if people our listeners would be
comfortable with their faith getting politically active eight eight eight
five seven eight zero one zero eight eight eight five
seven o eight zero one zero on your cell phone
dial pound two fifty and say hey Rod or on
the talkback line. Yes you can do that as well.
Leave us a message. All right. We'll get to your
calls and comments coming up on the Rod and Greg

(37:41):
Show in Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine knrs.
Interesting stories out there today, We've got several of them already.
Understand that Brennan and Komi are now under a criminal investigation.
Cash Mattel and Dan Bongino announced that today they're taking
a look at their role in the Russian Hopes story
and everything that happened there, but the stories we're talking

(38:03):
about as well. Today, the Supreme Court rule the president
can have at it when it comes to reducing the
size of government technically imagine that. And the i RS
today announced they are lifting the ban on churches endorsing
political candidates. So our question to you is as well,
do you want to see your church, whatever faith you
belong to, would you like to see them get more

(38:23):
involved in the political theater.

Speaker 1 (38:25):
Excited to hear from our listeners on this and get
their words of wisdom. Let's go to Russ in Bountiful. Russ,
thank you for holding. Welcome to the Rotting Greg Show.
What do you think about churches getting involved and campaigns?

Speaker 9 (38:38):
Yeah, I think part of the morality of this country
going downhill is the pastors felt very restricted on speaking
from the pulpit. I'm not a member of the LDS church,
but I go to Evangelical church here in Utah, and
there's plenty around and I just came from Colorado Springs
for there are a lot of them, and I felt they
had self handcuffed if they couldn't talk out abortion and

(39:01):
they couldn't talk about things they don't have to name
the politicians. Everybody knows who votes on what side of
the file on what issues. But they're just they weren't
able to really preach about how wrong some of this
stuff is. Legalize marijuana, I mean, you just go down
the whole list. Our country is corrupt and bankrupt on morals,
and I think it's because the pastors have been have

(39:21):
felt very restricting what they can preach on. And I
hope this gives them the freedom to get into those
topics a lot more and bring our country back into
moral alignment with who we really are. If you get
the survey and stuff, we're a much more moral based,
can't compass country than than what we think we are.

Speaker 2 (39:40):
Rust do you think that my opinion, Russ, Do you
think that would change people's minds on some of these issues,
or at least give them a little bit more direction
as to, you know, how they should vote on certain issues.

Speaker 4 (39:53):
Yeah.

Speaker 9 (39:53):
Absolutely, absolutely. I'm even a little disappointed in some of
our politicians that used to be pastors. I mean, the
governor Arkansas is now the Israeli Prime Minister was a
pastor in his past. He doesn't talk about it a
lot from from where he's got a lot of a
lot of people that love him and like like working
with him and stuff like that. He's come out and

(40:13):
be a little more assertive about when he gets a
chance on TV or whatever, talk about the moral bankruptcy
of this country and where we stand right now. All right,
premarital sex. I mean, you go down the whole list
of things we need to bring back to the values
of this country that we were based on.

Speaker 2 (40:29):
All right, Russ, thank you very good.

Speaker 10 (40:31):
I love.

Speaker 1 (40:34):
What he key don. What Russ keyt in on what
I that I like is maybe not even just the
candidate's name, it's itself, but some moral clarity on the issues,
just some moral clarity, not say it in a vague way.
Let people just be absolutely is direct as your faith prescribes,
you'd be that clear, because there's a lot of issues

(40:56):
out there that are that do contradict the I believe
the principles of our of many Christian faiths and other faiths.

Speaker 2 (41:04):
It seems to me sometimes when you see statements coming
from various faith on issues that they're so vague you
don't know exactly what they're saying. You have to read
into what they're saying. And I'm with you, Greg, just
come out and say it. That's it straightforward with people.
I think the one that really gets me as abortion.
I think there should and I think the Catholic Church
at least, not the whole church, not like the pope.

(41:26):
But I remember when Biden was president, there was some
Catholic UH priests or some ask the leaders that said
he is not he shouldn't have community because he promotes
abortion and we as a church oppose abortion and U
and it was that clear. And I think that that
we need spiritual leaders that can be that clear on

(41:47):
issues that yeah, they do cross into politics in terms
of issues, but we should be able that they should
be able to talk with it with a very loud and.

Speaker 1 (41:55):
Clear moral voice. Where you know where where the church,
where you're church, it's it's leaders uh where they are well.

Speaker 2 (42:03):
I think in a very gray world in which we
live in today, I think people want black or white.
I mean that I've always talked about that. You know,
people want to look at the world either black or white,
not mean color of somebody but they want a clear,
definitive statement. And nowadays the gray is so large that
you're going, Okay, where do I go with this? I

(42:24):
need some I need some help and decide you what
to do with it? And that crazy You weren't in
the gray area. That pretty neither great, but there are
people out there.

Speaker 1 (42:33):
It just creates moral relativism where it's that's your truth,
that's your truth. That's not my truth. No, there isn't
there isn't. You know, it's not. It's not pliable that way.
Truth is truth, and I think it lasts whether whether
the majority of people accept it or not. True principles
or true principles, And that's that's you know it. It's
not ambiguous.

