The Rod and Greg Show: Voters Oppose Nuclear Subsidies; Senator Mike Lee on FBI and Federal Job Reductions

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You know what I hate about days like this. What
it's like Mother Nature is teasing us, I know, saying
it's coming but not yet.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
So do you think it'll stay? Oh, ill snow again. Yeah,
Well it's in the fifties. It's hard to imagine.

Speaker 1 (00:13):
Yeah, but it's just like mother Nature is messing with us. Man,
she's saying, yeah, it's guess what. Well, we've got a
lot to get to today. As always, we love you
being part of the program. Eight eight eight five seven
eight zero one zero. Here's what we're talking about today.
A new poll out Well, there are a couple of
poles out. One talks about voters who are very opposed

(00:33):
to nuclear subsidies. Now, you and I, Greg, I think
are big supporters of nuclear energy and for the development
of nuclear energy in this country. I'm not a big
fan of public subsidies for industries. Not for industries, but
for infrastructure, infrastructure, age. We want to have nuclear power
plants in the state of Utah, and the state wanted
to do that.

Speaker 2 (00:53):
I would be for that.

Speaker 1 (00:54):
Would you be for that? All right? We'll also talk
about a new survey voter on app age verification. Utah
lawmakers are wrestling with this bill like that Utah Senator
Mike Lee will join us and a little bit later
the Fair Access Bill. This is a terrific bill. Not
sure if it's going to make it through Congress, but
we'll talk with a reporter who's been covering this today
and tell you what that is all about. So we

(01:15):
have got a lot to get to, mister Hughes. A
lot going on today, we do.

Speaker 2 (01:19):
And the reason why we're able to bring you this
breaking news as it happens is because we have a press,
we have a press corps. They are able to report
dutifully from within the swamp at times. And there are big, big,
big changes being announced by the White House in terms
of what that White House Press Corps at least will
look like.

Speaker 1 (01:39):
Yeah, they're just trying to tick off the legacy media
and that's exactly what they're doing right right.

Speaker 2 (01:44):
Well, they want they would like relevant media, not just
legacy media. So I think I think it is well
placed and well timed.

Speaker 1 (01:51):
And what are they doing.

Speaker 2 (01:53):
Well, let's listen in, Yes, let's find out find out.
We're about to hear from the Press Secretary herself, Cat
Catherine Carolyn.

Speaker 3 (02:02):
Since the first day behind this podium, It's beyond time
that the White House press operation reflects the media habits
of the American people in twenty twenty five, not nineteen
twenty five. A select group of DC based journalists should
no longer have a monopoly over the privilege of press
access at the White House. All journalists, outlets, and voices

(02:22):
deserve a seat at this highly coveted table. So by
deciding which outlets make up the limited press pool on
a day to day basis, the White House will be
restoring power back to the American people who President Trump
was elected to serve.

Speaker 2 (02:38):
Well, you can imagine that the legacy media is up,
said Chuck todd Is, saying that it's no longer a
free press. They're going to hand pick. The press pool
will become pay for play. I guess whenever Biden was
only letting the journalists in that would give them the
questions ahead of time, which he did they hey got
caught doing. I don't know that. I mean, nobody had

(02:58):
a complaint there when Biden was there. I got an
old story here, four hundred and forty two reporters using
new press credential rules. Turns out that the White House,
what do they call themselves, this.

Speaker 1 (03:12):
White House Correspondent Association. Yes forever.

Speaker 2 (03:16):
Yeah, yeah, she was with NBC News. She was the
president at the time of the White House Correspondence Association.
They didn't have one complaint. They were officially non committal
on the stance that four hundred and forty two reporters
were going to be required to have new credentials and
new requirements to be able to have those credentials. Not
a word said, not a word said. But now that

(03:39):
President Trump's here and he wants to see relevant media
wants to kind of change it up a little bit.
The legacy media doesn't get their entitled spot where they
think they should. Oh, it's all you know, dogs, cats
living together, it's all armageddon.

Speaker 1 (03:53):
Yeah, Well, they don't understand the news media landscape has
changed so dramatically greg over the last several years. I mean,
most people get their get their news from what they're
so line from online, they're soon, they get updates on news,
they get updates on weather or traffic, you name it.
And the White House is just recognizing this is a

(04:13):
changed world and either you're going to adapt to it,
understand what is being changed, or he's just going to
get real mad at us, and they're probably going to
get real mad at the White House. But you know what,
the White House doesn't care no.

Speaker 2 (04:25):
And I'm telling you, I'm telling you this is this
is the you know, they made such a farce out
of this process when Acosta and you know, and the
guy from Playboy magazine that used to sit there in
his first term and just make an absolutely just just
bring it down to the such a low base level
of argument or arguing. They're not just going to do it.
They're going to put people in that are really committed

(04:46):
to reporting the news and letting the American people engage,
which is what it's all about.

Speaker 1 (04:53):
Speaking of the White House, it was just what one
or two weeks ago, I think that Milania Trump announced
that White House tours are back, right, So the White
House tour started today. Well guess who showed up at
one that was touring the White House today.

Speaker 4 (05:06):
But I want to thank you very much for Tommy.

Speaker 5 (05:08):
The tour is so great and just such a good job.
First lady worked very hard to make it perfect and
I think you're gonna really love it. And I heard
you here and I said, let's stop buying and say
do it very smart looking at people, I must say,
very smart. Maybe somebody you'd be you'll be here as
the president, right, somebody in this two besa sads, have

(05:28):
a good time, have a great tour, and you're gonna
give them a special tour.

Speaker 4 (05:32):
Okay, you're gonna get a special too. Have fun, everybody.

