The Rod and Greg Show: Utah Bar Responds to Legislative Criticism; Can America's Political Center Survive?

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Two big nudes events today. Well three actually is.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
That all nowday?

Speaker 1 (00:05):
No, there's more going on, but three. First of all,
if you're invested in the market, a good day on
the market ending above fifty thousand for the first time ever.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Yeah, shows that there's people are bullish about this economy.
And you know, when I was a kid, I'd say, oh,
the market, that's for all the old toys, all the
fancy rich people. But there are a lot of retirement
There's a lot of Americans are tied to that market.
So that's a good sign. Means that all the all
the naysayers about Trump and his economy, at least the

(00:34):
markets aren't agreeing that they're bullish.

Speaker 1 (00:36):
Yeah. Also today, Ronald Reagan's birthday today, Yes, yes, And
your son's Holden's birthday.

Speaker 2 (00:44):
Holden Hughes Junior, his birthday is today as well. So
I've always said past great statesman and maybe a future
statesman enjoying the same February sixth birthday.

Speaker 1 (00:54):
Do you know there are four American presidents born in February.
You can name them?

Speaker 2 (00:58):
Can I knew?

Speaker 3 (00:59):
Three?

Speaker 1 (00:59):
Rifts Washington, yes, Lincoln, yes, Reagan, and the fourth was
William Henry Harrison, but he died in office a month
after taking office. So you know, so February pretty good
month for American presidents.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
That's right when you say to tell Junior he's on
a good tracks, he's got some of the building blocks.

Speaker 1 (01:19):
He's got some of the building blocks. He sure does.
All right, we have got a lot to get today.
We we'll talk about what Chief Justice John Roberts is
doing to prevent prevent leaked from the Supreme Court, remember
that case couple of years ago. The executive No, the
president of the Utah State Bar is going to join
us a little bit later on in this show. We
talked about our Yeah, this hour a little bit later

(01:40):
this hour. As a matter of fact, as you mentioned, Greg,
we talked about that the other day. The bar called
us said we'd like to come on your show a
response or answering or any questions you may have. So
that should be a rather interesting discussion.

Speaker 2 (01:53):
Look forward to it.

Speaker 4 (01:54):
I really do, I do I have.

Speaker 2 (01:56):
Just like when you're in you're a public servant, you're
going to meet people that don't see things the same way.
Maybe you do and you just don't know it. But
that discussion, those discussions are always worthwhile.

Speaker 1 (02:06):
Yeah. Yeah, and we'll talk about that. Can we get
to this so called racist video that the squishies, the Pannicans,
the Democrats, the media are flipping out on.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
Yeah, yeah, I just wish there was even a quarter
of the scorn for what the left is doing to
this country, what's happening to people in real time, the
violence that's being fomented, the fear that's being created. But no, no, no,
let's just make sure all the attentions on a on
this post.

Speaker 1 (02:33):
Well, I'll be on my opinion, it should have been posted.
It was stupid to do.

Speaker 2 (02:37):
Look, I don't think it's presidential. I'm not going to
sit there make excuses for it. Yeah, but the selective
outrage and selective logic that continues to, you know, to
just spread across this country, it's pretty hard to endure.

Speaker 5 (02:49):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:50):
Should never have put it up, you know, they and
they left it up too long. They should have taken
it down fairly quickly in my opinion, But they left
it up a little bit. You know, it was too
to do.

Speaker 2 (03:01):
I'll tell you what. There's if there's a Republican that
can you know, criticize Trump boy, they just fall over themselves.

Speaker 6 (03:06):
To do it.

Speaker 2 (03:07):
You don't see it. You know, the Democrats don't have
the same issue where you have Democrats who want to
condemn their own. But boy, does the media love a
good Republican the rip on another Republican, especially what's Trump.
That's that's just such a fun place to be for
these Republicans that love to rip on President Trump.

Speaker 1 (03:23):
Well, we got yesterday Greg, as you know on the
show and many of our good fans who are listing
each and every day, we had quite a response yesterday
to these school protests around the country and here in
Utah yesterday that we saw, well, there were more of
them today. Several schools today had protests, you know. And
I'm wondering, Greg about the kids who don't protest. The

(03:46):
kids said, I'm you know.

Speaker 2 (03:47):
I orticized they consider because they're you know, they're the
leftists that have you know, trained these kids and got
them going and gotten all hyped up. If they don't
join that, are they now look down upon?

Speaker 7 (04:00):
Are they?

Speaker 1 (04:01):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (04:02):
I don't know either, but I'll tell you what I
saw them.

Speaker 1 (04:05):
I saw, Yes, yes you did. What did you see?

Speaker 2 (04:10):
I saw a lot of high school I assume those
were high school kids. I was watching, and they got
some they got some posters that are pretty uh profane,
but they got a lot of Mexican flags flying around.

Speaker 1 (04:22):
Yeah, just are the right down at the Homeland Security Office.

Speaker 2 (04:26):
So anyway they you know, they look, I didn't see
any violence, Okay, tons of kids coming up the hill,
a lot of a lot of a lot of vim
and vigor, a lot of angst, a lot of flags flying,
you know, some swear bears amongst them, you know, and
uh in their opinion of ice. But what I think
is what I think is interesting is again, were they
in school today, if this was a school day, who's

(04:47):
in charge of these children? With these kids during the
school day when they're off and they're walking across to
you know, they're all over the street and they're doing
what they're doing, Who's who's liable for that? And and
I'm just wondering if the same administ traders of these
high schools and these schools that are allowing their students
to walk away, is it any political protest they'd like
to make, Is it any issue that they would allow

(05:08):
and allow this to happen, or is this specific to one? Yeah,
I did a little bit of research. Overnight we talked
about we're going to try and get to the bottom
of this. I believe I'm going to check my sources,
but I have at least one source that says that
the National Education Association the National Teachers Union are the
ones that are sponsoring, funding, and pushing for these student

(05:29):
protests to come out. So ANYA and our Utah Education
Association are very closely aligned, obviously, and this looks like
a teacher's union fueled protest that you're seeing happening and
from these schools across the walls at front.

Speaker 1 (05:43):
Should that surprise anybody not me?

Speaker 2 (05:45):
That's why I will continue to look to make sure
that's the case. But that doesn't that would make sense
to me that they're the ones pushing it. And by
the way, that would mean this is the only one
they would be okay with. You have to have a
protest that would subscribe to their worldview. Yes, certainly not one,
and they don't agree with that your kids could not
leave the school.

Speaker 1 (06:02):
Well, after we talked about it yesterday last night, I
got this email from a good listener of ours. Let
me share with you and our listeners what he had
to say. First name was Mark, he said, Rod and Greg,
I worked downtown SLC and this morning, that would have
been yesterday, at about nine thirty, on my way to work,
there was a group of middle school age kids walking
up State Street the sidewalk, maybe on their way to

(06:26):
the capitol, protesting nights. Okay, Then he goes on to
say this, which I found interesting. I was offended by
one of their very large signs that said f ice
but spelled out the offensive word. There was also an
elderly lady walking down the sidewalk. She was trying to
walk through them all as they were taking up the
entire sidewalk, on the entire block. I felt so bad

(06:49):
for her. It makes me so mad to see this
for myself. Going on, I hope you and Greg are
able to call out the schools, which we've done, teachers
and all responsible. This is so wrong. We pay taxes
for schools to educate kids to become successful, respectful adults
and citizens, and carrying an FU or an f I

(07:10):
sign is not what education is all about. He makes
a very good point, Yes he does. Yeah, I mean,
who's how are they getting away with this? Why are
they allowing this to happen? Where are the parents up
in arms over this. Do most parents say, well, they're
just being kids.

Speaker 2 (07:25):
Well, and I'm going to tell you that we had
some of our callers yesterday said that some parents signed
their kids out giving permission for this to happen. Okay,
there's that, but I don't I mean, I'm telling you're
a ton of kids coming up that hill.

Speaker 1 (07:37):
Yeah, there are a lot of lots, and I have
a hard time.

Speaker 2 (07:40):
Believing every one of those kids came with a permission slip.
And even then, it was also pointed out by a caller,
you have excused absences and you have ones that are not.
I don't find this. I'm going to put it this way.
If a parent came and said I want my child
to leave, I give my child permission to leave for
a pro life rally. Okay, I don't think that school

(08:04):
would would accept that as an excused absence. I don't
think it's I don't think this is uniform to an
administration of a school and how they're going to let
all the kids get up and walk out of their
school and their classrooms, cross streets do what they're doing.
This is specific to an issue. So you got to
ask yourself this question have public schools become basically training

(08:25):
and staging grounds for leftists? Is that all we're doing?
I think so. I think when you have the selective
logic where you're going to empower, not just allow, but
they're empowering these kids to do that. This didn't come
across their minds to coordinate this across the Wahsatch front
within the last couple of days. This is coordinated by others,
adults that are part of that school district and school system,

(08:47):
and they're getting these kids to do it. And I
don't find it to be well. I don't think these
kids would know, you know, much about these issues at all.
But these authority figures inside these schools get these kids
to basically be their political propers and.

Speaker 1 (09:02):
It almost seems like they're giving talking points. Yes, yeah,
are you don't. And here's what I was thinking about.
How disruptive is this to a school day?

Speaker 8 (09:10):
Now?

Speaker 1 (09:10):
I want to know if these schools are good to
do a makeup day for this? Can you rely? Can
you imagine how disruptive this is. Let's say a teacher
prepares a lesson for today. No one's in school, where
are they? They're all protesting? I mean this is disruptive.
And for the kids who don't want to participate, are
they being ostracized? They lose out on a lesson they

(09:33):
were ready for.

Speaker 2 (09:34):
And we know this isn't a theory because we know
that when COVID struck and then the most protected population
on earth were our young kids. These teachers refuse to
go into these schools, these kids, their education and delivery
was stopped or online that they weren't used to. The
proficiency levels are as bad as we've ever seen amongst
our kids. So I again, I think they're props. I

(09:56):
think they're staging areas and facilities for future leftists with
them young impressionable minds.

Speaker 1 (10:01):
Coming up on the Friday edition of The Rod and
Greg Show is John Roberts cracking the whip at the
Supreme Court. We'll talk about that next on Utah's Talk
Radio one oh five nine. Can arress. I tell you what, Greg,
I don't know what to make of Supreme Court Justice
Katanji Brown Jackson. Okay, she's already said some really stupid
things from the bench, and then she then tell me

(10:21):
if this qualifies her from hearing other cases. She shows
up at the Grammys on Sunday night. Okay in California. Right,
she's clapping anytime a presenter goes after Ice and she's clapping. Now,
would you trust her to be fair and objective in
a case involving Ice? I don't think.

Speaker 2 (10:42):
I think that she's tipped her hand a little bit,
a little bit on issues that may appear before her
in a court. I think she's she would appear to
be potentially biased.

Speaker 1 (10:52):
Well. Senator Marsha Blackburn has asked the John Roberts to
take a look at this. Meanwhile, Roberts, We've learned and
now starting to kind of crack the whip a little
bit on leaks coming from the Supreme Court. Joining us
on our Newsmaker line to talk more about that is
Jennifer Oliver O'Connell, a contributor at Red State. Jennifer, how

(11:12):
are you welcome to the Rod and Gregg Show.

Speaker 5 (11:15):
Hi, rodin Greg, thank you so much for having me on.

Speaker 1 (11:18):
Jennifer, exactly what if John Robert's doing now to try
and stop the leaks at the Supreme Court.

Speaker 5 (11:25):
Apparently any clerk, any permanent staffer on the Supreme Court.
It's unclear whether he asked the justices to do this,
but they're required to sign a non disclosure agreement since
you know, the leaks with Dobbs, as well as all
of the tea that's been spilt about how they deliberate
and where they're leaning, you know, leak to convenient media.