Speaker 2 (42:53):
Yeah eight eight eight five seven O eight zero one
zeer old triple eight five seven o eighte zer a
one zero on your cell phone dial pound two f
or on our talk back line. Let's go to the
line right now here. What some of the comments are
coming in on this subject tonight. I'm a member of
the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter day Saints, and
I would love to see the church get more politically involved.

(43:15):
You know, you wonder when you say politically involved. What
does that mean, Graig?

Speaker 1 (43:19):
You know what I would like. I'd like the Deseret
News to be like the Christian Science Monitor. I'd like
it to be a conservative paper of record. That is
that it spans the Western States and beyond. There are
enough members of the of the l S Church around
the country that would buy it for the sports page alone.
But I'm telling you, let it, let its editorial board
reflect a conservative Christian perspective and be like the Christian

(43:41):
Science Monitor that is unapologetically Christian, right of center and
will espouse those positions from that place. That's what the
Deseret News could be as.

Speaker 2 (43:51):
A paper, and it's packed away from it. It's it's
different now.

Speaker 1 (43:54):
I just I just opined on my at Citizen Hughes
my my ex page on this from the Desert News
about DEI. I can't believe, I'm Maria's just yesterday's paper
that they got an opinion page about how important DEI is?
Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? And why
they would even give it a platform. We've already gotten
past this issue and they're just trying to drudge it

(44:15):
back up. So I had a few words I had
to share about that.

Speaker 2 (44:19):
Here's another talkback comment.

Speaker 7 (44:21):
I have a lot that I could say regarding faith
in politics. I'm not sure that I want my faith
getting too involved in politics, although in most cases I
see the two things very intertwined. However, I would absolutely
love it if a particular faith would please stop reading
a particular letter over the pulpits every voting season that

(44:42):
most in the faith find abhorrent.

Speaker 2 (44:45):
That's interesting. I think he's referring to the church or
Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.

Speaker 1 (44:50):
Which positions to go out and vote.

Speaker 2 (44:52):
Go out and vote, yeah yeah, and don't talk politics
at church. Yeah yeah, all right.

Speaker 1 (45:00):
He's a church mouse about politics at church. When I
was a public servant, I didn't have much to say
about it. I truly didn't. Good for you.

Speaker 2 (45:06):
All right, your calls are comments coming out here on
the Rodd and Greig Show and Talk Radio one oh
five nine kN RS.

Speaker 1 (45:12):
I'm Rod Arquette, I'm citizen Greg Hughes.

Speaker 2 (45:14):
All right, if you're just joining us now, we're talking
about an announcement today, well, a number of things, but
I think the one that gets a lot of reaction
today is the IRS lifting a ban on churches endorsing
political candidates. That rule has been into place since nineteen
fifty four. Donald Trump always said he would totally destroy
What was done is the Johnson Amendment, and today the

(45:35):
irs lifted that ban. And we're asking you if you
would like your church, whatever faith it can be, to
get more involved in politics. Matter of fact, this one
says you can even endorse political candidates. I think I
don't know if I like.

Speaker 1 (45:50):
Let me tell you why I don't like. Well, I
think that if one of our callers they said, look,
we have a pastors that we'd love to see lean
in and get really involved and I and I think
that I think there's a space for them. I think
it should happen for me personally in terms of the
church I attend. I don't want to risk that they
won't like the same candidate I do, and I just

(46:10):
don't want to see be on the wrong side of that.

Speaker 2 (46:12):
So I vote that's too.

Speaker 1 (46:14):
I would, but no, I just think my candidate would
lose if they came out for the other one. So
I don't know if I want to go that. I
don't want to risk it. But what I think I'm
crystal clear on are the positions of marriage, of abortion,
of you know, there's just a lot of issues out there, transgender,
there's a lot of issues out there that I feel

(46:35):
very comfortable that I know where my faith is. And
this is also a political issue of which I don't
think we should have this weird division between and what
I think happens is it becomes very confusing if you
have a media outlet that has a church that owns
it and they're giving a lot of a stage and
a lot of attention to something that you would think

(46:57):
is contrary to the faith belief in that in that position.
Say so, for instance, like I complained about the the
DEI op ed that's not the that's not the Deseret
News official position. That was an invited opinion piece. But
it gives a stage reject that I think, Yeah, I
think it's a I think the DEI has been decided.

(47:18):
I think to try and relitigate the diversity, equity and
inclusion when it's been seen as the farce that it
is is bizarre to me. It's bizarre. Nobody is embracing
that anymore. In fact, the federal law is saying that
if you have it in your schools, your universities, you're
gotta get rid of it, or you're getting you're losing
your federal funding to have that as a as a

(47:40):
op ed. Now, it's it's just it's it's I don't
understand it.

Speaker 2 (47:45):
Speaking of the Deseert News, have you seen an op
ed in the or the d News editorial board saying
we don't want boys and girls sports? I don't we
call one, do you know?

Speaker 1 (47:54):
I don't, And I could be wrong. I could be
wrong on that. I don't hang on every word of
the Desert News editorial or the at Fake Tribune, So
I don't.

Speaker 2 (48:01):
I don't.