Speaker 2 (05:38):
I'd like to be on that first tour.

Speaker 1 (05:45):
So you're Donald Trump has this sense and not a
lot of not a lot of politicians do as to
when to take advantage of a media opportunity. And he
did that today tour coming through. Oh hey guys, I
was just swinging by the White House and thought, stop
and say hi, and that's what you do.

Speaker 6 (06:02):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (06:03):
Back in the day, when I was in my late teens,
I was part of a White House tour back when
they still did them. And a baby started crying and
they just did a real stuffy tour in the real service,
took the laid mom and are crying baby out of
the room. There no more to you've been.

Speaker 1 (06:17):
There often, because I know you're close friends with the dump.
I've been there, I think once. Tour of the White House.
My opinion, it's a dump.

Speaker 2 (06:24):
It's not you know, it's not a dump.

Speaker 1 (06:26):
It's an older building, an older mass renovation.

Speaker 2 (06:30):
Well it's you can only do so much for a
building of that age, but it's it's still history and
it's still a beautiful building. I wouldn't call it a dump.
In fact, I hope lightning doesn't strike out here like
it's fifty three degrees outside.

Speaker 1 (06:41):
I think it's a dump.

Speaker 2 (06:43):
Saying that that's just true. Take the white House building
in Vain. Don't call it that.

Speaker 1 (06:48):
Sorry, all right? More coming up on the rotting Greg Joe.
Great to be with you on this Tuesday afternoon, beautiful
day on the outside. When we come back, we'll talk
about nuclear energy in this country and providing companies with
nuclear subsidies. Would you go along with that? That's all
coming up right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh
five nine K and are asked. It's kind of like
having your old car radio in your hand and you

(07:10):
can have preset buttons and make sure the talk radio
one oh five nine Ganneras is the first pre sid button.

Speaker 2 (07:17):
That's right.

Speaker 1 (07:17):
Makes life easy. You want to find out what's going
on in the world. See Abby gives the facts, the stories,
We explain why.

Speaker 2 (07:23):
Yes, we do we navigate either all the help you
understand twists and turns. We do have it all.

Speaker 1 (07:29):
Well, at least we try to each and every day.

Speaker 2 (07:31):
Don't drop in truth bombs out here is what we're doing,
galling gun of truth.

Speaker 1 (07:35):
You know, we've heard a lot in this legislative session
so far, greg from Governor Cox, I even think from
President Stewart Adams, who we have on the show weekly
talking about nuclear energy, right, I mean, can you kind
of give us an idea as to what they're looking
at or what they're trying to get the state involved with.

Speaker 2 (07:51):
So as technology advances, the demand on electric on electricity
and power increases, you have companies out there that would
like as much as a gig of power, which is
more than maybe a state of Wyoming would have. It's
a high, high demand. It's thought that the state that
taps into nuclear power or finds a way to accommodate

(08:13):
for such high needs of power will really have benefit. Yes,
we'll see a lot of industry arrive in their state,
a lot of economic opportunities. So it's an infrastructure of power.
How do you get it? Nuclear seems to be the
way and there's a lot of different vehicles for that
it's not like the old It's not like Chernobyl or
three Mile Island or something, or the China syndrome, you know,

(08:34):
with what Michael Douglas. I think he was in that movie.
So it's not like that different. You know, it's twenty
twenty five. They got put on the back of a
pickup now, I think, so, you know, just do it
that way. I don't know it. So, No, the lawmakers
and the governor are looking at ways of having more
power capacity because the world is needing more and opportunities
and businesses could use it.

Speaker 1 (08:55):
Well, what about subsidies for nuclear power? Joining us on
our Newsmaker line to talk about a brand new poll
out there which shows the voters are opposed to this
idea is Craig Shirley. Craig is, of course, the chairman
of Citizens for the Republic. Craig, how are you welcome
to the Rod and Greg show.

Speaker 7 (09:11):
Good evening fellows, How are you just fine?

Speaker 8 (09:13):
Craig?

Speaker 1 (09:14):
Let me ask you, first of all, what is the
Citizens for the Republic? Tell us a little bit about
that organization.

Speaker 7 (09:20):
CFTR is one of many hats I wear. CFTR was
formed by Ronald Reagan in the aftermath of the seventy
six campaign when he lost to the nomination the Republican
nomination to Gerald Ford, he had about five hundred thousand
dollars left over. So he directed Lynn Knopsinger, who an
old friend of mine who since passed away, to create

(09:41):
a pack to help conservatives running for office and hold
grassroots seminars and things like that around the country. And
at one point it was actually the largest pack in America.
It was Reagan's political platform between seventy six and eighty
when his official campaign took go over and CFJR was

(10:01):
kind of, after several years, put on the shelf, and
I took it off the shelf several years ago and
dusted often revitalized it. And we we jump into issues
we think are good. You know, it's clear that there's
a there's a right side and the wrong side. There's
a conservative side and a corruption side. And so this

(10:24):
is one issue, this whole issue of subsidies for nuclear
for especially for a constellation nuclear that we're opposing.

Speaker 2 (10:33):
So tell me what that means. I mean, so we
maybe you heard it before you came on the air,
that our state and we're in our legislative session, right
now are looking at nuclear power as an infrastructure, as
a potential infrastructure for the state of Utah, and they
are doing it because there is seems to be a
demand by business. Is that the subject Is that a
subsidy that you're talking about, or is it uh just

(10:55):
wanting directly to the business itself.