(11:51):
He's decided that, okay, we have to tamp down on this.
And since we no longer have the honor system, since
people are no longer willing to, you know, do a
hand shake and honor their word, we're going to make
you sign a legal document.

Speaker 2 (12:05):
You know, I'm struck that when the leak of Dobbs
came out, it was such a breach of all precedent,
anything we'd ever seen before. Actually, I take that back.

Speaker 1 (12:15):
I think the Roe v.

Speaker 2 (12:16):
Wade case might have been there might have been a
tip off somewhere. I think I read about in seventy
two that there might have been some heads up given
on that one. But for the most part, seems like
a pretty sacrosanct process in place. But what I'm surprised,
as we're talking in twenty twenty six about Chief Justice
Roberts putting in some safeguards, shouldn't that have been done

(12:37):
about ten seconds after the Dobbs. You know, decision draft
decision was released.

Speaker 5 (12:44):
Yeah, you would think so, you know, three going on
three and a half years later, he decides to actually
do something, and so that kind of, as far as
I'm concerned, puts his leadership into question, which, you know,
depending on which on maybe both sides of the aisles,
people are saying that his leadership is terrible and this

(13:06):
is why the leak happened in the first place. But yeah,
it was kind of a slow rolling. I'm not sure
if it's because I have heard and read that he
is so intense on preserving the honor and the dignity
of the court. Sadly, that ship sailed a long time ago,
and I think whatever honor and dignity used to be

(13:27):
attached with a handshake and saying I'm going to honor
the court and not result secrets has gone out the window.
You have too many activists going on in law schools
and going to be a part of the Supreme Court
is clerks, So you got.

Speaker 1 (13:39):
To safeguards, Jennifer. Has has anything been done as a
result of the Doubs leak other than what we're talking
about now, Has anybody in the court been disciplined about this.
Did they ever get to find who actually did the leak?

Speaker 5 (13:54):
I have heard and read somewhere I cannot say where
that the person and was there was an investigation that
did go on. We do know about that. Apparently the
person was found and taking care of in terms of
discipline or whatever. Privately, nobody knows what that means. I'm
getting to the point where for everything Ice enforcement, this

(14:19):
that just put them all over the television and social media.
That's true, It just because this private stuff behind, you know,
preserving their dignity. It's like they didn't preserve anyone else's dignity.
They didn't preserve Alito's dignity. Kavanaugh had a killer stalking

(14:40):
his block. I mean, I kind of think it's just
we're way past that make it public because what they
did caused a lot of public uproar and a lot
of pain to a lot of people.

Speaker 2 (14:52):
And can't we assume then that this was a Democrat
presidential pointed justice or staff that leaked it because it
is being done privately. If it was, if it was
a Republican appointed justice and staff, wouldn't we have that
on every newspaper and on every newscast in America. If
that had been maybe a again, maybe a conservative.

Speaker 5 (15:15):
Jurist, Yeah, we would, indeed, somebody would make it known
and it would be floating all over the place. The
rumor has it that it was part of Sonya Soda
mayor staff. That's a rumor, get unverified. Just what the
scuttle buds.

Speaker 9 (15:32):
That I hear?

Speaker 5 (15:34):
So yeah, if it had been a legal or Gorsuch
or Kevanaugh or Cony Barrett, you know, it would have
been all over the place.

Speaker 1 (15:42):
And it's not funny Jennifer that they all seem to
run to the New York Times. What a surprise that
is run. Aren't we all shocked, Jennifer, Yes, this is.

Speaker 5 (15:52):
My shock face. You know the New York Times that
August Gray lady is gets all the scuttle, but it
seems it's all the news, gets all of the fun
stuff and comes up with all these lovely exclusives that
are peppered with all of these anonymous sources. Well you
know that they can only speak on an anonymity because

(16:12):
they aren't you know, commissioned or tasked to speak on
behalf of the court. But they leak all over the place.
So why are these people even.

Speaker 2 (16:20):
Yeah, go ahead in the building.

Speaker 5 (16:22):
Ye yeah, why are they even in the buildings? Well?

Speaker 1 (16:24):
Will this agreement? Will everybody who works for the Supreme
Court other than the justices themselves be required to sign
this this agreement?

Speaker 5 (16:34):
According to the New York Times news report, Yes, that
that is now the standard operating procedure. You sign your
HR papers and you get this nondisclosure agreement.

Speaker 1 (16:46):
I'm sorry it has.

Speaker 5 (16:47):
Any any power, tiase is. It's still in question, but
at least it's being done.

Speaker 1 (16:52):
I am so surprised they haven't done this before.

Speaker 2 (16:54):
Shocking crystal ball. Will it work? Will it work?

Speaker 5 (16:59):
It's a good question.

Speaker 2 (17:01):
Yeah, I don't think.

Speaker 1 (17:02):
Yeah. Jennifer is always great chatting with you. Thank you
to enjoy the weekend.

Speaker 5 (17:07):
Thank you as well.

Speaker 1 (17:08):
All right on our newsmaker line. That's Jennifer Oliver O'Connell.
She is a contributor to Red State. Talking about the
new rules being put into place by Chief Justice John Robertson.
I'm surprised that they haven't done something like this before.
I mean, I think we have to sign them here.

Speaker 2 (17:22):
Yeah, No, it's a little ridiculous. Actually, I thought they
really did go through a real strict process because of
how important it is, and that having those drafts released
to the me it's just such a violation of process.
And I would have thought that would have been a
very thorough process to ensure that would never happen. Yeah,
and I you know, wink and nod was actually a thing.

Speaker 1 (17:43):
And can you imagine can you imagine the uproar if
one of the conservative justices would have been accused of
doing something like this.

Speaker 2 (17:50):
For fact, it was one of the Democrat appointed judges
because nobody cares. Nobody. I didn't even know that. I
did not know that they had actually found who did it. Yeah,
and they were keeping it private matter. I hadn't heard that.
And the fact that I have not meant that it
was guaranteed a Democrat, because again, they can do anything
they want, and there's no there's no law broken, or
if the law's broken, it's it's justified. It's it's just

(18:12):
selective logic. So the fact that no one was outraged
from coming from the media must have meant a Democrat
appointed justice.

Speaker 1 (18:22):
Yeah, they're Rod and Gregg Show rolls along on this
Friday afternoon. You're on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five
nine kayn Us. Well, there are a number of issues
that Utah lawmakers are taking in under consideration during this
twenty twenty six session of the Utah Legislature. One of
them has to deal with the judiciary. Now, the governor
has already signed into law a bill that would add

(18:43):
two Supreme Court justices to the Utah Supreme Court. But
there are other issues as well, and members of the
Utah State Bar are concerned about them. That's what we want.
That's why we want to welcome Kim Cordova, president of
the Utah State Bar, here on the Rod and Gregg
Show to talk about this. Kim, how are you? Thanks
for joining us is after time doing.

Speaker 10 (19:01):
Thank you both for having me on your show.

Speaker 1 (19:04):
Kim, just give us your overall assessment and some of
the concerns that you have as we start this discussion.
What are some of the biggest concerns you have right
now with what lawmakers have either done or are considering doing.

Speaker 10 (19:18):
Thanks for the question. But before I answer that, I
just wanted to tell you what the Bar is and
kind of how it functions, and so we have a
good framework. So as president of the Bar, I am
an elected I'm an elected position and then we have staff,
and then the commission where each of our commissioners are
represented by each district in the state. And then we
have two public members appointed by four and so all

(19:40):
of our commissioners as well as myself are voted in
by the lawyers of the state of Utah. And so
what mainly what we're concerned with, And again I am
getting input from the different sections and the different committees
that make up the bar that are all volunteer positions,
and so this is feedback that we're getting from many
voices and from many different perspectives. And the main concern

(20:04):
that we have is just the rule of law and
the constitution and the separation of powers, listening to the
courts in terms of what their needs are, and structuring
the funding in a way that helps the foundation and
supports the foundation of the courts that who's serve for
most of the citizens of our state.

Speaker 2 (20:23):
So, caim, I have a question, and you just described
I appreciate the structure and everything like that, but it
sounds like an inside baseball game to me. You've got
a lot of attorneys, you've got judges, you mentioned a
couple members of the public. But let me ask you this,
you go to the public, You're not you, But there
are judicial retentions, and I think one of the big
conversations happening up on the hill is how do you
hold judges accountable? How do we know how they rule?

(20:46):
How do we know what their disposition is, How do
we know it's not catch and release? Do they let
dangerous criminals or suspects out into the public. There's very
very little information. However, voters every even numbered year are
asked the list of judges that they are expected to
vote to retain or not, and it seems to me
to be a very low information election cycle. Are you

(21:08):
comfortable there's enough information to voters where when they see
the list of judges they're asked to retain or not,
they are comfortable with each of those names and how
they're voting to retain or not. Is that is that
process working in your mind?

Speaker 10 (21:21):
You know, thanks for the question. It is, you know.
But I want to go back to how with a
part of that accountability and that transparency that you're asking
about the judicial nominating commissions. And I think that you've
talked about this a little bit before on your show.
So the judicial nominating commissions there's a commission in each
district in all of our eight districts of Utah, and

(21:43):
they are comprised of seven members who are appointed by
the governor. It was changed a little bit in twenty
twenty three by a bill sponsored by Senator mckel, but
that before that it was and now it's a seven
member person. Usually there's about four lawyers on it and
three public members that are all appointed by the governor,
and then the governor appoints the chair. Those people who

(22:05):
are interested in becoming a judge, they fill out in
a very extensive and very long application that asks a
lot of very personal and historical questions about their practice,
where they grew up, how their social history, their personal history,
and then practitioners who they have opposing counsel or people
that they work with, or committees that they're on, they

(22:27):
have to give feedback right or the application isn't complete.
And all of those applications then go to the nominating
Commission where they're sorted through these seven people, and then
they decide who to interview, and then they interview those
people and they discuss and then they're sent and then
they send five names to the governor and then they're
interviewed by the governor's staff, and then they go to

(22:47):
the governor, and then the governor appoints and then it
goes through a Senate confirmation committee hearing, and then they
go to the Senate floor. And so all of those
steps are done in the process of this incredibly extensive
vetting process for the judge to determine acumen, to determine knowledge,
and ability and demeanor. Right, We're trying to get as

(23:07):
much feedback from as many people as possible to make
sure that the judge that's being put on the bench
is the best and the brightest and and have and
are hard workers, and are smart and have good demeanor
and are able to have good judgment. Right, Yeah, and
so then they go on the bench. Oh sorry, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (23:24):
Well I just want to stop there because I was
talking about the retention elections. But you brought up a
very curious process, and that's the selection of judges to
be on the bench. We talk about separation of powers.
What you described to me sounds like a process that
the judiciary or the courts, the members of the bar.
You know that the attorneys in their state really profer
all the names that a governor would be able to

(23:45):
pick from. Why can't it? Why can't a governor just
pick the most eligible candidate to serve on the bench
that they choose. Why would they need what you just
described by your your process to be the only names
that a judge should be able to choose from.

Speaker 10 (24:00):
Because the vetting process, in terms of getting feedback about
how they are in a courtroom with opposing council judges,
they've appeared before, of colleagues that they've worked with, all
of that goes into consideration. And I don't know if
just one person and through their relationship with that person,
is able to assess a person in all of those
very distinct categories.

Speaker 2 (24:21):
We give the governor a lot of responsibility. They don't
have staff they could help them make these decisions on
their own.