Speaker 1 (48:02):
I don't follow them, but I do see on my feeds.
I'll see things come up. And I just think when
you when you have it there, it can create what
you described earlier. Roight, is this great this you know,
this moral relativism? And I think, well, look, if they're
putting it out there, they think it's certainly worth our consideration.
It's worth it. I just think that if you, if
you look, and they wouldn't be pioneering in terms of

(48:24):
being a Christian right of center voice, editorial voice. That's
what the Christian Science Monitor is, and they would be
bigger and more their their penetration into the general public
would be a lot deeper, I think than the Christian
Science Monitor. Is nothing to laugh at, but I mean,
but they could be a real paper of record on
important moral issues where we need moral clarity now than

(48:46):
ever before. And I just don't I don't see it.

Speaker 2 (48:49):
And we know we have support for our beliefs. Yes,
you know that that's an important issue, all right? Eight
eight eight five seven o eight zero one zero triple
eight five seven eight zero one zero on your cell
phone dial pound two and say hey, Rod or you
can use our talkback line. Now, how does that work?
First of all, you have to download the app, right,
So you download the app. You can find it anywhere,
even at our website. And then you have to put

(49:10):
in caanarrest dot com. And when you come to our
website you'll see up in the right hand corner a
little red microphone. Click on that. You'll have about thirty
seconds to make it comment and it comes right to us.
Let's go. Here's an example of this, one of our
talkback comments about this subject we're talking about right.

Speaker 11 (49:26):
Now, Grod and Greg, Jack Up and Roy and regarding
the lifting of political speech in churches by the IRS,
I think is a win for the First Amendment and
addressing political issues by which we need to regulate our
community is very faithful and important. However, distinctly endorsing and

(49:51):
candidate is a sketchy line.

Speaker 2 (49:55):
Yeah, I would agree with with. Actually, I think the
political candidate one little issue, but a little iffy I think.
But if you want to take a very strong stand
on issues that could be on the ballot, please do
That's my opinion.

Speaker 1 (50:09):
I got to tell you it's one of the reasons
I think this show is important. I think you have
to have people that speak about uncomfortable things. I mean,
the regime media wants to make it so uncomfortable to
talk about the truth or moral issues that people they
don't want more aggravation in their lives, so they stay quiet.

Speaker 2 (50:25):
You're condemned.

Speaker 1 (50:25):
You have to speak up, and I think that's I
think we need it more now than ever.

Speaker 2 (50:29):
All Right, more of your calls and comments on our
talk back line or over the phone. You're on the
Roden Gregg Show in Utah's Talk radio one O five
to nine knrs. We're talking about a decision by the
IRS today to lift the ban on churches from endorsing
political candidates. Diane is in Riverton tonight. Diane, Welcome to
the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 12 (50:49):
Hi, thank you. I just wanted to say that my
observation and experience is that the church prizes I purpose
of life, uh for the church is that we have
the opportunity to choose and and as Joseph Smith said,
I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves and

(51:13):
so they're not going to tell us who to vote for.
They want us to to make good decisions. And I
also think that we have the people who do the newspaper.
They they're influenced, you know, the media just has a

(51:33):
tendency to that effect on each other, and so they're
not speaking for the church. They they have you know,
they would have their limitations, but they still speak for
the church, and sometimes they have wonderful articles and and
sometimes I you know, I'm blown away too. So you know,
it's just that they're allowing people to have their own

(51:55):
you know, to to degree, to to just say what
what they feel like.

Speaker 2 (52:00):
All Right, Diane, thank you, appreciate your phone call.

Speaker 1 (52:02):
Let's go because we're coming to the end of we
got about a minute left. Let's go to Kyle and
Bountiful Kyle, thank you for holding. Welcome to the Roding
Gregg Show.

Speaker 9 (52:10):
Hey, I'll be really quick, guys, correct me if I'm wrong.

Speaker 10 (52:15):
Growing up in the Church of Jesus Christ of latterday Saints,
it was a doctrine.

Speaker 1 (52:19):
From what I understand, I'm going to take this asia.

Speaker 5 (52:25):
The Constitution is an inspired document of God. And there
are many people that wanted to really just you know,
go forward with that, and Cleon Scausen was one of them,
and he met with the Brethren. He was preparing to
almost have like a Sunday school.

Speaker 10 (52:46):
Or part of it, you know, dedicated to teaching about
the Constitution, how it's inspired. And he said that every
time he would go to a church, he would visit
a lot of different towards, and the Sunday schools, you
can split it right down the center as far as
like who's on one side and who's on the other.
And as soon as politics came up, it was it

(53:08):
was just people were fight.

Speaker 5 (53:10):
So then they stopped.

Speaker 2 (53:12):
You know, Yeah, that does make sense to me. Yeah,
you know, if politics.

Speaker 1 (53:17):
Do divide, Yeah, I think I think I keep going back.
I love the comments that our listeners are sharing with
us because I think that what we're agreeing on is
that maybe, you know, not maybe endorsing candidates themselves. I see,
I see merit and not doing that. But on the issues,
I just feel like there's an opportunity to have it.
I just don't. I think it's muted. I just say this,

(53:39):
I think our our faith leaders in this country are
are a bit muted.

Speaker 2 (53:43):
More than you want to stand black and white, I
want to.

Speaker 1 (53:46):
Yes, and I think there should be I I don't
think we should have to overcompensate to not offend. I
think we there should be a very strong, clear voice.

Speaker 2 (53:58):
All right, Or three, we'll talk about why the US AID,
which is no longer by the way, was sending vaccines
and viruses to China. Huh great, what's up with that?
We'll tell you coming up.