Speaker 7 (10:59):
I'm not an expert on energy issue, because I understand
that Utah has tremendous natural gas reserves which can be
used to power all the electricity needs of Utah. And
understand too, is that cf Tower is not against nuclear.
We're for nuclear. We're for everything or for everything that

(11:19):
will help the American consumer, but we're opposed to in
the case of Constellation, they're getting massive federal subsidies and
I'm talking about one billion, two billion dollars and there
are for profit corporation. They make money handle or fist
in the marketplace from the rate payers, and that's not enough.
It's just pure corporate greed that you know. While there,

(11:42):
they also have a fleet of private airplanes. So instead
of digging in their own pocket to pay for these,
pay for the nuclear power and to pay for the
restart of Three Mile Island, which is what they want
to do. They're they're buying private airplanes for themselves to

(12:03):
take them to Napa Valley, to take them to skiing
in Colorado. Yeah. Yeah, but they're actually American taxpayer to
pully over billions of dollars to help them restart through
my Eyeand we just think, you know, in this era
of dog with the government going after with Elon Musk

(12:23):
and Trump going after all this wasteful government spending, we
think this is a prime example of corporate welfare that
needs to be eliminated.

Speaker 1 (12:31):
Craig, where is Constellation Energy based out of and are
how many customers are they already serving.

Speaker 7 (12:38):
Baltimore? I don't know how many, it's thousands. They have
nuclear power plants in Michigan and Pennsylvania. You're right. One
of you fellows mentioned that a power plant hasn't been
built in years, and that's true. But there are existing
power plants in Michigan and Pennsylvania and they own and
operate those. And now they're trying to, as I said,

(12:58):
restart through my island.

Speaker 1 (13:01):
Where are they on that, by the way, I know
that's that's been in the news of late Where are
they on trying to restart three.

Speaker 7 (13:07):
Mile they're waiting to get federal funding to actually go
about it. Now we've done pulling from the citizens of
the area around through my Island. They are massively and
I'm talking about ninety to ten opposed or restarting through
my own. Their memories are still fresh of about nineteen
seventy nine and what happened then, and how it ruined

(13:30):
their property values, and how it you know, everything, all
the terrible things that happened as a result of the
problems with through my own. So they still you know,
the people there who are living there in nineteen seventy
nine are still lived there today or their children or grandchildren,
and they have their property values ruined and have their

(13:50):
neighborhoods ruined by what happened. And they're not they're not
really high and restarting through my Island.

Speaker 2 (13:58):
Well, here's my life hack. If you're from Baltimore. Yeah, okay,
there just there's nowhere to go from there. They don't
even Francis Scott key Bridge, how's that doing. Okay, just
to the whole place, Baltimore. I'm just done with Baltimore.
Anything going coming from Baltimore, I'm out. So anyway I
do I appreciate the input that is an old facility
through Myle Island. I've been told that there's much more efficient.

(14:20):
We have a University of Utah has that people might
not know a nuclear reactor that's part of their university
and their research. There's there's smaller there's smaller ways and
more compact ways of providing nuclear energy than taking an
old historic place like three Mile Island and trying to
kick it up and get it started again.

Speaker 7 (14:38):
I think not good history too, not at all.

Speaker 1 (14:43):
None whatsoever. Craig is always great haveing me on the show.
Thanks for joining us.

Speaker 7 (14:47):
Thank you fellows, have a good evening too.

Speaker 1 (14:49):
That is Craig Shirley. He's an author and historian. If
you want to find out about Ronald Reagan, Greg just
as Craig Shirley, I mean, the man's written book after book.
Knew the former president very very well, and and historian
on this and his organization which he's bringing back to life.
Released a new new poll today showing that two thirds
of voters a prow a pose I should say, subsidies

(15:12):
for nuclear energy company. I just hope, Greg. I don't
know how long it will take, but I hope this
country gets on the path to nuclear energy at all.

Speaker 2 (15:21):
Well, we need to. I don't think there's any alternative. Honestly,
I think we're getting to the point now. Even the
leftists that have always cried against it understand that the
need for power is not going to be satisfied. But
even by natural gas or anything else, I don't think
it's going to get there. You need you need nuclear power.
It's clean. It's cleanest version.

Speaker 1 (15:37):
In the power of that movie years ago, and how
it still scares people today.

Speaker 2 (15:44):
Well, the newest song is at HBO one about Chernobyl.
That'll scare the daylights.

Speaker 1 (15:47):
That you Thanks for bringing that right now. That's all right,
scary More coming up the Rod and Gregg Show on
Utah's Talk Radio one O five nine kN rs. A
lot going on up on the Hill, of course, in
the final eight nine days the legislative session there we
were talking about a public opinion poll about subsidies for
nuclear energy in the last segment. But here one of

(16:08):
the issues that parents are very concerned about, and you
well know Craig is teenager access to app stores that
may have pornography on them, and the state's trying to
do something about this.

Speaker 2 (16:20):
Right yep, they are.

Speaker 1 (16:24):
So what exactly are they doing about it?

Speaker 2 (16:27):
They would like age verification on the apps that you
would go and you would get, or any of the platforms.
They want you to be age verified. And so there's
a poll and we have Bill Duncan from the Southern
Institute that is going to join us here, director Center
for Family and Society. Topic is they've done a poll
on voter's opinion on app age verification and whether people

(16:51):
support the requirement or not. I think we'll find Look,
I think it's an intuitive issue, but I'm surprised by
the polar results.

Speaker 1 (17:00):
Yeah, Bill, and thanks for joining us. What'd you find out?