Speaker 10 (24:29):
Well, I think that the staff is I think that
the governor's staff is crucial in the nominating commissions. They
are the ones that rent it. They're the ones that
help create the commissions. They are the ones that all
of the vetting goes through. It's the governor's staff who
does all of that. They're the ones that gather the applications.
They are the ones that disperse it. They're the ones
that do all of the background checking, and so the
governor's staff is already doing that.

Speaker 1 (24:51):
Kim, I want to go back to the retention election
that of voters see and C on the ballot and decide.
I'll be honest with you, and I've said this on
the air. I think Greg Is said it as well.
When that shows up on the ballot, I vote no
on every one of the judges, and I'll tell you why.
I don't know who they are. I don't know what
their rulings are. I just vote knowing. We hear from
a lot of listeners who say the exact same thing

(25:12):
to us, What, in your opinion does the bar Association
or the judicial branch in this state need to do
to help the public feel that you're being more transparent.
You're open to this, You're open to what the public
is interested in, because right now the public says, I
don't know who this judge is or what they've done.
Therefore I'm going to vote no to retain them.

Speaker 10 (25:34):
Yes, I understand, and I've heard that criticism or that
feedback before. And so we do have for the retention elections.
The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission and that is a commission
that sends out valuations. They get like information from the
courts as to who this person or who who's like,
who have appeared before this judge, who has had interactions

(25:56):
before this judge. They send in anonymous observers. They give
evaluations to court staff, to baylists, to the anonymous observers,
and to lawyers who appeared before this judge. And then
there are there are performance standards that they that the
judge has to hit based on the feedback from the evaluations.
And then there's an extensive report that is written by

(26:20):
the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission and given to the judge
and the presiding judge. And then if they do decide
to run or stay for retention, then that is released
to the to the to the citizens of the state,
to our communities. And so I know that there has
been feedback that people just aren't getting those evaluations or
they're not getting that information. And JPEG has certainly tried

(26:42):
some marketing campaigns to get that into to the information
to the public. And they're certainly an area that the
Utah State Bar can help facilitate the transfer of that
communication to our citizens in terms of accountability and transparently, Kim, the.

Speaker 2 (26:56):
Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, did they recommend and to not
retain any judges in the last election cycle in twenty four?

Speaker 10 (27:05):
You know, I I'm sorry, I do not know that information.

Speaker 2 (27:08):
It'd be no. In twenty two it'd be no. But
there has been a time there's been an occasion where
the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission did recommend that a judge
not be retained, but that judge receives seventy four percent
of the vote. Can you see the disconnect that I'm
describing right now? First, you're going to retain most of
most times, you're saying retain the judges. In the rare,

(27:28):
rare occasion where you say not to retain that judge
because it's in a name of a bunch of people
no one's ever seen or know anything about, they still
get retained. So I think there's a disconnect here. And
I don't know anyone that should be comfortable with someone
at seventy seven seventy four percent and higher retention elections
because people are like, huh, they're a judge, I'll vote yes,
or like Rod and I would do vote no. It

(27:50):
does not sound like that's transparent. That sounds like a
low information election cycle. And I don't know that you
can just lay it all at the feet of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, because if we look at past performance,
it doesn't look like it matters.

Speaker 10 (28:05):
And so a little bit of background on that, and
so when I talked a little bit before about the
process in which when the report is given and that
judge or when the report is prepared and that judge
who is sitting for retention is given a copy of
that evaluation. At that point, many times, if they fall
below the performance standards, then that judge elects not to retain,

(28:28):
not to sit for retention, and so the judge retires,
and so we would not see that there was not
that we would not see a judge where the the
jpeck didn't vote to retain because that judge has retired.
And I think that if you go back and you
look at some of the judges who are retired in
the past couple of years, some of that could be

(28:48):
in response to their performance evaluation.

Speaker 2 (28:51):
I don't know why they would him, because yeah, I
didn't mean to repui, but we're just running short on time.
But I just want to make the point that I
don't know why they would opt to retire because where
you did vote no to not retain, this judge still
enjoyed a seventy four percent vote to be retained, and
so I don't know that the risks are as high.
Maybe they're embarrassed by the retained not vote not to
retain or the recommendation, but it doesn't look like that

(29:14):
has a bearing if the person decides to go on
the ballot anyway, it does not look like that had
the effect you're talking about. In other words, if you
vote to say not to retain them, they're still getting retained.
Or it did at least happen in twenty sixteen.

Speaker 10 (29:31):
And I think that that's the only one that I
can recall actually that happened. But since then that judge
has retired, and so that judge is no longer sitting
on the bench. And so I think that in my experience,
in my participation in that process, that the evaluations are
incredibly persuasive to judges who fall below the performance standards.

(29:55):
Could there be a better way to get this communication
on these reports out to the voting community into the
citizens of Utah. That is certainly something that I think
that everybody wants because we want that information out. We
want our voters to be informed. We want them to
feel comfortable and who they vote for and what their
vote means. And so certainly that's an area that I
think that all lawyers and the Utah State Bar can

(30:17):
help you.

Speaker 1 (30:18):
Kim, thank you for your time on this Friday afternoon.
Thank you very very much.

Speaker 10 (30:23):
You know I appreciate you all having me. Thank you
so much.

Speaker 1 (30:26):
All right. That is Kim Cordova, President of the Utah
State Bar Association. More coming up on the Roden greg Show.
Interesting talkback story that a listener phoned in about a demonstration,
a walk out of students that she encountered today and
how they treated this Woman's pretty amazing.

Speaker 2 (30:43):
You want to hang on and hear this.

Speaker 1 (30:44):
You want to hear this, folks. These are your education
at work in Utah. That's coming up on the Rowden
Gregg Show. To stay with us. You are going to
be one of the first people and complain when you
get out on a golf course this summer and it's
as brown as can be, better not be because we

(31:06):
haven't got any water.

Speaker 2 (31:08):
They better have war for that.

Speaker 1 (31:12):
You'll be there.

Speaker 2 (31:13):
Stop showering stop showering, buy some bottled water. Let us
make sure those golf courses are green.

Speaker 1 (31:19):
Stop showering.

Speaker 2 (31:20):
No, yeah, maybe notow not a good idea.

Speaker 1 (31:25):
Not a good idea, take a long shot. Well, the
line and the lines are open to you this hour.
It is thank Rod and Greg is Friday. If you
want to weigh in on anything, we've been talking about.
Something on your mind tonight eighty eight eight five seven
eight zero one zero eight eight eight five seven o
eight zero one zero on your cell phone toal Pound
two fifteen say hey Rod, or you can leave us
a message on the talk back line. You raise your fingers.

Speaker 2 (31:47):
Yeah, yes, I just want to say I just if
you were listening. In this last hour, we had a
discussion with Utah Bar President Kim Cordova, and we were
talking about the transparency in the judiciary and the processes
by which they are brought to the governor for consideration,
as well as retention elections. And I think I think
you know our positions here. We've stated them many times.

(32:08):
We think there's a lack of transparency, and so Kim
came on the show to describe that process at length.
Kim Cordova, who's president of the Utah State bar and
if you were listening to that, I'm just curious what
our listeners took from that. Are they more comfortable with it?
Do they think, oh, yeah, it's transparent, or were their
questions answered? I'm just curious. I always love the collective

(32:31):
will of our listeners. So if you heard that interview
and you have an opinion about that interview, I'd be curious.

Speaker 1 (32:37):
I still don't like the idea of a retention election.
I don't. I don't think that people know who they're
voting for. Where this judge stands, you know, I would
like to know. Okay, here's the question I've always wondered.
Dirty Diana, Yes, Judge Gibson Ye, ruling on the redistrict
team case.

Speaker 2 (32:54):
Right.

Speaker 1 (32:55):
In some states judges have to disclose which political party
they make contributions to.

Speaker 2 (33:02):
Well, there's a lot you have to disclose to your contributors.

Speaker 1 (33:05):
Yeah, yeah, And I would like to know if she
can who she, if she has donated to political campaigns,
and which ones. Yeah, I think we should be able
to know that.

Speaker 2 (33:17):
If she I'll bet you she if she's a I
bet you she ceased. If she ever did, I'll bet
you she doesn't do it as a judge, but she might.
But but that would actually be public record because any
candidate that receives a contribution has to list the name
and the amount and the address really of who's contributed
to their campaign. So that's a public record right now.

Speaker 1 (33:35):
Yeah, and I don't want to know if it even
after she's a judge, she had cont before she became
a judge, who she contributed to.

Speaker 2 (33:41):
Yeah, yes, that would be. That would be when I
give us a little bit more insight into, uh, where
she was edded with this ruling. I think it would look.
You can look up legislator's votes. You can look them
up by topic topic. You can look at there are
the committee hearings and floor debates are archived. There's a
lot of transparency in your legislative branch. If you have
a judge and you'd like to know and their names

(34:02):
coming up for retention there. I don't know any any
way that you can get a grasp on how they
rule in their courtroom when certain, uh, certain circumstances are
presented to them. Are they soft on crime? Are they
harsh on crime? Are they what?

Speaker 11 (34:17):
What?

Speaker 5 (34:17):
What?

Speaker 2 (34:18):
How do they vote? How do they rule?

Speaker 1 (34:20):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (34:20):
And if and if we're not supposed to know, then
why do we have it a retention election in the
first place.

Speaker 1 (34:24):
Yeah, so waste waste a paper.

Speaker 2 (34:26):
I don't, I don't it's it. I don't know that
anyone would want a committee to inform you whether a
candidate is worthy of your vote. I think everyone should
be able to look into and understand who that candidate
is and and have information about them, have a candidate,
maybe run against them, and make the decision. Now, if
we don't want to have judicial elections and have opponents, okay,

(34:47):
then but then appointed for life or do something. But
these retention elections I think are an offense to the
voters because I think there's zero information to make that decision.

Speaker 1 (34:54):
And I don't think people pay any attention to them.

Speaker 5 (34:57):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (34:57):
I think a lot of people just put no, no,
no when they're asked if they want to retain a
retain a judge because they just don't have enough information
about it.

Speaker 2 (35:05):
Yeah. So let's go to We do have a caller
calling Paul from North Ogden is kind enough to call Paul,
Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show. What do you
think about that? The discussion we had with the Bar
president at Kim Cordova.

Speaker 3 (35:19):
That gobblegook and legal speak was hard to understand. I
like your guys idea.

Speaker 2 (35:25):
No, no, no, no, no, no, Yes, that's right.

Speaker 3 (35:28):
It's a joke. It is an absolute joke. And then
you have to remember that those attorneys work for those
judges that are working some of them. They're not going
to shoot them down. My gosh, they're all in bed together.

Speaker 2 (35:42):
Yep, you know what, Paul.

Speaker 3 (35:43):
And I got another comment. Yes, gas has gone up.
My gas has gone up forty cents this week in
North Ogden. Are they trying to send the message to
the legislature they don't tax the stuff's going out of town?

Speaker 2 (35:58):
Paul, good question, folks. I got to tell you I've
talked to the lawmakers I've served with up there. You've
got the oil and gas lobby up there big time.
They are trying to crush that bill. There's a gas
tax on the table up there, and they are trying
to kill it. And the problem they're having is that
the public they're not And it's hard. We're all busy.
It's hard to get out there and reach out to
your lawmakers. But I would encourage anyone to l Utah

(36:22):
dot Cup. Go up, look up your legislator, look at
the at who represents you, and reach out if you care,
give them the encouragement to vote for that gas tax cuts.
It's on the table. But the only people really are
loud and persuasive right now are the lobbyists who don't
want to see that happen. They're beating up those lawmakers
something fierce.

Speaker 1 (36:42):
Yeah, they're afraid. They're afraid. I mean, they're getting a
lot of pressure not to move forward on this.