Speaker 1 (54:12):
I gotta pace myself. I gotta just knock in my
hopes up.

Speaker 2 (54:15):
Yeah. A lot of people have been calling for this
for quite some time.

Speaker 1 (54:18):
And it's it's been obvious that there need to be
some justice served these characters for a long time. I
just didn't think it was ever going to happen. I
had resigned myself to that.

Speaker 2 (54:27):
Felt well, cash Patel and Dan Bongino announced it today
that an investigation is underway now and we'll have more
on that, certainly in the coming days. I'm brought our ki,
Greg Hughes. Great to be with you. Well, Trump fired them,
and now they're trying to stop them. Is this a
crazy story? Apparently, Greg, some former us ai D and

(54:48):
State Department officials usaid is basically done. I mean, Marco
Rubio said, we're done, We're out of here. But apparently
they're worried about the future of democracy. Where have we
heard that before in America? They're actively organizing to resist
Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (55:02):
But they're doing it this way through that, well that,
but they're also the viruses, these viruses that they're sending
to China. That's you're going to hear. I think that
when we speak with our next guest, you're going to feel.
I think it's pretty massive. It's a it's I think
it's a large effort that's going on under the radar,
But they dismiss it as nothing to see here, folks, move.

Speaker 2 (55:23):
Along, none, let's see well. Joining us on our newsmaker line,
who has dug into this story from The Daily Caller
is Emily Cock a cop Emily, thank you very much
for joining us. Let's talk about USAID sending viruses to China.
What is all all about and what have you found out?

Speaker 8 (55:40):
Sure? So, USAID supported a program to the tune of
two hundred and ten million dollars over the course of
a decade to vacuum up as much viruses as they
could circulating an animal species. And the idea was that

(56:01):
they could predict pandemics by collecting all of these animal
viruses and experimenting on them in the lab. Business was
known as gena function research, where you soup up the
pathogenicity or transmissibility of a virus. Most people would say
that's a really bad idea, but for some reason, USA
Idea was funding this work for many, many years, and

(56:25):
these most recent documents show you know, essentially the FOYA
I was the help of US Right to Know asked
for Okay, you know you search for all of these
coronaviruses in China. You worked with the Wuhan Institute of Virology,
a lab at the at the center of the worst
pandemic in a century. What was your dispensation plan for

(56:50):
these samples? As the project wound down to a close,
and the documents showed that there wasn't much of a
plane at all. They just said, we don't really have
any sort of formal agreement or contract in place with
the Wuhan Institute of Virology, so examples are stored there.
We don't need to worry about it.

Speaker 1 (57:10):
What I find disturbing about all this is that they
the way that the way you reported is they saw
themselves a small ball. Oh it's only eleven thousand samples,
it's only two hundred and ten million, it's only going
from you know, from the some province to being delivered
to Wuhan, their Wuhan lab directed by the University of
California Davis there. But because it's so small, they argued,

(57:34):
Am I right emily that they argued that we didn't
have to have safety protocols. We didn't have to know
if this was going to be used as a bioweapon.
We didn't have to have any checks and balances because
we were just a small player. Am I reading this right?

Speaker 11 (57:48):
Yeah?

Speaker 8 (57:48):
I think that's exactly right. I mean, I am shocked
looking back at these documents how lacks the biosecurity protocol
or in bio safety protocol were at USAID, And it's
not just you know, of course, our focus is on
the lab in China and the viruses that were sampled

(58:09):
in China, because you know, that's where COVID started, but
they were working with you know, the Republic of Congo,
other countries that have been you know, beset with conflict
that might not have the same public health infrastructure that
we do here in the United States, with very little

(58:32):
forethought about would these countries have the proper freezers and
you know, proper security in order to keep potentially very
dangerous virus is secure. And I don't think it should

(58:52):
have taken a pandemic to sort of prompt a second
look at doing this sort of work, especially with adversarial
countries like China. But that's what it took. You know. Obviously,
we have a new administration that takes these issues of
biosecurity much more seriously, and I think takes the threat
of China much more seriously in general. But but I think,
you know, it doesn't take a national security expert or

(59:16):
a virologist to know that this was the dangerous idea.
I think, you know, you mentioned that the samples were
taken and you know, relatively remote southern Chinese province. That's
important because a big mystery of the COVID origins question

(59:36):
is how did a virus whose closest relatives circulate mostly
in rural areas in Wanan Province or Southeast Asia land
hundreds of miles away and h you know, city center
like Wuhan. Wuhan is like China Chicago. How did it

(59:59):
you know, make that trip and then not spill over
into any animals on its trip over those hundreds of miles.
And this suggests that USA I D you know, might
have had a hand in that trip.

Speaker 2 (01:00:17):
Emlie did. If anyone asked why they were even doing
this or the purpose behind all of this, I mean,
why was a USAID even involved in something like this?

Speaker 8 (01:00:29):
That's the million dollar questions. I can't say that I
know for sure. The ostensible civilian reason that is given
is that they wanted to again prevent pandemics, so that
they so that they were sampling for these viruses and
sequencing them and trying to detect in the lab okay,

(01:00:50):
which genes, which genetic codes make these viruses more dangerous,
and then we can anticipate that. But if you take
a second look at that civilian explanation, it sort of
falls apart because viruses evolve very quickly. It's hard to anticipate,
you know, which genes will swap in and out. And

(01:01:14):
there are thousands and thousands of animals viruses out there,
most of them won't ever infect humans. So the idea
that we're transporting them into city centers, it only is
sort of increasing the risk of the pandemic. If you
ask someone like Elon Musk, he might say that this
was essentially by a weapons work by another name. Obviously,

(01:01:36):
you know there is a Biological Weapons Convention that you
know it ostensibly prevents that sort of work, but this
might have been a workaround.