Speaker 9 (17:04):
First of all, thanks for having me again. I always
enjoy talking with you. So what we wanted to look
at We knew that app store regulation would be one
of the issues the legislature would be considering this session.
We wanted to know kind of where people were at
on this. And the the answer is people are strongly
in favor of kind of common sense regulations of app stores,

(17:27):
and we think that this is this is what the
legislature is considering that type of thing, and the support
is strong across demographics, you know, political views, male female engauge.
You know, the support for these kinds of regulations is
quite strong, and so that I think that was the

(17:49):
major thing that this polling, which was done by why
To Analytics, a great polling group that they did for us, well,
you know, they didn't the the Utah voters that were
pulled didn't necessarily, uh you know, unanimously support. But the
support is so strong, like like over two thirds and

(18:12):
of every age group for instance, and and similar similar
findings in terms of ideology, we're so strong that we
we we think this could be really a popular way
to make uh you know, modest step towards protecting kids online.

Speaker 2 (18:28):
So I think the question is almost it's very intuitive.
I mean, any parent, grandparent would want these app stores
to verify age for what they're downloading, and I I
would I would probably say yes, I support that too.
What would maybe change my mind is if you described
the lengths or what items of identification you would want
from someone where it no longer it no longer becomes

(18:50):
protecting my kid, it becomes what what about my privacy?
Did you in the in your polling, did you describe
the process for how you would verify your age and
an app store.

Speaker 9 (19:01):
Yeah, great, great question. And we we had that exact
same thought as we were as we were looking at
these ideas and specific bill that the legislature is considering.
We we only raised in a kind of a general
way to different topics. One is, uh, you know, is
there some way that we can require app stores to

(19:21):
be more careful about how they define you kind of
do the age ratings, you know, if they say this
is for everyone, but it turns out, gosh, there's a
lot of horrible stuff on this. And then and it's
kind that's kind of more of a truth and advertising approach.
And then and then app store just age verification. And
so no, they did. The voters who were responding to

(19:44):
the poll were just responding in general terms about that.
So you you've hit on a key question that is,
are we can we do this without uh, you know,
requiring people to give up good credit card information or
things like that. And we think the answer is yeah,
as and and that's one reason why this is this
seems like a positive development. And even some of the

(20:06):
the big app stores have expressed support for this approach
because the technology now allows for a lot of that
to be done without kind of more more intrusive ways
of you know, ask asking to show ID or something
like that. They can kind of just pick up on, uh,
you know, the age of the of the users, whether

(20:27):
they're you know, connected to their own account or someone
else's some of these Some of these features allow for
a little more private way, but still still ensuring that
kids aren't able to download stuff, create you know, uh
profiles where they can be tracked or or give you know,
potentially even uh governments access to their you know, private

(20:50):
information all these kinds.

Speaker 1 (20:52):
Yeah, Bill, Do any of the apps right now require
age verification as just on a volunteer basis without the
government joining number?

Speaker 10 (20:59):
Do so?

Speaker 1 (20:59):
Do some do all that do that already? Yeah?

Speaker 9 (21:02):
Some do, And you know, it's not uncommon, for instance,
with some social media apps that they would say, you know,
you must be whatever at this point. They do that typically,
like you say, in a voluntary way. But that also
means that you know, a child can say, oh, yeah, yeah,
I'm I'm fourteen or I'm fifteen, I can I can

(21:23):
do this. There's very little there's there's not much regulation,
and that's both good and bad. I Mean, on the
one hand, we don't want the government to have to
micromanage everything. But we do want to provide some protection
for the interests of parents when they they you know,
their kids are affected or harmed by this. And so
the bill's approach is not to create a kind of

(21:45):
like an enforcement mechanism by the government, but rather to
allow parents who are who or children who are hurt
by either you know, deceptive practices in terms of describing
what content is available, or by you know, by being
able to download something that they shouldn't have been able
to that that that you know, a normal age verification

(22:08):
could have picked up. When there's a harm, then the
parents can bring a lawsuit against the provider. And that's
that's the way we think that sirt Trice to balance
out the concern about having, you know, just more and
more regulation by government.

Speaker 2 (22:23):
You know, I would ask if if we looked at
these online sites as more like publishers and platforms. We
call them platforms because we thought they were like a telephone,
where they just are a purveyor they just are the
conduit of communication. They can't control it all, But it
turns out they actually can. What if there's no government
regulation that they that a platform would have to adhere

(22:44):
to to verify age. But if you expose certain things
to minors, you could be subject to the law. I
think you've just described this. But what if the onus
was on the business and their liability versus telling them
how they have to verify it, because don't you think
they would buy self press reservation, think of the best
way to protect them selves and that they could be
that they could be litigate against.

Speaker 9 (23:06):
Yeah, you're exactly right, and and and that's one thing
we think is promising about this is that the bill
doesn't specify the ways that they have to prove, just
that they have to have some kind of uh age verification,
you know, part of part of the reality you you
you would to get this up if you if you
asked me. A lot of questions about the technology is
that the legislature and people like me are not necessarily

(23:29):
experts and and not not even not necessarily from my perspective,
not at all, which of course is one reason why
parents worry about these things. They don't necessarily know how
all this works. So we think that it's appropriate to
allow the the technology companies themselves to figure out and
they may have better, better technology. We even realize Uh,

(23:49):
you know, they see they seem to they seem to
know what kinds of things were interested in and they
push us in those directions.

Speaker 2 (23:55):
Uh.

Speaker 9 (23:56):
And so you know, given that kind of technology, Uh,
they're they're a lot of that's already happening, and we
think they can be trusted. But again, like you said,
they have to be there has to be some element
of accountability when there's there really is serious of course wrongdoing,
but even short of wrongdoing, some serious negligence that that

(24:18):
that allows kids to get hurt?

Speaker 1 (24:19):
Greg, is this bill going to work? Do you know?