Speaker 2 (36:46):
They've even comveted. They've got the Chevron's got Idaho threatening
to take water away from us in our state. First off,
that's a bluff. It won't happen. It won't happen. But
for them to say that the state of Utah is
not able to put a tax structure around or regular
structure around refineries or our oil and gas company in
our state, and Idaho's going to tell us, no, no,

(37:06):
you're gonna do that. You're not going to do it
because we don't want to pay anything. We want to
exempt fuel coming to our state. They've overstepped. Idaho's overstepped.
But Uton's need to reach out to their lawmakers and
let them know they support a gas tax cut. That's
how you cut the gas tax in this state.

Speaker 1 (37:21):
Yeah, and we need to.

Speaker 2 (37:22):
It's I'm just like him. My mind went up twenty
something since from the last time I filled it up.

Speaker 1 (37:28):
Yeah, I think gallon, Yeah, I think last week. I
agree with Paul, I think last week. Last time I
filled up, it was two ninety one. Before that, it
was two sixty one. Now how does it jump thirty cent?

Speaker 2 (37:38):
Yeah, I'm premium. I paid three twenty four last night.

Speaker 1 (37:41):
Wow four. And around the guntry some places under two
dollars a gallon.

Speaker 2 (37:47):
I'm just gonna tell. And let don't let anyone say, well,
you know, anyway, there's there's all this fear mongering going on.
We we have the highest in the regent. We have
the mismanagement of California that used to have the most
third most refineries in the state are all been shut
down by their mismanagement and over regulatory climate. That should
not mean that we have to pay for their mismanagement

(38:08):
and pay more for gasoline, but their demand is making
that gas more valuable, and the oil and gas industries
are moving that way. But we hold the infrastructure here,
the supply chain and take. We bear the impact of
the presence of that infrastructure in our state. And it's
always been a two way street with the oil and
gas companies. That helped them, but it helped us with

(38:28):
low gas prices. They're Renegan on their side of the deal.

Speaker 1 (38:33):
Well, they see a market there, a market that needs them.
They're probably charging them unbelievable amounts of money for the
excess gas that we produce here in the state of Utah.
They're going to sell it to California.

Speaker 2 (38:44):
Rod I had a list We had a listener send
us a YouTube video sixteen minutes long and it showed
how California and.

Speaker 1 (38:50):
It was great company.

Speaker 2 (38:51):
After us, guess what, it's been pulled off off of YouTube.
They have pulled that at that video off and I'm
going to tell you it's because it was two of
the people that want that removed. We're able to complain
loud enough and convince people to take it off the
off the offline. So but I'm gonna look into it
all you want. I'm not telling you how to vote,
but I want a gas tax cut. That's what I want.

Speaker 1 (39:13):
That's what I'm saying to me. What they're looking at
makes sense.

Speaker 2 (39:15):
To us, and it's and it is it is high
time that you know people that have been tax exempt.
If you want to send forty percent of that refined
fuel that's refined in our state out to other states,
you can tax that. Every state has a right to
create a tax and regulatory structure inside their state. Don't
let Idaho or California tell us otherwise.

Speaker 1 (39:34):
Your calls, your talked about comments. When we come back
on the Rod and Gregg Show, a story of someone
who designed it to interact with some of the high
school protesters today and how she was treated. Wait till
you hear this story that's coming up next on the
Rod and Greg Show and Utah's Talk Radio one O
five to nine O k n RS. You have broken
one of the ultimate fashion rules.

Speaker 2 (39:54):
And I showed you it was a secret, like nobody
even knew. And I thought I wanted to say, look
at this cool shirt that no one knows is a
different and you're like, that looks terrible.

Speaker 1 (40:03):
You look terrible. You don't wear a tie with a
golf shirt.

Speaker 2 (40:05):
Nobody knows it's a golf shirt until I told you,
and then you said it was judge before, but nobody
knows you can't tell. Nobody knows I was bragging, because
you know what Utah knows. Now, Bragging is a lot
cooler to wear. It's not as hot, and it is
warm in this studio. Yes, and so I was showing
you and then you you said that you call me it.
You said I was like a twelve year old deacon.

Speaker 1 (40:26):
Yeah, you diet shirts with a tie.

Speaker 2 (40:33):
I know it's the radio, so you can't see what
I'm wearing, but this looks like a button down white shirt.
You would never know the difference.

Speaker 1 (40:37):
You look like, mister Rogers.

Speaker 2 (40:39):
I am wearing a mister you are, but I do.

Speaker 1 (40:44):
Shall we get back to the business at hand, Let's
talk about We took a lot of calls yesterday, people
very upset with these protests taking place around the state,
around the city, around the valley, from students who were
walking out of middle school or high school and pro
testing eights. Most of them probably don't know what ice
is or could define what their role is. Right. And

(41:06):
I read earlier an email that we got from a
man who was coming to work yesterday morning saw a
protest of students. One of them was carrying a sign
which offended him. It was basically f Ice without you,
the f so to speak, and an elderly woman who
was trying to get through the crowd and the students
would letter through. Well, then we heard this comment today

(41:29):
from this woman. She left this story. It's in two
parts on our talkback line. Listen to her encounter.

Speaker 12 (41:35):
I want to tell you the experience that I had
today with kids from Cottonwood High School. I was walking
past on thirteen hundred East and I shut my head
and I said, you guys don't have any idea what
you're doing. And man, did I get ripped into all
their signs said f Ice, And I said, you have
no you don't understand, you have no idea, and they

(41:57):
just laid into mere obscenities. I called the high school,
want to know who is responsible.

Speaker 2 (42:06):
I need to finish my story.

Speaker 12 (42:07):
Congwood High School told me to call Granite School District.
So I called Granite School District. Finally got a hold
of someone and she said, you know, you need to
contact the high school. I'm like, I contacted the high
school and they told me to contact you. So she
told me to go online and logic complaint at Granite

(42:30):
School District dot org. But man, those kids came unhinged.

Speaker 1 (42:34):
Yeah, it sounds like they came unhinged shouting obscenities at
a woman.

Speaker 2 (42:39):
Well, yeah, there there's that. I've seen people that have
had their way blocked. There's a video in this one.
I don't know if this happened in Utah, but I
saw a bunch of kids surrounding a woman yelling racists
at her and throwing things at her. I don't know
if that if that was in this state or a
different state. But to get these kids to act the
way they are, they're props, their political props by the

(43:02):
union inside that school, by the leftists inside that school.
And I'm telling you, I hate it sounds like hyperbole,
but I do genuinely worry that our public schools are
becoming staging training and staging areas for impressiable minds to
become leftists. I mean, they are just getting so aggressive.
You know, for fact, that they would not let those

(43:22):
kids in mass leave school for any protest whose message
they didn't agree with or they didn't think the same
that they're not going to have kids just get up
and leave for any political message under the sun. They're
not letting them leave period. If they're going. It's because
they're letting them go and directing where to go and
pointing to them where to go. That's what they're doing,

(43:44):
and they're using our kids to do it.

Speaker 1 (43:45):
I am not opposed greg to kids getting involved. Yeah,
in think I know, I'm not opposed to that. We
want people to get it. I don't want them doing
it on school time, that's right. That's one thing. And
I'm not real happy with them carrying signs that say
f ice sorry.

Speaker 2 (44:00):
Exactly, they're kids, and you know again, these are adults
that use these kids. I actually I saw this years
ago when I was at the capitol. You have a
lot of kids that tour the capitol. So you have
I have schools, I have school districts that come today
and they come and so I would bring the kids.
I've got my tours the best. By the way, I
got stuff I show kids no one's ever seen before.
It's really cool. But anyway, I'm talking to these kids

(44:22):
and I have and so we get to a point
where it's I want to ask questions. It's the people's house.
What have you seen?

Speaker 5 (44:26):
What do you like?

Speaker 2 (44:27):
What do you want to ask? Questions about? The girl?
Little girl raises her hands, says, the way the pupil
you in it was four point seven percent last year,
are you going to raise it by two or three
percent this year? And is it going to impact the
benefits of the teachers and their steps and lanes? She's ten, okay,
ten years old, rattling that question off. I would be

(44:48):
asked on occasion questions that I just don't think that
the child or the kids in the class I am
in front of understood the question that was being asked
by a student, or would understand the answer I would
share that is a that was a question that was
given to a student to ask me that really didn't
have any to do with a tour or the kids.
And that was a long time ago. I think it's
way worse now.

Speaker 1 (45:09):
Yeah, all right, let's go to our talk back line.
We've got another listener wants to weigh in.

Speaker 4 (45:14):
Love the show. Rod and Greg be in a former
California beach bum. One of the things that California did
do right was with each ballot pult include a pamphlet
that had pros and cons for each item on the ballot,
which would include retention.

Speaker 5 (45:31):
Of of.

Speaker 4 (45:34):
Judges where a group could go ahead and put their
input of good or bad decisions.

Speaker 1 (45:42):
I love that idea. I love you made support or
not like this, you see at least someone's trying to
get more information in.

Speaker 2 (45:49):
You'll see a constitutional moment and it'll have a voter
pamphlet that has a pro and a con. But some
of these I think they do it with petitions. But
here's the thing. I don't want to know what the
attorneys who have to appear for these judges and their
committees and all that they just talked about. That's an
inside baseball game. What I want to know is if
I want to know if you're soft on crime or
hard on crime, that how do I determine that? If

(46:12):
you have someone that's been arrested in a park at
two AM for trying to solicit a minor and you
let them out that morning before the officers could even
finish the probable cause statement.

Speaker 1 (46:22):
I want to know we got a problem with that.

Speaker 2 (46:23):
I got a problem with that. I want to know
what catch and release judges are out there. I want
to know what judges that hold people that look like
they could be a menace to our community. And there's
both out there in our in our state, types of judges.
We don't know which ones are which because we have
no information about how they rule. You can take the
names out. You're not invading anyone's privacy to let us
know the disposition of these judges and how they absorb

(46:46):
information and the rulings they make. It'd be it's I
would I would like to see that.

Speaker 1 (46:51):
Yeah, yeah, all right, let's get what Let's get to
col In. Let's go to Lee in provo tonight wants
to weigh in on Thank Ron and greg Is Friday
High Lee? How are you.

Speaker 13 (47:01):
Super?

Speaker 9 (47:02):
How are you guys?

Speaker 1 (47:02):
We're doing well? Thank you well.

Speaker 14 (47:05):
Anyway, when I went to school back in the fifties,
when I was in high school, junior high, if you
left class, you were expelled, That's true, and the parent
had to come back with a signed statement back to
school to bring you back to get you back in.
And that's what i'd be going on now.

Speaker 1 (47:25):
I agree. Yeah, I agree with you on that.

Speaker 2 (47:27):
Amen.

Speaker 1 (47:28):
Yeah, we cut class. We got in trouble for Look, you're.

Speaker 2 (47:31):
Talking to the kid that was on the wrong side
of all those Thingskay, I was always getting in trouble,
but I got in trouble. This this nonsense I mean honestly.
I mean, I just think that I, as a kid,
would I wouldn't walk out, I'd run out. I'd do
it under any topic. I would have been a kid
that would laugh at this whole concept. But I wouldn't
go to if they let me out of that school

(47:53):
down at the bottom at West High, I would not
walk up that hill. I'd say that's where I'm going,
but I wouldn't walk up that hill the capitol. I
would just leave for the weekend.

Speaker 1 (48:00):
If you're a parent upset with this, I think every
parent should go to that school principle and say who
organized this? Where did this come from? Who started this?
Was this organic? Did it come from a student or
did it come from teachers who gave them the talking points?
Who made the signs? That's what I'd like to know.

Speaker 2 (48:18):
Well, when you heard that the talkback Live comment that
she asked you called the high school? They said, call
the district. She called the district. They said, call.