Speaker 1 (01:01:48):
So the information is just striking. They describe themselves as
being small again, two hundred and ten million dollars funded
by USAID, eleven thousand samples being moved around, no protocols
in place, and they and they try to downplay it
by saying, well, you know, it's sparse where they're You're
they're not a there's they're not official lab partners, so

(01:02:09):
we don't need to really paper that up. You you
you have this information, and we're speaking today about this
because there was a foil lawsuit brought by US Right
to Know. So, is this the only time this has
ever happened? Is this a silver bullet that flew by
that we get to see and we're hearing narrated or
is or is it the Is it possible that this
is one of many loose, unregulated, very dangerous relationships going

(01:02:35):
on with viruses and Wuhan lab and biotech, you know,
stuff that could become potentially bioweapons. Is this is just
this a hint of things that could be happening more broadly,
or are we finding the egregious example here in this
this case right now, I.

Speaker 8 (01:02:54):
Think it's one of many loose ends. I think the
new administration is trying to tie up those loose ends.

Speaker 13 (01:03:03):
So I know.

Speaker 8 (01:03:04):
That there is a government wide search right now of, okay,
how many GAINA function research projects are we funding or
were we funding before President Trump signed an executive order
to end them. So I think we'll have a better sense,
probably even by the end of the week of okay,
just how many GAINA function research projects were we funding.

(01:03:30):
But there was a Pentagon Office of the Inspector General
report last year where members of Congress said, can you
look into how many labs that might have military ties
are we supporting with our taxpayer funding in China?

Speaker 2 (01:03:52):
Emily Copp joining us on our news micro line from
the Daily Color News Foundation talking about USAID. You know what, Greg,
the more and more we learn about this, this this organization.
People were using this organization to get money from the
American people and to just push their own agenda on
the rest of the world. And why would USAID want

(01:04:14):
to take a look at Chinese viruses.

Speaker 1 (01:04:17):
And the route they send it to has military Chinese
military connections or affiliate affiliations, and so yeah, this is
the side hustle. This is federal money. And if you've
seen some of the flow charts, they keep most of it,
send out about ten, fifteen, twenty percent of it. To
think to nightmares like this, it completely outside of a

(01:04:39):
congressional oversight or what public dollars should actually go through.
It's a it's an absolute scam, and I am so
glad that this curtain's been pulled back on this whole thing.
It's a it's a side hustle that should have never existed.

Speaker 2 (01:04:53):
Thank you, Marco Rubil. All Right, more coming up on
The Rod and Greg Show and Talk Radio One o
five to nine knrs to be with you on this
Tuesday afternoon. You know you have expressed concern about going
down to San Diego and swimming in that wonderful water down.

Speaker 1 (01:05:08):
Yeah, it's not gonna have not clean right now. No,
They that Tijuana River's got sewage in it and it's
just ruining the beaches in southern California. Well, and the
people don't know it either. They don't have no idea.

Speaker 2 (01:05:19):
Yeah, yeah, I don't know why they did this, but
apparently in Paris, just one day after the opening of
the sind River, which runs through Paris, to swimming for
the first time in more than a century, French officials
had to shut it down because of down the river
due to concerns about pollution coming from heavy rainfall. I've

(01:05:39):
been to Paris. I wouldn't want to swim.

Speaker 1 (01:05:43):
In the sin No, I wouldn't know I'm swim No,
I wouldn't.

Speaker 2 (01:05:47):
No way I'm swimming at that thing right now.

Speaker 1 (01:05:50):
The beach might be cleaner that I won't get in
that might have been actually clean.

Speaker 2 (01:05:53):
What's it going to take to get you in there?

Speaker 1 (01:05:55):
They got to get a sewage treatment plan over there.
In Mexico, collecting all their you know, you know what, Yeah,
instead of shoving it all into the ocean. It's going north,
so much of it it's going north. They got the
local paper there had like a satellite photo. If you
can see it from a satellite photo. It's not a
good situation. Okay, it's not a good situation. These poor

(01:06:17):
tourists people are there, they don't have They used to
put the signs up, but then once it became viral
and everybody knew about it. I honestly, I swear to you.
They didn't want It's like the Jaws movie. They didn't
want people to not come, so they took the signs down. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:06:30):
Yeah, United Van Lines. Every year they publish data each
year on where households are moving to and from. Right, Yes, okay,
here are the five states with the largest exodus percentage,
New Jersey, Illinois, New York, California, and Massachusetts. Now what

(01:06:50):
do those five states have in common?

Speaker 1 (01:06:53):
Run by loons? That's what I have in common. People
that have no common sense. People say, we ain't get
out of here. This is this is the insane run
in the asylum.

Speaker 2 (01:07:02):
All five or blue states?

Speaker 1 (01:07:04):
Correct, And well that's what I just said the loons.
The loons are running.