Speaker 2 (24:23):
And honestly, I think that if I'm if if the
onus is really on the business that they're they're going
to face legal liability if they if they're exposing some
some inappropriate material to miners, and and it's up to
them to figure out how to not h Maybe you'll
find something. Look, they you can you can transact online.
They're always tricking me to buy stuff and you know,

(24:43):
and I buy it because they I'm not even looking
for it and they get me to do it, and
they know my credit. I mean, I had done something
to verify who I am. They're not just giving me
the stuff. So got be a way to do it.

Speaker 1 (24:52):
In the time we've been together, I've seen you sit
and buy things just just important.

Speaker 2 (24:56):
That tricks me. It's just it's totally it's it's not
it's not predicting what I'll do. It's compelling my behavior. Yeah,
it's not right.

Speaker 1 (25:03):
And your hook line and syc.

Speaker 2 (25:04):
But it knows my as soon as I hit the button,
it buys it, so it knows who I am, knows
my credit card. I did something to verify myself.

Speaker 1 (25:11):
Yeah, you did.

Speaker 2 (25:12):
Just think of that. Just protect kids away from the
the bad stuff. Sucker Born the same concept though. Whatever
they did, Sucker Born every minute.

Speaker 1 (25:20):
All right, Moore, Coming up on this Tuesday afternoon here
on the Rod and Greg Show Talk Radio one oh
five nine, Kate and r as, if you were a mayor,
wouldn't you be proud if you could unite eighty percent
of your city?

Speaker 2 (25:32):
Absolutely?

Speaker 1 (25:33):
Wouldn't that be great?

Speaker 2 (25:33):
I would. It's seldom does it happen.

Speaker 1 (25:36):
Is happening in Chicago? Brandon Johnson, Yes, he's united people
who want them out there. You Goole says eighty percent
of Chicagoans want him.

Speaker 2 (25:45):
And that nightmare predecessor of I don't know, she was
like a she was like a wet cat. She's like
just mean looking.

Speaker 1 (25:54):
Yeah, he was. Well. Apparently Johnson has angered so many
people that eighty percent of people surveyed in a survey
out of Chicago say they don't want to.

Speaker 2 (26:03):
Re election prospects are not high.

Speaker 1 (26:05):
Get out of here, baby, Yes, all right, Mark coming up.
Our number two of the Robin greg Show is on
his way.

Speaker 2 (26:09):
Stay with us, and sometimes you might want to watch
because some bills that may be controversial or have the
potential of may start landing right about now.

Speaker 1 (26:25):
But if a bill lands down, does it even have time?

Speaker 2 (26:27):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (26:28):
Right, I mean, can you can you say no hearings
on this. We're just going to take this bill right
to the floor.

Speaker 2 (26:36):
Under a two thirds vote of under suspension of the rules.
You can. But what typically happens is you can probably
get through your own body a bill in the Senate
and House between now in the last two days and
when you get to the last two days. The Senate
they usually debate every bill two times. They go from
second reading, counter debate it, then they go to third

(26:57):
they debate it again and pass it to the House.
The House only reads it once and debates at one time.
Part of that is there's seventy five members of the
House only twenty nine members of the Senate, so they're bored.
They don't have as much to do, so they got
to like double up the work on the votes. But
once you get to the last couple of days, everything
starts to stack up. You're prioritizing the bills on the board,
and so the Senate typically in the last day or
two they suspend the rules and have a bill considered

(27:20):
read for the second and third time or for final passage. Wow,
they hustle it, Okay, it through, they can do it.

Speaker 1 (27:26):
I have always been under the thinking greg that if
an individual shows up at a doctor's office and wants
healthcare treatment right, that the doctor has to do it.
That called like the hippocratic goth or something like that.
Don't they don't they have to treat patients. But there's
a bill up on the hill which gives them a

(27:48):
little flexibility.

Speaker 2 (27:49):
Yes, and I will tell you that I understand, and
the times that we live in now, I think I
understand the legislative intent. We're talking about House Senate Bill
three twenty Physician practice Amendments, sponsored by Senator Evan Vickers.
He is a pharmacist, so he's not a doctor, but
he's a pharmacist, so he's within the medical community. His
bill would allow a physician, under the premise or the

(28:13):
position of a conscientious objection, refused to provide healthcare. And
unless it's an emergency, unless it was life or death,
at that point you don't have any room for it
to be a conscientious objector. But if not a matter
of life and death, a doctor or physician could deny

(28:33):
providing medical care for medical beliefs if it conflicts with
their medical beliefs, their moral beliefs, their religious beliefs, or
ethical beliefs. I think that this is in response to abortion,
but also these transgender surgeries or transgender the transition things

(28:53):
that are going on. I think there are some physicians
that are feeling like some of the medical procedures that
are being to perform are ones that they didn't get
into the practice to have to do, and so they
would like some standing legal standing to not have to
engage in medical procedures that conflict with their either their
medical beliefs, their moral, religious, or ethical beliefs.

Speaker 1 (29:16):
But I wonder, I wonder how often doctors run into this.
I mean, what is this a messaging bill? How often
do doctors run into a situation where against their moral
beliefs or their religious beliefs, whatever, where a doctor will
say no.

Speaker 2 (29:31):
Well, when we had Obamacare, I remember there was a
there was a there was a I think a Supreme
Court case where there was a Catholic hospital or something
and they didn't want to have to perform abortions. And Obamacare,
if you took money, you had to do it or something,
and that that that that went to the Supreme Court,
and I think I can't remember how that turned out.
I think I can't remember if they allowed them to

(29:51):
or not. But I would have I would have argued
that if abortion were more common, that there's there's probably
some circumstances that a doctor might not want to engage
in that. But I think this transgender issue is what's
surfacing out.