Speaker 1 (48:27):
Like a pingpongwy the old switcheroo. All right, more coming up?
Or your calls eight eight eight five seven eight zero
one zero on your cell phone dial pound two fifteen
and say hey Rod or leave us some message on
our talkback line by downloading the iHeartRadio app. More coming
up of the Rod and Gregg Show. That because number
one on your preset button, just like your old radio
you know you had buttons. You just go down them,

(48:47):
punch up your favorite radio stations. Put us number one.

Speaker 2 (48:50):
It's number one on mine.

Speaker 1 (48:52):
Yeah it is on mine too. Yeah it should be.

Speaker 2 (48:55):
Or we're in trouble. All right, shall we go back
to the phones. Let's go the phones. Let's go to
Pam and we were county Pam, thank you for holding in.
Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 15 (49:06):
I Hey, I've got two themes. But the first one
is the schools can't be responsible for what students do
off of the school grounds as students students leave, that
should be a law enforcement situation, and I think that
the schools in the district sought to just refer it
to law enforcement, Mark and truant and then I'm sorry,

(49:26):
but safety. They cannot guarantee students safety or behavior off
of school grounds, so that that to me is past
their their ability or what they should be required to do.

Speaker 2 (49:38):
Pam can ask you a quick question? Can I ask
you one little question about that? Because I I everything
you said just made sense. But to the extent that
so many kids can simply walk out of school, do
parents have any reasonable expectation that that kids won't be
able to walk off? I know what you're saying is true,
but is that will that happen anytime the kids decide
they want to get involved the Do you think the

(50:00):
school had to at least accommodate it or be patient
to allow them to do it? There is there a
role for this, I guess? Is there a role for
the school to not allow all the kids to leave
in mass like that?

Speaker 5 (50:11):
So?

Speaker 15 (50:11):
I do know a teacher that I believe has lost
their job over organizing it. Of course you you don't
get told the real reason, but all of a sudden
that teacher's gone, and it came right on the heels
of one of these protests.

Speaker 10 (50:24):
Okay, Yes, So I do.

Speaker 15 (50:26):
Think that schools are making efforts that you're not aware of.
But I'm not going to defend I'm not going to
defend schools and public schools in the situation. I don't
agree with a lot.

Speaker 16 (50:34):
However, what would you suggest happen?

Speaker 15 (50:38):
Do you think that parents are going to like us
to physically restrain and then look that you.

Speaker 2 (50:43):
Know, here's why I'm in the g so they kept
Here's my hunch. If this was a pro life or
a Second Amendment right, yes, these kids wouldn't have been
allowed to go. There would have been I don't think
that there's I just think that whatever that means, I
don't know if they'd physically stop them. I don't know
what it would be. But if there was a right
center protest that kids wanted to go leaves in the

(51:03):
middle of the day and go to I think that
there would be something at that school that would prohibit
that from happening, or even multiple protests for a myriad
of different reasons. I don't think you'd see it in
the school. I think they would stop it.

Speaker 5 (51:15):
I don't.

Speaker 15 (51:16):
Yeah, I don't think that they can't stop it. Like
I said, how can And I'll tell you I'm.

Speaker 5 (51:20):
In the classroom.

Speaker 8 (51:22):
You sound smart stop a child.

Speaker 15 (51:26):
No, I'm not that smart because I'm in the classroom
apparently Anyway, Yeah, there's no way to physically restrain kids
from leaving.

Speaker 16 (51:35):
You just can't do that.

Speaker 15 (51:36):
However, what you should do, and I've posted this before,
is admin should get on because they hear about this
stuff happening. They need to get on the intercom and
I've seen this happen and say, hey, we hear that
this is being planned. Here are going to be the
consequences if you choose to participate, and that that should
be a truancy. It should be no makeup work available.

(51:57):
If they are able to find out that their adults
in school involved, there needs to be some disciplinary action
because that can't even be taught in the classroom. But
you know, parents should be responsible for their kids outside
of school.

Speaker 16 (52:09):
We've we've abdicated responsibility.

Speaker 15 (52:11):
To teachers into schools and then we complain schools shouldn't
be raising our kids. If you don't know what your
child is doing, and I know that that happens, I'm
a parent, you probably better figure it out. If you
haven't figured it out, then when you get a call
from the school or the police that your little darling
is out on the street saying f I, then you're
going to have a root awakening. So no, not the

(52:32):
school's responsibility when they're off of school grounds shouldn't.

Speaker 1 (52:34):
Be all right.

Speaker 2 (52:35):
I like Pam I superintendent public schools. She handled this.

Speaker 1 (52:42):
Public schools. She had back to the phones. We go
to Oakley and hear from Jerry tonight here on the
rodden Greg show. Hi, Jerry, how are you? Thanks for calling?

Speaker 10 (52:51):
Oh fine, hey, I was.

Speaker 7 (52:52):
At the capital today and that's just that's outrageous. That
is not a protest profanity. There's only one flag for America.
That's the American flag. We got Mexican flags there. They're
not advocating their own point very well at all. And
then the teachers are teaching thuggery. Yeah, I saw that too,
exercising of your.

Speaker 2 (53:11):
Rights, Jerry, I saw it too, and starting the guard
make them leave. Let me ask you, did you they
actually they could?

Speaker 4 (53:18):
They were?

Speaker 2 (53:18):
They they're watching. I saw the highway patrol monitoring and
seeing if they were going to get too violent or not.
But let me ask you this. I saw them walking past.
I saw a giant group. But did was it profane?
Were they did they actually confront anyone? What did What
did you see with these kids? Because I think you're right,
it isn't the greatest lesson freedom of speech.

Speaker 7 (53:38):
I saw the f I signs in the Mexican flag.

Speaker 2 (53:42):
Really I saw both.

Speaker 1 (53:43):
Well, all right, all right, Jerry, thank you. We go
to Robert in Orum tonight here on the rod In
Greg Show, Robert, how are you welcome?

Speaker 17 (53:52):
Doing good?

Speaker 4 (53:52):
Thank you?

Speaker 18 (53:53):
How are you guys doing.

Speaker 1 (53:53):
We're doing well, thank you.

Speaker 17 (53:57):
I'm just worried.

Speaker 19 (53:58):
About this next ledge Slative session because they're trying to
cut a lot of funding from teachers in schools but
also from higher education. There was already the cut last year,
and I feel like with a young state like Utah,
we need to invest in our youth. And if there's
cuts that are going to be made the higher education,

(54:19):
it needs to come from administration, not from the student experience,
not from classes, not from faculty.

Speaker 2 (54:26):
Okay, Robert, thank you for the input. I look, if
it's admin, whoever's responsible for the things that I don't
think have anything to do with advancing educational progress. You know,
the DEI, the social agenda, if that be faculty, that
be administration. I don't think that's worthy of our state
institution of the higher learning. It's not worth our taxpayer dollars.
I certainly didn't sign up for that. But I don't

(54:48):
know if that's if that fault lies solely with administration,
or if there are a faculty that help fuel those things.
But I think those are the things that we should
not be paying for as taxpayers, and that is the
radicalizing of these students.

Speaker 1 (55:00):
I'm with you.

Speaker 2 (55:00):
I'm all for both sides of a story. Let the
battle of ideas of issues. Let the battle of ideas
go on. But what we're seeing right now is not
both sides. This is a I think, like I said,
I think they're radicalizing these kids.

Speaker 1 (55:11):
All right back to phones in Salt Lake City. We're
talking with Richard tonight on the rod In Greg Show. Hi, Richard,
how are you.

Speaker 9 (55:18):
Hi?

Speaker 10 (55:18):
Thank you.

Speaker 18 (55:19):
I just wanted to comment on the judge thing. You
have other attorneys that they say that will kind of
review the attorney and who wants to slam an attorney
that they may be working with down the road or
that may become a judge and they may have to
appear before them in the future. It's like the fox

(55:39):
guarding the hen house in my opinion, and I went
through a big court thing fairly recently, and I had
so many complaints and felt like it was so unfair.
I feel like they should have something where at the
end of a when the court case is over, both
parties should be able to make comments on what they

(56:02):
thought of the judge. Now you could have a headline
saying before the comments, you know, you have a thousand
words that they can do reviews of the judges, and
they should have a disclaimer saying these people don't know
the law, so just be aware and whoever loses is
probably going to have an ax to grind. But I'll

(56:23):
bet you if I read reviews of judges made by
the both parties in a court case and I read
a bunch of reviews of judges, or if they hired
someone from the state to kind of summarize these topoor
over these so that when they assess a judge they
can say, this person's terrible. I mean, all these people

(56:44):
can't be wrong. They're saying this, and it's not just
left them to attorneys judging other attorneys. So that's my point.
I just feel like we need so much more what's
the word feedback, where the public can get feedback so
that when we have a criteria to judge them that
means something.

Speaker 1 (57:05):
Yeah, yeah, I heard them an idea like that, But
there's you know, we're just asking for transparency and do
it in a way that the average uton can understand.
Greg Sometimes it gets tied up in legal jargon, and
people look at it, they go, huh.

Speaker 2 (57:19):
I like that too, And I think you kind of
like the Big Spot. If you had enough reviews, you'd
see patterns. You would start to see patterns of process
that you like or don't like, and you would see that,
and again that's we're talking about transparency. I mean, I
don't know how you ask everyone to vote for these
names of people. They don't know, they have no idea
what they do, they don't know, they know nothing about them,

(57:41):
and you're asking them to retain them. It's an offensive process.
And don't tell me that you've got a bunch of
inside baseball people that all work together telling you that
you should do it or not. And even in the rare, rare,
rare cases where they said don't retain them, that judge
still got seventy four percent of the boat to be retained,
which means nobody's even watching that process that they're doing.

Speaker 1 (58:00):
All right, we've got more callers coming in. We'll take
a break and come back and hear from you tonight
on the Roden greg Show and Utah's Talk Rady' one
o five to nine. Yeah, all right, all right, let's
go back to the phones. Let's talk with Scott and Draper. Scott,
how are you, thanks for joining us.

Speaker 13 (58:14):
I'm well, thank you. I have a question of two words.
The two words I'm questioning. One is democracy and the
other is protest. Thomas Jefferson put it this way. Set
in questions of power, then let it noma be heard
of confidence in man, but binding down for mischief by
the chains of the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution will

(58:35):
you find those two words protester.

Speaker 2 (58:38):
Democracy.

Speaker 13 (58:40):
Right, Let's let's take protests for a second.

Speaker 1 (58:44):
Here.

Speaker 13 (58:45):
The closest thing you come to in the Constitution is
the First Amendment says you have the right to peaceably
assemble and petition the government for a redress agrievments grievances.
The government consists of three branch. None of those branches
are called ice.

Speaker 1 (59:04):
That's true.

Speaker 5 (59:05):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (59:05):
All right, we wanted to get some of these talkbacks.

Speaker 2 (59:07):
I'm going to tell heartbreak at the top of the hour,
we're going to get some talkback lives calls in.

Speaker 1 (59:10):
All right, here's one.

Speaker 12 (59:12):
I'm the one that left you the message earlier about
the Cottonwood High School incident, and just between you and I,
most of the kids were Hispanic, and I would say
ninety percent of them. And they did have a Mexican
flag that they were carrying, and also they had the

(59:35):
US flag, but their signs were definitely f ice.

Speaker 1 (59:40):
All right, here's another comment on our talkback line.

Speaker 6 (59:44):
Hi, this is glennon Provo. On the Sean Hannity Show today,
Greg Jarrett said that the same thing happened in Washington
State yesterday, and he was pretty sure that it was
illegal to release kids without their parents' permission.