Speaker 2 (01:07:07):
People just want to get out of here. States where
they're moving to. Please don't say Utah, no, good West Virginia,
good luck there. Look I've been to West Virginia.

Speaker 1 (01:07:18):
I'm telling you that's you got a bunch of hillbillies
there are going to be meeting you and greeting you. Yeah,
that's going to be interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:07:24):
Alabama in Arkansas.

Speaker 1 (01:07:26):
Really, I don't know. Maybe they think they's that's a
bit of boil and water.

Speaker 2 (01:07:33):
But uh, Delaware, who wants to move to Delaware?

Speaker 1 (01:07:36):
Now that's actually more of the same in the blue states,
that's that's not going to help you. Yeah, but you know,
I find Washington County to be all they have so
much in migration from all these blue states that you
would worry that they become more moderate. It's actually like
a bunch of political refugees are very conservative. They're Republicans
in the Yeah, so they have it. It's it's it's
so different than what you see by population that move

(01:07:59):
out of blue states and then ruin the red state
they arrive in. Not down there in Washington County, they've
got I think true blue conservatives come in.

Speaker 2 (01:08:07):
You're the owner of how many dogs do you have?

Speaker 1 (01:08:08):
Two?

Speaker 8 (01:08:09):
Two?

Speaker 2 (01:08:09):
Or three? I have one?

Speaker 1 (01:08:10):
Now he's got three. They're all you know, those dogs
don't last long lifespans. Four little puffs their lifespans, aren't
you know? They're not like ours. It's I got one
well as we age and dementia. Bringing that up, by
the way, Queen Bee's probably listening.

Speaker 2 (01:08:25):
There's a reason why I bring this up that you
have found that owning a dog or a cat, I
don't like care. Now, are you a cat not at all?
Your wife a cat fan?

Speaker 1 (01:08:34):
Not at all.

Speaker 2 (01:08:35):
I'm fortunate my wife is allergic to cats. We haven't
had to deal with that at all. Their cat lovers
out there, But new research is show showing owning a
dog or cat could preserve some brain functions as we
get older.

Speaker 1 (01:08:50):
With a dog, I can see, But a cat, they
don't really care about you. Now. I don't even know
what interaction you have with the cat. Although there is
a neighborhood cat in my neighborhood and this cat looks
like a lie like it's a very interesting looking cat,
and that cat comes right yeah. And I have a
one of my cars parked in my driveway and he
I think it's a heat comes and just lays in
the shade right under my my car, right in front,

(01:09:12):
right in front of the fence where my dog Ruby stands,
like taunting my dog. Ruby. Ruby goes out of her
mind and the cat just just dead stares at Ruby
like you can't get Yes, she goes crazy. You can
see this cat, you can't get to him. And and
I swear the cat does it specifically to taunt my dog, probably,
And I think that I think it works well, cats

(01:09:35):
do that works. It's very it's very automatic.

Speaker 2 (01:09:37):
All right, when we come back the role Barack Obama
played in the Russian hoax a lot deeper than you thought.
That's coming up, bax st right here on the Rod
and Greg Show and Utah's Talk Radio one oh five
nine knrs.

Speaker 1 (01:09:48):
So we should start that morning call like, Okay, what
are we not talking about today because none of this
will be relevant. Yes, this will be this will be
back page by the time we get the four o'clock.

Speaker 2 (01:09:57):
Well, the late breaking story is now Greg that John
Brennan and James Comy are now under a federal investigation
for their involvement into the Russian hopes.

Speaker 1 (01:10:09):
Yeah, I think There's been so much information out there
that I've always believed they lied to Congress under oath.
There's a lot that theyve did that was illegal, but
I just thought with statutal limitations and you know, and
just just the politics of it all, nothing would ever
come of it other than our knowing that.

Speaker 2 (01:10:25):
Yeah. Well, last week CIA Director John Ratliffe, Ratcliffe, I'm
sorry relief the agency's review of what happened during the
election involving the Russian hopes. It's called the Intelligence Community Assessment,
And boy, did he find some interesting information? Or did
that report show some information about Brennan, about Comy, about Clapper,

(01:10:46):
and about BarackObama? And that's why we know wanted to
bring on Margo Cleveland, senior legal correspondent with a federal
iss She wrote about that today. Margo, how are you,
and welcome back to the Rowden Greg Show.

Speaker 13 (01:10:57):
Oh, thanks so much for having me so little.

Speaker 2 (01:11:00):
So Barack Obama got involved in this a little bit
more than we thought. Is that what this report is suggesting? Margo?

Speaker 13 (01:11:06):
Oh? Absolutely, And it was fascinating how it was peppered
throughout the report. And yet the first big takeaway everybody
was looking at was Brennan and Clapper and Coney, But
you have to look at what the report said, and
they said, you got to look at the background. How
did this start? That Obama brought these people into the

(01:11:29):
office and he tasked them with doing this report, this assessment,
and he also gave the timing for the assessment. And
that's what's key. That doing an assessment by itself would
not be suspicious, but Obama gave them the timing that
it would be done before Trump was in office. And

(01:11:53):
these types of assessments are not something that can be
done in thirty days. And that was in the report
that Ratcliffe released. It said how the people they talked
to talked about how abnormal this timeframe was, how rush
they were, how little time people had to review it.