Speaker 1 (30:05):
Do you think, Well, you see, I've.

Speaker 2 (30:06):
Heard that a lot of major hospitals now are having
their physicians go through training education to learn how to
do it or what to do. And I think there's
some physicians that want to recoil from that. But we
got to be careful. And the reason we're bringing this
bill up is there's always two sides to a coin. Yeah,
and when you get to ethical beliefs, okay, someone's ethics.
Now you start to get into well, what if you

(30:27):
get yourself a leftist who thinks that you being a
Christian is a is an offense to their ethical beliefs.
What if you're Jewish, or what if you support Israel
and you're a pro gaza In, a Hamas supporter, and
you think that people that are sympathetic to Israel are genocidal,
maybe you shouldn't be able to help them or be

(30:50):
their doctor. The question we'd like to ask listeners to
kind of navigate and maybe call in an answer eighty
eight five seven zero eight zero one zero is do
you agree with a bill like this? Cener Vickers has
a bill that would allow for physicians to conscientiously object
and withhold medical care for patients as long as it
wasn't life or death under for medical beliefs, moral beliefs,

(31:13):
religious beliefs, or ethical beliefs.

Speaker 1 (31:16):
I'm of the I understand what the bill is doing,
but I'm of the belief that if you're a doctor,
you have to treat everybody that that's my belief. You
take that oath and you say, yes, I am here
to help people no matter what, But let me take it.
Can you not remove politics from when it comes to
the issue of medical care?

Speaker 2 (31:36):
For democratic oath do no harm? What if the medical
care you're told to do is to chemically castrate a child?
What if you think that's that's doing harm?

Speaker 1 (31:44):
About? What about a vaccine?

Speaker 2 (31:46):
Yeah? What about administering a vaccine that you think it
has been not been tested or has caused pulmonary damage?
So you support this, I'm asking the question. I'm I am,
I am, I am asking questions because you said, you
said very clearly they should have to do it. I'm
asking you, in those circumstances, do you think they should
have to chemically castrate a minor?

Speaker 1 (32:08):
Now I have always heard you do.

Speaker 2 (32:10):
I guess that's what you're for. Great good to know
brought our catch for. I mean, I guess you want
to go to medical school now, huh great, just wonderful.

Speaker 1 (32:18):
You just have fun with me today. I have always
heard that doctors to earn their medical degree and go
through their training are taught how to perform abortions.

Speaker 2 (32:29):
Yeah, I don't know. I don't like looking at bare feet,
So I wouldn't know the first thing about being.

Speaker 1 (32:35):
I've always heard that. And you know, if you're a
medical student and you don't want to ever participate in
an abortion, should you be required to take that in
that sequence?

Speaker 2 (32:47):
So do be fair. There are circumstances where the life
of a mother's is in the balance and there has
to be something done that where an abortion may be required.
And so there's there are circumstances where that, sadly it
can happen, or it would be required, or it could
be argued that it would be required. I think this
is a tough one because I can absolutely like, like

(33:09):
the hypothetical I pose to you, I know where I'd
be on that. I wouldn't want to. I'm not in
the business of chemically castrating kids, and I wouldn't want
to and I wouldn't and what would that mean to me?
But there's always two sides of the coin. And you know,
these leftists they get they are mean people, and they
can just start denying you care for the religious faith
that you hold and decide I'm not doing it. I mean,

(33:30):
if you've got this, what do you call it? The
banks that don't want to ensure you know, oil companies
or gas companies, and they have this social score that
you have to have to be a bank or an
insurance company. And so now they're just politically and social
engineering driving financial institutions away from businesses and faith based

(33:51):
organizations that can't get a loan or use a bank.
What happens if that at that enters into the medical community,
good question. This bill could be an opening of that door,
a camel's nose under the tent, so to speak.

Speaker 1 (34:04):
Let's see what our listeners have to say. This would
be a bill that would allow Utah doctors to refuse
care based on moral, ethical, religious objections, which Greg just explained.
What say you eight eight eight five seven oaight zero
one zero eight eight eight five seven oaight zero one zero,
Or on your cell phone do pound two fifty and say, hey, Rod,
let's go to Laurie in Ogden Design. She wants to

(34:26):
wait in on this conversation. Laurie, thanks so much for
joining us.

Speaker 11 (34:30):
Yeah, hey, just a quick opinion, A quick story about
you know, ten to fifteen years ago, I had an
obgyn who was a great physician who was discussing with
me after I'd given childbirth different birth control option, and
he went through all of the different options with me,
and one of those was an IUD, and he had
let me know that that was the one I chose,

(34:50):
and he'd let me know that his belief, being Catholic,
was that he was not going to implant iud's as
part of his practice.

Speaker 12 (34:58):
Really, he says that a partner in his.

Speaker 11 (35:00):
Clinic would be happy to do it for me, but
his personal belief was just he wouldn't, and that was
totally fine with me. I respected that and it was
no problem. I just think that maybe this bill might
be protecting some physicians in those kind of scenarios.

Speaker 1 (35:13):
That's interesting.

Speaker 2 (35:14):
It is because the way you just describe that Laurie,
I wouldn't be offended either. I'd say, Okay, he doesn't
want to do it, and it doesn't sound like the
law would prohibit him from doing it. But you're pointing
out that maybe if they didn't have as agreeable of
a patient as you were, they could sue, maybe litigator sue.

Speaker 1 (35:29):
Laurie did it bother you when he said I'm not
going to do this. I'll have a colleague of mind
do this for you. Did that bother you at all, Laurie,
not in the slightest.