Speaker 1 (59:56):
M Okay, I don't know what the rules are here state,
so we can't answer that. I don't know unless you.

Speaker 2 (01:00:02):
Know what you're saying. Greg, jared'sys they can, but I'm okay,
but I'm telling you you can't take kids out of
school for no reason. So I don't know how they
can just leave on their own for no reason. It
just doesn't seem to comport to you.

Speaker 5 (01:00:14):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:00:14):
Yeah, Well, hopefully this is the end of it, But
I don't know. This goes on. Greg. Maybe they if
they feel emboldened to do it, they'll do it again.

Speaker 2 (01:00:21):
I'm just annoyed because I do think this is fueled
by different people are organized. These kids didn't just wake
up one then all at the same day, at the
same time, I want to do it. There are adults
behind these things that are using these kids as props,
and I no one will convince me otherwise, And I.

Speaker 1 (01:00:36):
Agree with you, So I love to get to the
bottom of that. All right, finding the middle in America,
if there is such a thing anymore, We'll talk about it.
Coming up next our number three of There Riding Greg Show.
We played a audio SoundBite earlier from Harry Anton. This
is something that you brought up yesterday that the MAGA

(01:00:58):
movement within the Republican Party is not getting any weaker.
In fact, it's getting stronger.

Speaker 2 (01:01:05):
That's right, and I lay it the feet of a
successful second term that President Trump's been able to do
things that he wasn't able to do in the first term,
and we're seeing that needle move.

Speaker 1 (01:01:14):
Yeah, we've talked over time about the middle. Is there
a moderate middle, silent majority, whatever you want to call
it in America today? And our next guest wrote about
that and is joining us on our Newsmaker line right now,
Ed Rang. He is a senior fellow at the Center
for American Greatness.

Speaker 8 (01:01:30):
Ed.

Speaker 1 (01:01:30):
Always great to have you on this show. Ed can
you define what the middle is today? Is there a
moderate segment of this country out there today?

Speaker 14 (01:01:38):
Ed?

Speaker 20 (01:01:38):
Well, you know, if I had a perfect, accurate idea,
that would be pretty valuable. I think we're all searching
for that. But the Democrats have seized upon the affordability agenda,
which is extremely ironic because they're the reason nothing is affordable.
But I think that that probably is one of the
primary areas where you know, the center, if you will,

(01:02:03):
of the American electorate probably has broad agreement and probably
a pretty good majority.

Speaker 2 (01:02:08):
So some of this I just I don't know where
America became childlike in its opinions. And what I mean
by that is, if you ever you grew up in
a family and you have maybe a mother's side of
the family, a father's side of the family, you have
an aunt and she marries not your uncle on his
side of the family. We have been confronted with people
whose worldviews, behaviors, lifestyles would be very different than our own,

(01:02:30):
and yet they're family. But how did we get to
a place where if you don't have the same exact worldview,
it draws anger. You can't talk to them, you can't
have them over for dinner. How did we get this way?

Speaker 20 (01:02:44):
Well, that's another really good question, a really tough question
to answer. You know, the left, if you will, the
left of center has sort of drifted to more and
more of an extreme position, and there wasn't a lot
of public opposition to it. I think Rush Limbaugh began
this in the nineteen nineties where he threw it all
right back at them and put you know, the shine

(01:03:06):
of light on all of this and laughed and ridiculed them,
and it was something that they were unaccustomed to, and
he was reviled by you know, the center left and
the media. Now what Trump did because we didn't stop it,
It just got kept creeping slowly through all of our
institutions and got more and more extreme and common sense

(01:03:29):
appraisal of a lot of these things that I think
we're talking about the same stuff. A lot of these
social issues primarily just got so out of control that
by the time Trump came along, he was at another
level of ridicule. I think in many respects, President Trump,
you know, probably wouldn't hurt our cause if he toned

(01:03:49):
it down a little bit. But the twin issues of
affordability and radical social transs that are being pushed as
if their mainstream are the reason that Trump was elected
and this pushback, again, it's not something that the left

(01:04:11):
and the institutions they control are accustomed to. So they're
reacting with extreme you know, they're they're having extreme reactions,
and a lot of the people on the Trump side
are you know, they've been fed up and they're getting
defensive and it's starting to be reciprocated. And that's where
we are today.

Speaker 1 (01:04:30):
By pushing back, though, are those of us on the
right being viewed as extreme because we're pushing back on
the from the extreme left? Are we being accused of
being extreme? Do you think.

Speaker 20 (01:04:41):
We absolutely are? And that's again a product of the
bias that you're going to see in most of the
major media even now. I think we forget a lot
of the time on the right that we are a
niche audience in terms of media, even if we're a
majority in terms of the electorate. So they're going to

(01:05:01):
represent anything that's reciprocated as extreme and they're going to
downplay everything that's happening on their side, and you see
that all the time.

Speaker 2 (01:05:11):
You know, you make this point in your article, but
I it bears repeing. So in twenty sixteen, when a
lot of people didn't think that Trump was going to
win the presidency, they thought it was such a long shot.
I was in a seminar where Charlie Cook and the
Cook Report, and he was describing to leaders why there
was no path for Donald Trump to win the presidency,

(01:05:31):
and he segmented America and to write, you know, the
right of center, Republicans, Democrats, left of center, your independence
in the middle, gender preferences. And I remember the one
thing that he was failing to do is to account
for just the common sense of Americans and how you know,
they don't care if it's cheap socks at a big,
big box retailer. They want a job, you know, they

(01:05:54):
don't care about some of the things that they're hearing
from aside. They just want some common sense ideas, which
I thought that Trump started to author as a candidate
in twenty sixteen. Is it possible that common sense really
isn't left of center anymore or right of center or independent.
It's being identified more as maga or right of center.
Just this common sense that not long ago even Democrats

(01:06:18):
believed in the issues that we're talking about. Whether it
be immigration or jobs or anything like that. Has America
kind of moved to this common sense place and left
the left where they are and maybe that's the problem.

Speaker 20 (01:06:32):
Well, there's a lot.

Speaker 17 (01:06:32):
There's a lot to that question.

Speaker 20 (01:06:34):
I think that the MAGA movement represents and I put
a list, as not a complete list by any means,
of some of the things that Trump is trying to
do that are going to help our economy and help
our society and help us recover economic health and also
just a healthier society with the right incentives for people.

(01:06:56):
And unfortunately that is being attacked because it's coming from Trump,
it's coming from the Maga movement. You should never disparage
an idea because of its source, you know, you should,
you should weigh And I think that's one of our
biggest problems is where we have to figure out how
to disconnect the ideas from the demonization that we're unfortunately

(01:07:22):
you're victims of. And you know, this comes back to
the whole idea of friendships in America. People who with
lifelong friendships are losing these friendships. It's mostly people on
the left rejecting their friends on the right because they've
had Trump represented to them. Over and over again in
such a toxic light, you know, and Trump is not

(01:07:45):
doing himself any favors when he, for example, posts.

Speaker 5 (01:07:48):
That I didn't see the video.

Speaker 20 (01:07:49):
I don't know how bad it really is, but somebody
put on for Trump's two social account of video of
the Obama's in kind of a crude caricatures. That sort
of thing makes it much harder for us to be
able to maintain our friendships with people on the left,
because there's a lot of people on the left who
maybe they haven't thought about the economic aspects enough, but
they easily in many cases just over it's overshadowed by

(01:08:15):
all of this stuff that's frankly unnecessary, and it's really
kind of too bad.

Speaker 1 (01:08:21):
On our newsmaker line ed Ring with the Center for
American Greatness. I don't know if there is a middle anymore.
I think we've been pushed to I don't know, maybe
there is.

Speaker 2 (01:08:29):
My question. I think common sense went over they you know,
the left wants to call anything that doesn't subscribe to
their worldview, you know, radical right or right or maggot.
But I think common sense Americans are spot in the
policies of Donald Trump. He's got former Democrats in his cabinet.
I think that's the common sense administration and left, the
radical left just can't stand it.

Speaker 1 (01:08:48):
Yeah, that could be true, all right. More coming up
on Talk Radio one oh five nine can arrest. It
is Friday afternoon, as you're getting ready for the weekend.
More coming up. I want to read you this quote
great today. It came from Steve Moore's website, the Committee
to Unleash Prosperity. This is from the Belgian Prime minister.
He said today, the EU's green energy policies make it

(01:09:11):
impossible to provide our own energy needs, make it impossible
to mine our rare minerals in Europe. We've made dogmatic
choices against nuclear energy, which was the stupidity of the century.
That's coming from the Prime Minister of Belgium.

Speaker 17 (01:09:26):
I love it.

Speaker 2 (01:09:27):
It's true too, And a lot of us weren't drinking
the kool aid on this from the beginning. We knew
something was up, We knew this, there was something wrong here.
But I think it's starting to become more conventional wisdom
that the whole movement isn't what it was cracked up
to be.

Speaker 1 (01:09:40):
Well, on our Newsmaker line is Steve Molloy. Steve is
a senior fellow at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute. Steve,
you know a lot of people have been talking about
what happened to the Washington Post this week. They laid
off a third of their staff, including the entire climate desk.
As a Washington Post Steve, Steve, what do you make
of this?

Speaker 9 (01:10:00):
Well, yeah, it's a big surprise. You know, Jeff Bezos,
who owns the Washington Post, has been a big supporter
of climate hysteria. You know, if you go to my
x feed right now near the top, I've got honey,
I shrunk the climate hoax. He had hired like thirty
staff to work on climate, and over the years some

(01:10:23):
of them were let go. But then this week, in
addition to firing you know, a third of the Washington
Post staff, which is astounding, end of itself, basically the
entire climate staff was fired. I mean the only guys
that are left are the guys that do weather, who
also do some climate, but they basically they're only hired

(01:10:44):
to do weather. So Bezos has removed climate from the
Washington Post, which is really amazing. You know, when I
do my ex post, the first place I go in
the morning is typically through the Washington Post because they've
had twenty to thirty people working on the climate hoax
the place to start.

Speaker 2 (01:11:01):
So what was the tipping point? Is that the election
of Donald Trump?

Speaker 5 (01:11:05):
Is it?

Speaker 2 (01:11:05):
And norm like common sense coming back?

Speaker 10 (01:11:08):
Is it?

Speaker 2 (01:11:08):
The demand for power exceeds anything that alternative energy could
have ever or could ever produce. So you have some
of these guys like Gates and others that are looking
at nuclear they're in other words, you've got some practical
needs that even the richest of the rich can't you know,
can't satisfy. So is it the business side of it

(01:11:30):
and the need for power, or is it Donald Trump
and his leadership helping us change course here?

Speaker 9 (01:11:36):
Well, it's kind of all of that. You know, Bezos
needs Trump, Trump has got you know, Trump thinks climate
is a hoax. All of big tech has suddenly discovered
that they need more electricity for AI and their data centers,
which wind and sol is not going to provide. So

(01:11:59):
the climate has been on the decline for a while.
Maybe Bezos is less worried about it than he used
to be. Maybe he feels like he spent enough money
on virtue signaling, which is really all it ever was.
But I mean he had put ten billion dollars into
something called the Bezos Earth Fund. So you know, it's
hard to say, but I think the important thing is

(01:12:19):
that this is not going away. Okay, let's just say,
for example, that Democrats recapture the White House in twenty eight.
This is coming right back. And you know, I'm a
little bit concerned about the Trump administration because they talk
a great game, but there are things that need to
be done and done right. Then they need to go

(01:12:40):
through jugital review and we need to win for you
to fix things. You know, it's not enough to just
announce a policy or issued executive order or even to
propose the rollback of, say the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.
You have to do it and it has to survive
judical review. And you know, so far they have not
yet actually rescinded the engagement finding. I think it's coming soon,

(01:13:03):
but we need to get it into court. We need
to get it into court on the right issue, and
we need to get the Supreme Court to get rid
of the decision that allowed EPA to regulate greenhous is
in the first place, Massachusetts versus EPA in two thousand
and seven.