(01:12:13):
And then you also have that Obama was talking with
Brennan about the process for this report, and Brennan basically
kept this within the FBI, the CIA. He kicked out
the other parts of the intel community that normally were

(01:12:35):
responsible for doing this assessment. And why because he had
talked to Obama and how they figured out they're going
forward with it. Obama knew who he could trust to
do his bidding and that's who he went to.

Speaker 1 (01:12:50):
Margot, I want to ask you a question, but I've
been following you your coverage of the Judiciary and some
of the rulings that are coming out. You're doing such
a phenomenal job. I hope we have time at the
end of this to discuss some of that. But let
me play. And I hate doing this but Devil's advocate,
and I hate doing that for President Obama because I'm
with you on this actually, But could he argue that

(01:13:11):
the reason he had to hasten the pace and get
this analysis done in such a short amount of time
was because if Trump took office, he could then bury
it and there wouldn't be an honest assessment of maybe
some information he became privy to that he wanted really
to have looked at without someone getting rid of it.
If they didn't like the answer they got, well.

Speaker 13 (01:13:33):
I'm sure that he would come up with some rationale
for it. But if you look at who was supposed
to be doing this report, it was intelligence community professionals,
it was not political appointees, and yet Obama kept it
away from them. So even if you're going to say

(01:13:55):
we wanted to finish it before Trump was in Why then,
and did Brennan and Clapper marginalize the folks who normally
do these investigations. So even if I give you one, okay,
you want to get the timing done fast, that still
doesn't answer why they cut out the organization that normally

(01:14:18):
did these assessments, and why you had Brennan, Clapper and
Komi doing a hands on review as opposed to the
professionals who normally.

Speaker 1 (01:14:29):
Do and to your point, didn't some of the professionals
there that were not political appointments find that process so
unsettling they didn't want to be They actually we even
withdrew from it because it was not appropriate what was
going on.

Speaker 13 (01:14:42):
Absolutely that was in the report too. They that it
was so heavy handed and so politically based, and that
they were not used to this type of I guess
overlords involved that they didn't want to be involved in it.
So again, that shows that even if Obama had a

(01:15:02):
legitimate concern over the timeframe, that there was no reason
for all of the other issues that arose.

Speaker 2 (01:15:10):
It sounds like Barack Obama knew what he was doing.
I mean, this wasn't a shot in the dark. I mean,
this was all part of a plan. Is that what
it sounds like to you, Margo.

Speaker 13 (01:15:19):
Oh, it absolutely sounds like that. It was Obama saying
that I'm going to mess up Trump's administration. And you
even had Ratcliffe, the CIA director, who's seen this evidence
and has seen more than this. One of the stories
that I broke at the same time that I was
writing about Obama is I have a source who has

(01:15:41):
seen the hipsy Staff report. And HIPSIE is the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Intelligence I think, and they
did their own report on this and that's still classified.
And my source who's familiar with it, said that is
much more corrupt than what was in this report. So

(01:16:05):
Ratcliffe has seen both reports. And Ratcliffe went out afterwards
and he did an interview with Miranda Dravine and he
said that this was Obama, Brennan Clapper and call me
basically saying We're going to screw Trump. So you don't
have to even read into the details. We don't have
to know hypothesize. We have someone who has seen this

(01:16:28):
all saying that's exactly what took place.

Speaker 1 (01:16:32):
So can I ask you also cover the judiciary. We've
had you on the program before you you've walked us
through some of these cases where they should. The leftists
have been shopping for judges trying to stop Trump. I
guess you're covering so much of it, Margot. Are we winning?
Is this president going to be able to do his job?
But you've got so many cases? I know, top of mind,

(01:16:53):
but bottom line, are we winning?

Speaker 10 (01:16:55):
Here?

Speaker 13 (01:16:56):
We are? But it is a slog like dragging these
Just picture Trump and we have like six hundred judges
on his legs and he's dragging them for That's kind
of the visual you need to see. Trump just had
another victory today in the Supreme Court, and I was
just talking with my editor saying, he has won every

(01:17:19):
case in the Supreme Court but one, and that one
was that Midnight order, and that one the court was
completely wrong on. They did it just because they didn't
like the risks that they saw. And I said, I
think there's two more cases that right now where Trump
is trying to get the Supreme Court to intervene on.

(01:17:40):
And then I'm going to kind of do a wrap
up and say, if you look at what the Supreme
Court has done and said, it's not Trump who is
being the king, it's a bunch of random district court
judges who are in today's victory that Trump got. It
was eight one, It was eight one. Jackson was the

(01:18:02):
only justice who dissented. And if you can't keep Kagan
and so to my or on your side, it's telling
them that these lower court judges are completely out of bounds.

Speaker 2 (01:18:15):
Yeah, and even Soda Mair came out and was sharply
critical of Jackson on this today. I mean, first he
had Amy Cony Barrett getting after Now you've got Soda
Mayor getting after Jackson today. Is that correct?

Speaker 13 (01:18:28):
That's absolutely correct, she said, basically, Judge Justice Jackson. Yeah,
I agree that Trump has to follow the law, but
this executive order tells the agencies to follow the law.
That is the issue that you're talking about isn't even
before the court. So I don't know if that was

(01:18:49):
her trying to say, look, I'm going to teach you
what you need.

Speaker 1 (01:18:55):
You don't make a fool of.

Speaker 13 (01:18:56):
Yourself because nobody believes you, no one takes you seriously.
And yet that is all she has been doing.