Speaker 11 (35:38):
I was so happy that he was he was willing
to give me all of the options up front. And
then after I'd made my decision, is when he let
me know that he would find me an alternative provider
in his clinic too. That's an implant the iod for me.

Speaker 1 (35:50):
Interesting. Interesting, thank you, thank you for that. There's that
scenario where you know, she respected her doctor's opinion. She
wasn't very judgy at all. She just was like fine
with she was very very good. All right, more your
call coming up. It is the routing Greg show eight
eight eight five seven o eight zero one zero triple
eight five seven eight zero one zero. If you just
joining us now stepped into the car on your way home.
We're talking about a bill being mentioned or being introduced

(36:13):
into the Utah legislature which would allow Utah doctors to
refuse care, refuse care based on their moral, ethical, or
religious objections. Let's say you eight eight eight five seven
o eight zero one zero eight eight eight five seven
o eight zero one zero, give us call right now.
We'll let you join in on the conversation. By the way,
speaking of the X page. We've got a pull up

(36:33):
there right now. The poll basically says Senator Evan Vickers,
He's a pharmacist in Cedar City. Is that right, Greg,
that's right, that's right. It is running a bill in
the Utah legislature that would allow doctors to object to
providing a non life threatening medical service based on their medical, moral, religious,
or ethical beliefs. Now, the question is do you agree

(36:54):
with this bill or doctors should always provide care? If
a chance to participate in our pull again, go to
the X page and you can find it just at
Rod and Greg Show at Rod and Greg Show and
you can weigh in on this debate. We're taking your
calls as well. Eighty eight eight five seven oh eight
zero one zero, triple eight five seven oh eight zero

(37:15):
one zero.

Speaker 2 (37:16):
So let's go to the smartest listeners and all the
land our listeners. Let's go to Jody from Springville. Jody,
thank you for holding and welcome to the Rod and
Greg Show.

Speaker 13 (37:26):
Well, thank you.

Speaker 2 (37:27):
So what do you say? Do you say that do
we need a build that they the physicians may conscientiously
object in giving care for ethical, moral, religious reasons.

Speaker 13 (37:39):
Yes, very much. So I don't think that any physician
should be forced to give things, to do things that
he doesn't believe, you know, that he believes is not
against his beliefs, like you know, might be vaccines, might
be abortions, gender transitions, whatever it be. I mean me,
if I was a physician, I couldn't consciously do some

(37:59):
things that I this against. And so then what happens,
you know, you lose your license. I don't know, you're
going to some negative consequences. So but to me, you know,
because your guys are talking about okay, but then there's
you know, what can you refuse? Who can you refuse?
I believe that it has to be across the board. Okay,
I don't do say abortions, I don't do them. I

(38:20):
I don't feel rid about it. I won't do them.
You can advertise to do whatever you want, so it's
across the board. You can't like, do it for some
people and not for others. You know, pick the race
or religion or familiar status or whatever it may be.
You can't pick and choose that you give your service
to everyone, but you can refuse to do services that
you are not that you don't believe are right.

Speaker 1 (38:43):
Right, Yeah, that's a good point. You know, you've got
to be I think you've got to be consistent, and
I think Jodie makes a very good point. Let's go
to West Valley. Here what Linda has to say here
on the Rod and Greg Shows this afternoon. Hi Linda,
how are you?

Speaker 14 (38:57):
I'm fine, Thank you for having me. I agree with
the previous caller. My first two children were very severely handicapped,
and when my third child, I was during my third pregnancy,
my doctor, who was of the same faith as I
am dead as a doctor. I have to tell you
that if you choose to terminate this pregnancy, I will

(39:18):
refer you to someone else. I won't do anything about it,
but I would refer you.

Speaker 12 (39:23):
And so no, I don't think someone should be forced
to do something that would be morally reprehensive to themselves
or to their according to their faith, their moral attitude.

Speaker 1 (39:37):
All right, all right, Linda, thank you. I appreciate your
coming on that. You know what, Greg, this sounds like
doctors are doing this already. Is this bill just to
protect them? Is that what they had? Two callers say,
our doctors refused to do a certain thing, and they
worked around where the patients still got the care, but
the doctor wasn't involved in any procedure or treatment.

Speaker 2 (39:56):
Well, the bill that goes on. So the reason why
the bill is as their it is because that physician,
if someone were to complain about them refusing care, the
doctor would the physician would be protected from demotion, denial
of benefits or privileges or promotions, would not be disciplined
to discriminate against, dismissed, harassed, prosecution, refuse.

Speaker 1 (40:21):
Let's see, we're just reading the bill.

Speaker 2 (40:24):
Yeah, just the refusal to provide benefit of privileged promotion, retaliation, suspension,
termination of employment. It doesn't say free from litigation, but
just about everything else though. It's just saying you can't
punish them. Basically, they're looking to say, look, and it
sounds like our listeners are sharing with us that doctors

(40:44):
have already exercised this. What I guess this is doing
is defining a conscientious objection and then saying what, wherever
they work, whatever they're employed, they can't be there can
be no retaliation for that from the employer.

Speaker 1 (40:56):
All right, let's get to your calls. Eighty eight eight
five seven OA zero one zero back to the phones
as we go.

Speaker 2 (41:01):
Let's go to Taylor in Salt Lake City. Taylor, thank
you for holding and welcome to the Ron and Greg Show.

Speaker 15 (41:07):
Thanks for having me.

Speaker 2 (41:09):
So what do you think about all this conscientious objection physicians.