Speaker 1 (01:13:15):
So there's a lot to do, Steve one. I mean,
if you put it on a priority list, would that
be getting the issues before a judicial review? What are
some of the other things you think that the administration
needs to do and do so now or fairly fairly soon.

Speaker 9 (01:13:32):
Well, so there's you know, climate is number one. This
engagement finding must go and that must get to the
Supreme Court, and we must win that before whatever happens
in twenty twenty eight. Who knows what that is going
to be. There are other regulations at EPA that have
to do with air quality. Air quality has been EPA's
most powerful weapon. It destroyed the coal industry. I worked

(01:13:54):
in the coal industry in the two thousands, and EPA
bankrupted half of the American colony through its ridiculous air
quality regulations. That stuff needs to be fixed. They haven't
even really started on that yet. You know, President Trump
wants to bring back the coal industry, but it's going
to be hard to do. He wants to bring back
the nuclear industry. There's also some fundamental changes that need

(01:14:16):
to go through there that will probably involve litigation. There
is a lot to do. You know, you can't just
announce these policies and imagine that it's all done. It's not.
There's a lot of work, you know, Steve.

Speaker 2 (01:14:28):
Here in Utah, over sixty five percent of our state
is federal land, federally controlled, which means that we really
are penned in in the areas and we live. There's
an area of Utah called the Wassatch Front where there's
four counties where probably seventy five percent of our population live.
When you get outside of that area, there are just
you can't run corridor for power, you can't get or

(01:14:49):
water or roads. It becomes very, very difficult. And so
we had a recent win with the Trump administration. And
this goes to this environmentalist cause. And this is a
road that's probably been approved back in the nineties, and
the environmentalists have been able to tie that up into court.
The Trump administration approved this corridor for this road, and
it's a southern Utah County Utah Washington County area, and

(01:15:13):
we just saw yesterday that it's going to be litigated
yet again. It seems that the environmentalist's greatest weapon is
to just bog everything. Be it climate, be at EPA,
air standards, be it land, you name it. They just
go into those courts and they sit for thirty years.
I mean, how do we get past something like that?

Speaker 9 (01:15:33):
Well, said Greg, got's a great point to raise. You know,
there is permitting and reform moving its way through Congress,
but it's not enough. It's too slow. The company administration
is great at saying yeah, we're gonna we're going to
reform how permitting is done. But once again, you know
it's not happening. And you're absolutely right. The environmentalists their

(01:15:53):
strategies just to get into these courts, which are which
are chalk full of activists, Democrats appointed judges right that
just do whatever the environmentalists want. So it's really easy
to drag this stuff out. What's the Trump administration doing
on this, Well, you know, not much. You know, even
when they even when they get into court, they're relying

(01:16:15):
on Justice Department lawyers that are really part of the resistance.

Speaker 1 (01:16:19):
Steve molloy joining us on our Newsmaker line. It's interesting,
Greg I talked earlier this week about a tipping point
maybe the trans movement. Yes, are we starting to see
a tipping point in the green movement? I think we are.

Speaker 2 (01:16:30):
You have to combine common sense with practicality. I mean,
there is a need for energy like we've never seen,
and so we need more of it, and all of
these hair brained climate control schemes create less of it,
less energy. We can't have that you don't have it.
I think it's going to go the same way where
it's just going to be the time we look back
on and go, really, yeah we did?

Speaker 20 (01:16:50):
Then?

Speaker 11 (01:16:50):
Why?

Speaker 10 (01:16:51):
All right?

Speaker 1 (01:16:51):
More coming up our Listen Back Friday segments Next on
the Rod and Greg showing Utah's Talk Radio one O
five nine okayn rs All right, time now for our
listen Back Friday segments. We do this every Friday. We
look back the week, the stories that made headlines, the
newsmakers that talked about it. We played some of those back.
You know a lot of the talk this week, Greg,
was you know the comments made during the Grammys.

Speaker 2 (01:17:12):
Yes, the stolen land, modern day court gestures with opinions
we don't care about. Yeah, we don't know who we
care about.

Speaker 1 (01:17:19):
And it'd be interesting to see what old Bad Bunny
does on Sunday at the super Bowl.

Speaker 2 (01:17:23):
It will be I'm hoping this is the tipping point
where it's so obnoxious that we finally get done. We're
done with ruining our halftime shows.

Speaker 1 (01:17:31):
Just entertain us. We don't need political statements. We'll see
where he goes with this. Well, we had a chance
earlier this week to talk with a man to head.
She has the White House correspondent for Just the News
about this, and we asked her her thoughts on what
she heard from the celebrities at the Grammys last Sunday.

Speaker 11 (01:17:47):
Oh my goodness, I mean what the topic de joor
this time was ice? There's always got to be something.
In fact, I don't remember a cycle of award shows.

Speaker 8 (01:17:57):
You know, they all happen around this time of year,
with the exception of the Emmys, which I think are
in the fall. But you've got the Golden Globes and
then the Grammys and then the Oscars, of course, and
they pretty much all piggyback off of each other, and
it almost seems like they try to one up each other.
And we knew what was going to be coming this
time around because at the Golden Globes back in January,

(01:18:17):
they were doing this same garbage. And the unfortunate thing
is that, you know, this mirrors a lot of the
Hollywood activism that we have seen in the past. You know,
a few years ago, it was Palestine, and then it
was Ukraine before that, and you know, hands up, don't
shoot and black lives matter, and I mean this has
happened practically for the entire life of these awards, and

(01:18:41):
I think.

Speaker 16 (01:18:41):
It mattered at one point, guys. I think that there
was a phase of time.

Speaker 8 (01:18:46):
You know, I think back to when I was a
teenager and young twenties and Rock the Vote, and I
think there was a time when pop culture had a
pretty significant influence.

Speaker 16 (01:18:57):
And don't get me wrong, I think.

Speaker 8 (01:18:58):
There is a significant portion of specially young America, that
they influenced. But look no further than the twenty twenty
four election to see that most Americans unless you are
this young, impressionable, thirsty for attention type scene, because let's basic,
that's how everyone is as a teen. Unless you are that,

(01:19:18):
then the opinions of Hollywood just don't matter anymore.

Speaker 16 (01:19:22):
And you know, especially with what we are seeing with Ice.

Speaker 8 (01:19:25):
This story that I wrote for Just the News, I
felt it pertinent to highlight some of the polling because
a lot of people are looking at the news, they're
looking at mainstream media, and look, I was in Mexico.
Last weekend, I ditched the winter storm in Washington, the
scene that came back to bite me in the butt.

Speaker 16 (01:19:41):
So my flights kept getting canceled.

Speaker 8 (01:19:43):
So I ended up in.

Speaker 16 (01:19:44):
Mexico washing my socks.

Speaker 11 (01:19:45):
In the sink for five days.

Speaker 8 (01:19:47):
But nonetheless, I was in Mexico and I'm seeing all
of this coverage on TV of Minnesota, and you know, visually,
you're thinking to yourself, Okay, so obviously most Americans aren't
for this. Well, of course that's not the case. Of course,
the reason that Donald Trump won, and one so resoundingly,
is because Americans are on board with that, because this

(01:20:07):
was you know, whether people want to admit it, this
was his This was his number one policy point. People
saw what happened, They saw what Joe Biden did, the
tens of millions who came across.

Speaker 11 (01:20:18):
The southern border, the hundreds of thousands.

Speaker 8 (01:20:20):
Of miners who got lost in the interior of the country,
who still, you know, have not been recovered.

Speaker 16 (01:20:26):
And people said no more. So you look at the
poll and there.

Speaker 11 (01:20:28):
Are two different polls, and these are not This is
not you know, some.

Speaker 8 (01:20:31):
Some right wing think tank who's only calling you know,
Republicans in West Virginia.

Speaker 16 (01:20:39):
This is signal. And the Harvard Caps pair Harvard Caps Harris.

Speaker 8 (01:20:43):
Poll and both of them showed a vast majority, not
just the skinny majority, a vast majority of Americans still
still support deporting illegal immigrants. So you know, you can
look at the TV and you can believe what the
TV is telling you, or you can believe what's happening
when people pick up the phone and they call Americans

(01:21:03):
and they say, how is this affecting your life? What's
your impression of the Democrat Party pushing this aggression towards Ice,
Because at the end of the day, people, I think
the American people are still very much a law enforcement
loving country and this is law enforcement. So Democrats are
fighting an uphill battle. I understand that when they get

(01:21:23):
up to the podium at the Grammys or the Golden
Globe for the offs groups, that they are helping their
own cause because amongst their own peer group, amongst their contemporaries,
it's important for them to say things like this even
if they have no idea what they're talking about, which
is ninety nine percent of the time. But it's not
helping the Democrat Party because the Democrat Party is pushing
out a message that the American people just don't agree with.

Speaker 2 (01:21:44):
So here's my question. I seem to recall that you
might have had a touch on Hollywood. It seemed like
you once shared a story that you used to serve,
you know, wait tables and working, hard working young person.
Maybe I'm wrong and I don't remember that, but I
thought I had there was some touch that you've had
with that that part of you know, California in the world.
My question is, I think it's just rank hypocrisy. I

(01:22:04):
don't think a single person at that awards ceremony is
doing anything but virtue signaling. I think that there's I
think you're right. There was a time live aid. There
was maybe a time where they could contribute in a
positive way. But what you see today, I think are
people that think what they're saying puts them creates that
virtue signaling and they don't mean it. They don't have it.
But I'm asking you, do you think any of them

(01:22:26):
are genuinely concerned that they're living on stolen land but
don't want to give it back. But they're you know,
they have all these protests, but they don't act on
any of it. Tell me about Hollywood. Is it any
of that? Is any of it substantive?

Speaker 16 (01:22:39):
No, this is not Live AID or its predecessor USO,
this is not any of that.

Speaker 17 (01:22:45):
And you're right.

Speaker 16 (01:22:46):
I used to Our home base.

Speaker 8 (01:22:48):
Is Los Angeles, and I was in the music industry
for ten years, writing for various record labels, and then
I was I did my own thing as a as
an artist. But the reason that I left music industry
is because this is what's funny. Every recording contract I had,
whether it was with a label or a music manager,

(01:23:11):
there were three things that I was not allowed to
talk about. I couldn't talk about religion. I couldn't talk
about boyfriends, uh if I was in a relationship, because
they wanted you to appear single.

Speaker 16 (01:23:21):
And I could not talk about politics. That's why I
left the music industry.

Speaker 8 (01:23:25):
Now, if I was talking about politics the way that
they are talking about politics.

Speaker 16 (01:23:29):
I'm sure it wouldn't have been an issue.

Speaker 8 (01:23:31):
But that's why I left Hollywood because I was tired
of being muzzled. But what's funny is that since then,
you know, I don't go on Facebook often, but whenever
I do, I have these memories that pop up. Some
of them, some of them are from while I was
in the music industry, and I look at what I'm saying,
and I'm like, wow, I was totally in breach of
contracts because I was running my mouth even back then.

Speaker 1 (01:23:52):
Good for you, Amanda. Let me ask you this. I
mean that entire town cannot be cuckoo for Coco Pops?
Are they? I mean? Are there some fair minded, common
sense people in that town who are just afraid to
say anything?

Speaker 16 (01:24:06):
Listen, I will say this.

Speaker 8 (01:24:07):
I know for a lot of people, they look at
someone like me living in Los Angeles and they think
to themselves, how on earth can you live there?