Speaker 2 (01:19:03):
Real quick, I just want to go back to the
story of the day today, and that's the investigation into
Brennan and Comy. You're surprised by that at all, because
I know a lot of people have been saying someone's
got to be held accountable for what's going on here.
Is this a step in that direction, do you think, Marco?

Speaker 13 (01:19:20):
Yes and no. So first I am not surprised. I've
been actually running down this and I'm trying to get
back to a few sources yet tonight to get more
details on this. But it doesn't surprise me. There was
a reason that Radcliffe did not release the House Staff
report that talked about some of these issues, so I

(01:19:41):
wasn't surprised by it. Whether or not we are ever
going to have any accountability. The criminal case I see
being very challenging, So beyond the statute of limitations, I
think we probably could get around that with a conspiracy
charge because this has been ongoing for some time time.
But you're going to end up in DC nojury. It's

(01:20:04):
going to convict these folks in decent And what I
was saying today, I was again talking with an editor saying, look,
I think my next article is going to be we
are the accountability that we are not going to get
the accountability of these individuals being criminally prosecuted and convicted,

(01:20:25):
but they should be thrown out of polite society. They
should never be on a television show again as a guest.
Anybody who interviews them should be treated as a prior
as well. They should be the equivalent of Nixon, because

(01:20:46):
what they did is much worse, and Nixon did not
have to go to jail for there to be accountability.
And it's really going to come down to Americans to
hold them accountable because it was much worse than anything
that happened in Watergate.

Speaker 4 (01:21:03):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:21:03):
I just like the idea of kicking him out of
society and never appearing on television on Island, Yeah, Margo Island.
Margot is always always ry to have you as a
guest on the show. I know we'll be talking more
about this down the road. Enjoyed the rest of.

Speaker 13 (01:21:15):
The evening, great, thanks so much, settlement all right.

Speaker 2 (01:21:18):
Joining us on our Newsmaker line was Margo Cleveland from
The Federalist talking about the investigation of Barack Obama pushing
the Russian collusion. Believe amazing.

Speaker 14 (01:21:28):
All right, more coming up on the Roden great show.
You know, drived through the through the wasatch front. You
can kind of see which air Holmes were, but Jesse
really went after this. Yeah, it was a really interesting approach.

Speaker 2 (01:21:38):
Yeah, he always comes up with a totally different take
on things.

Speaker 1 (01:21:41):
All I've heard is outrage. But he was like, what
did you think he would They would just keep all
their incriminating evidence just right there on the you know,
front table, for you to pick it up and find it.
His his thing was, of course, you're not going to
find it. They got rid of it, and he was
a little more. He didn't seem to be as shocked
over the idea that they're not. They don't have a
client list.

Speaker 2 (01:22:02):
And remember when the president what several months ago announced
tariffs that he was going to be very aggressive with terriffs.
Everyone's streaming, Oh my gosh, oh no, no, you know,
the sky is falling, The sky is falling. Well. A
new report from the Council of Economic Advisors found that
the prices of imported goods have fallen this year and

(01:22:23):
have dipped faster than overall goods prices.

Speaker 1 (01:22:26):
That's a I don't really understand it, but I'll take it.

Speaker 2 (01:22:29):
Do I I'm going huh. Yeah. It's an agency within
the Executive Office said it's finding contradict claims that the
Trump administration's tariffs on many countries around the world, sparked
fears by the levees would lead to a rise inflation.
They said, not yet.

Speaker 1 (01:22:47):
Well, you know what, we're very fortunate that we didn't
see any of that happen, because I would have argued
that if you saw it even a little bit, it
was worth renegotiating these trade deals globally because we were
on the wrong end of every single one of them.
Were just we were just used. We did not have
a two way street. So it was appropriate to do
even if we saw some backlash. But apparently we're not
seeing any of it at all.

Speaker 2 (01:23:07):
Yeah, And a part of the one Big Beautiful Bill,
the subsidies for evs are going away as of September.

Speaker 1 (01:23:14):
And they're phasing out that green new scam deal.

Speaker 2 (01:23:17):
Right, they're phasing it all out, the subsidies for people
who buy EV's. I think it's up to seven is
it seven five hundred dollars per vehicle?

Speaker 1 (01:23:26):
I think so something like.

Speaker 2 (01:23:28):
That as of September thirtieth, gone, right then, believes and gas.

Speaker 1 (01:23:34):
Powered cars, Well, just let the free market, let people decide.
Let's let the consumers decide what they want. Just quit
trying to put the government put their thumb on the sea. Yeah, yeah,
did you so. Also, Pete Haig Seth announced that they
are going to be DOJ. They're going to or the
Department of Defense. They're going to look at all this
property that China owns farmland in the United States.

Speaker 2 (01:23:53):
We need to we'll talk about we'll investigate a little
bit more yes tomorrow on the show. All right, that
does it for us tonight, head up, shoulders back. May
God bless you and your family and this great country
of ours. Enjoy your Tuesday. Wingman Wednesday starts at four
tomorrow

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

24/7 News: The Latest

The Joe Rogan Experience

.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: The Left's Use of Texas Tragedy to Further Political Agenda

Episode Transcript

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

Popular Podcasts

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

24/7 News: The Latest

The Joe Rogan Experience

All Episodes