Speaker 10 (01:24:13):
Drive me crazy? Listen.

Speaker 8 (01:24:15):
I lived there long enough that and I was loud
enough about how I felt that I managed to I
attracted people. I attracted like minded people. So my husband
and I have managed to insulate ourselves about two hundred
people deep of people who who are who think like

(01:24:36):
us both politically and religiously. You know, very very strong believers,
and they are on the same side as we are
when it comes to politics. Now that it's taken a
long time to cultivate that, I'm not saying that you
can you.

Speaker 16 (01:24:51):
Know, moved to LA and moved to Hollywood.

Speaker 8 (01:24:53):
And immediately find that it took a lot of years
of me frankly, being who I am, which is the
mouth the South, and letting people know who I am.
And you know, birds of a feather flock.

Speaker 11 (01:25:06):
Together, right So, and you know, I was.

Speaker 8 (01:25:09):
In the entertainment industry for a while. My husband still is.
And no, it's not the entire industry, but.

Speaker 11 (01:25:15):
You do have these people who I think that you know,
I think it's emotional clout.

Speaker 16 (01:25:19):
It's obviously social clout. But at some point, and look
at what we're seeing.

Speaker 10 (01:25:24):
Right now, you know, you think.

Speaker 8 (01:25:25):
How big the trans issue was and how much Hollywood
supported trans kids. I mean, I think it was Bill
Maher who did a monologue criticized in Hollywood because he
was saying, you can't go to a dinner party on
the West Side and not encounter eight out of ten
people who have kids who are gender fluid or something.
And now look at what just happened. You had the yeah,

(01:25:46):
I can't remember the acronym, but basically the American Medical
Boards for plastic surgeons come out and revoke everything they said. Yeah, yeah,
So I hope that this is one of those things
that you know, a couple of years. Now, maybe it'll
take longer. They'll think, wow, okay, illegal immigration is not
great for our country, and I'm glad that Donald Trumps
doing that. I don't think they.

Speaker 16 (01:26:06):
Will ever say anything glowing about Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:26:08):
On our Listen back Friday segment, Amanda Head with Just
the News talking about Hollywood's outrage and DEM propaganda.

Speaker 2 (01:26:16):
I like her because she's had a touch. She's been,
she's been in those search she had, you know, she
she didn't lead with it, but we got it out
of her. Yeah, Yeah, she was. She knows them. And
you know, it is the crowd there, it's all performative.

Speaker 1 (01:26:27):
Yeah, it sure is. All right. More coming up, we're
outing Greg with you. You're on Utah's Talk radio one
oh five nine. Canteris. We had this survey earlier this week. Greg.
It was a general what they call not a generic.

Speaker 2 (01:26:37):
Survey, but it's a what do they call it? Generic poll?

Speaker 1 (01:26:41):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (01:26:41):
Would you vote for a Republican or Democratic without names
of candidates? Would you vote for a Democrat or Republican
next term?

Speaker 1 (01:26:48):
And the results showed the Dems crushing the Republicans for
the midterm elections. But we've got a long way to go.

Speaker 2 (01:26:54):
I think their Democrats should run as the name generic. Yeah,
change your name to generic. It might be your best shot.

Speaker 1 (01:26:59):
Yeah. Well, we spoke earlier this week with Terry Shelling,
president of the American Principals Project, about that survey, and
asked him for his reaction to the numbers as they
started rolling in.

Speaker 17 (01:27:09):
Well, I think what you guys are talking about, you know,
is obviously the Fox News poll, But you're probably looking
at the line that says that Democrats have a twenty
two point advantage when it comes to transgender issues with
the American people.

Speaker 1 (01:27:21):
Yes, exactly.

Speaker 17 (01:27:23):
Look, as someone that has spent seven figures on polling
in his life, I can tell you those types of
questions don't mean anything, primarily because they're incredibly confusing. The
reality is is that if you ask someone on the
phone who's better at taxes, who's better at guns, who's
better at transgender issues? The voters get confused. The Democrats

(01:27:44):
are better on pushing the agenda for the transgender industry.
The period they want the transgender industry to grow from
four and a half billion to one hundred.

Speaker 1 (01:27:52):
Trillion, you know what I mean.

Speaker 17 (01:27:54):
Like, so it gets confusing with voters. But you know,
look my advice, I hope Democrats are thing, and I
hope they take this. Please, please please run unabashedly on
the transgender issue. Run on putting men in girls sports,
run on giving more children sex changes, and run on
paying for it with taxpayer dollars, because I guarantee you
it's not as popular as what the trans industry is

(01:28:15):
trying to paint right now.

Speaker 2 (01:28:17):
So the other issue that surprised me was trusting And
maybe it's the way the questions asked because I couldn't
agree more about that issue and push pulling or whatever
it might be. But they trust the Democrats more on affordability?
Do they not remember the Biden years? I don't know
a single indicator. Even if things are tough now, and
I'm not saying they aren't, nothing measurable was better during

(01:28:37):
Biden's years than we have right now. How on earth
could anyone say, well, I want the guys that were
doing it before, I trust them more to They wouldn't
even talk about affordability. They said you were ignorant. If
you didn't think you were, you had it good.

Speaker 17 (01:28:50):
No, that's exactly right. And they kept telling us how
the inflation rate was falling, and let you know, and
we all knew that the prices were staying. We're still
going up, right, Yes, Look, this is an early poll
in the midterms. I just want to tell you guys, though,
these midterm elections are super tough for the incumbent party
to retain control in boat chambers. It's only happened two

(01:29:12):
times in American history since nineteen thirty eight.

Speaker 10 (01:29:15):
It's very rare.

Speaker 17 (01:29:16):
So what we're seeing actually is Democrats are all fired up.
They're super upset. They're very mad that President Trump is
deporting Somalians who are embezzling billions of dollars from taxpayers.
They're super mad about a lot of things, including getting
boys at a girls' sports. But the reality is is
that Republicans need to get more fired up because that's
where the subscrepancy is coming.

Speaker 10 (01:29:37):
Is.

Speaker 17 (01:29:37):
Republicans aren't as fired up as Democrats are.

Speaker 10 (01:29:40):
But that can change.

Speaker 17 (01:29:42):
They can change quickly, especially for Republicans keep fighting for
a very strong agenda on our family. I'm telling you, guys,
I'm more worried about Republicans waffling and getting scared ahead
of the midterms. If they do that, the bottom's going
to fall out. They've had a great agenda so far.
They've been protecting our kids, cleaning up the schools.

Speaker 10 (01:30:00):
They just need to.

Speaker 17 (01:30:00):
Figure out the housing problems and the affordability crisis that
they can.

Speaker 16 (01:30:04):
Do that, which, by the way, they are.

Speaker 17 (01:30:07):
I don't know if you guys have seen this, but
under Biden, we lost twenty nine hundred dollars worth of
purchasing power in this co That meant that wages weren't
growing as fast as prices. Under Trump, we've gotten seven
hundred and fifty dollars of that back, right, and that
was a few months ago. So I'm sure it's doing
even better. But voters need to be patient. Republicans need
to get more fired up, and Republicans in office cannot
begin to waffle.

Speaker 1 (01:30:27):
Terry greg and I have talked about this. It appears
at times to us that you have Donald Trump, who
is doing a lot. I mean, he's just doing a great,
great job. But you know, the Republicans of Congress are
are they doing anything? I mean we're kind of looking going,
what are you doing? What are you doing to help
the president, What are you doing to help the American people?
And we don't see much of that other than what

(01:30:49):
Donald Trump is trying to do.

Speaker 17 (01:30:52):
Well, I'll tell you what. There's this really terrible thing
that's going on in DC is called the filibuster, right,
and at this point only the filibuster has been so
destroyed and perverted that it's not what it was originally
intended to do. It was essentially the filibuster was there
to make sure that everyone could read the bill in time,

(01:31:12):
and that if the vote came up, that no one
was just rushing something through with everyone reading it. Now
it's just being used to hold up any single piece
of meaningful legislation. I really think Republicans need to reconsider
breaking the filibuster. We know for a fact that if
Democrats to retake the White House and they have the
House and send it again, they are breaking that filibuster.

(01:31:32):
And they're going to make Puerto Rico estate, They're going
to make d C estate, and god knows what other
territories they're going to make into a state. Because Democrats
like to lock in their victories, they're going to stack
the Supreme Court. The reason we haven't got anything done
is because we haven't broken the filibuster. And you've got
to have sixty votes to pass anything meaningful. It's it's
just tough. So Republicans are in a position, do we

(01:31:54):
break the filibuster and risk Democrats breaking it themselves. They're
going to break the filibuster, right, we know this, We
know that they're going to do that. So I don't
know the pilibuster is the biggest thing, but it's a
double edged sword for sure.

Speaker 2 (01:32:07):
So the Texas State Senate race that happened in Texas,
that was what was described as a solid Republican seat
that the Democrats have flipped in that state. I saw,
I saw some analysis of that and they said that
the Republican turnout was anemic, that there wasn't any excitement
to come out in that race, and that's that contributed

(01:32:28):
to the Democrat taking what was otherwise a Republican seat
in Texas. Is that, I mean, it's hard to get
excited about a Republican Congress when you do have philibuster
and other issues you havent have issues in the in
the House where you have these minority of the House
Congress Republican Congressional Delicate Caucus voting with the Democrats to
pass spending bills. Can this Congress excite the American people

(01:32:51):
the way Donald Trump has, and can they get something
under their belt to prove to the American people they're
worthy to return.

Speaker 17 (01:32:58):
Look, I think if I'm a Republican in the House,
what I'm doing every single day is I'm doing public events,
I'm doing town halls, I'm doing meet and greets, I'm
going back home to the press, and I'm making sure
that voters in my district know what I support and
that it's being held up by Democrats in the Senate. Right,
I think it's that simple. And to go back to
this Texas special election with the state Senate race there,

(01:33:20):
you're exactly right. In twenty twenty four, when Donald Trump
won by seventeen percentage points in that district, there were
over three hundred and forty thousand votes cast in that election.
In this election on Saturday, there were less than one
hundred thousand, or is right around one hundred thousand votes.
The turnout in general was aneem Democrats got all of
their people to polls and Republicans didn't even get half

(01:33:41):
of what they got to turn out.

Speaker 1 (01:33:42):
Terry Shilling with the American Principles Project talking about a
new poll out a generic poll. Talking about the Dems
and Republicans as we head into the midterm elections. Jesse
Kelly coming your way next right, No big party, kind
of laid back now same here.

Speaker 10 (01:33:58):
Just chill.

Speaker 2 (01:33:59):
Looking forward to seeing kids. You know, kids are all dulse.

Speaker 1 (01:34:01):
Now come home.

Speaker 2 (01:34:02):
I'll watch the game together.

Speaker 1 (01:34:03):
Hopefully we'll see a good games.

Speaker 2 (01:34:06):
We just want the last possession to decide the outcome.
Always fun, fourth down, less than two minutes. What's going
to happen? Is it a kicker?

Speaker 4 (01:34:13):
Is it a lot?

Speaker 9 (01:34:14):
What is it?

Speaker 2 (01:34:14):
Is it a turnover?

Speaker 1 (01:34:16):
What happens that's going to be, That's what it's going
to be. Well, enjoy the weekend. Enjoy the Super Bowl.
Everybody that does it for us tonight. Head up, shoulders back.
May God bless you and your family in this great,
great country of ours. Enjoy the weekend. Be safe out there.
We'll be back talking to you on Monday.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Betrayal Season 5

.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: Utah Bar Responds to Legislative Criticism; Can America's Political Center Survive?

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

Dateline NBC

Betrayal Season 5

All Episodes