Speaker 15 (41:14):
I think it's a great bill. I'm going into pharmacy,
and you know, most abortions these days are medication abortions,
and so I really hope this bill also covers pharmacists
as well. So I'm glad to here that Senator Vickers
is the one who's sponsoring it, because that and transgender
care fall within the purview of pharmacists a lot, and
that's something I'm for sure don't want to participate in it.

Speaker 1 (41:33):
Have you have you you're just getting into this if
you had a case where you've had to deal with
this yet. Are you just looking at the future and
what could happen? Taylor?

Speaker 15 (41:43):
Yeah, So I work in a pharmacy during school, and
therefen cases where I've had to excuse myself, you know,
so I have to go to the bathroom so I
don't have to de testification I don't agree with. Yeah,
there's been potential repercussions of that, so it goes that's
protected now.

Speaker 2 (41:55):
Yeah, it's such an interesting point you bring up because
it is. Senator Vicker's a good friend of mine. He
served in a house with me before he sold out
one to the Senate. But no, but he he's a
great pharmacist. But I don't know that he that pharmacists
are included in this bill, unless if there was a
definition of physician that included pharmacists. But no, I don't
think he's in there. But it's a good point.

Speaker 1 (42:13):
Yeah, all right, We've got more of your calls we're
going to get to, so we invite you to stay
with us. It is the Rod and Greg Show right
here on Utah's Talk radio one oh five nine k nrs.
And this bill would give doctors some freedom to refuse
care based on moral, ethical, and religious objections, not in
an emergency situation. We want to stress that in an

(42:34):
emergency session, of course, the doctor would treat the patient,
but in some cases non emergency, Evan Vickers is trying
to give doctors a little bit more leeway.

Speaker 2 (42:42):
Greg, it is and it's and as our listeners have
pointed out, as they've called in that many doctors exercise
this conscientious objection already, and they do it in a
very polite and diplomatic way. But what this bill goes
on to do is to prevent the physician's employer from
being able to demote them, deny the many kind of benefits,
discriminate against them, dismiss them, harassment things like that. So

(43:04):
the question is to our listeners, is this a good bill?
Is this something that we should do. Let's go to
Chris in Spanish for Chris, thank you for holding and
what say you on this issue of conscientious objection by physician?

Speaker 16 (43:18):
Hey, guys, great show, great topic. So a couple of
key points on One thing that everybody needs to understand
is in medical school, and you had talked earlier about
the abortion procedure being taught to doctors, Well, twenty five
percent of medical schools now are actually teaching doctors how
to provide spiritual care because the literature shows that long

(43:42):
term improved outcomes a curve from belief in and a
reliance on a higher power, which is really really important.
The second, the second point I wanted to make is
that doctors, depending on there, whether they're a primary care
physician or are there a special they have to maintain
a certain mobile of patients on their patient bench or

(44:06):
their pert polls. What what that's called.

Speaker 14 (44:09):
If they need to.

Speaker 16 (44:11):
Be patients, they lose revenue. So there is a incentive
for them not to deny a patient care that's important
to the market. It actually help sort out those doctors
that do want to reduce care. So those are my
play that's very good.

Speaker 2 (44:28):
Yeah, so you don't get too fussy, you I can
get overly judge because it's actually going to smack your
bottom line. Yeah. This twenty five percent spiritual care I
always heard of. I have not heard of that. I've
always thought that God that doctors had a bit of
a God complex. Maybe No, that's that's not that's original care. Different, different,
totally different. Okay, different, different concept. Okay, let's keep going

(44:50):
with the phones. Let's go to Melanie and Mapleton. Melanie,
welcome to the Rod and Greg Show. What say you.

Speaker 6 (44:57):
Good?

Speaker 16 (44:57):
You mean?

Speaker 10 (44:57):
I'm a definitely proponent of this. I've got two quick comments.
One is my only concern is that these you know,
individuals that are seeking these services that may be challenging
for a doctor to accept. I just would hope that
they aren't all being funneled to someone that's going to

(45:21):
not expose them to any moral high grounds you know,
I don't know if to kind of keep them in
that bottom bucket, so to speak. And so because when
you are in the presence of a doctor, you know,
you really rely on them.

Speaker 14 (45:36):
And one thing that I.

Speaker 10 (45:37):
Can say is sometimes it's even the unspoken things, you know,
experiencing their compassion, knowing that you know, I don't know,
I just I just am concerned that maybe the more
doctors that say no, who is saying yes? And what
are who are these poor people going to?

Speaker 16 (45:55):
You know?

Speaker 10 (45:56):
And so I want the doctors to be protected, but
I I just know that people like this other gentleman
mentioned rely on the higher power and sometimes that someone
that has a little bit higher moral grounds and that
they need to possibly be exposed to and unfortunately wouldn't
have access to individuals like that.

Speaker 2 (46:14):
Make that point, it is such a great point. In
the absence of any medical, moral, religious, or ethical beliefs,
there's a natural selection there. What kind of doctors left
and they don't have any of that, They don't have
any of those say they have no beliefs on the moral, medical,
religious side. What kind of doctor are you're going to?
That's what Melanie's trying to say. That's a worry. I

(46:35):
hadn't actually thought of it that way, and that's actually.

Speaker 1 (46:38):
That's why we have the smartest audience of the world
out there, right pretty good?

Speaker 16 (46:41):
All right?

Speaker 1 (46:41):
For your phone calls coming up eighty eight eight five
seven eight zero one zero, triple eight five seven eight
zero one zero, or on your cell phone, I'll pound
two fifty and say hey Rod. And by the way,
we have an insta pole up on our X page.
If you want to find it, make sure you follow us.
All you do is have to go to X and
search at Rodd and Greg Show. But the poll basically
is asking the question. Senator Evan Vickers is running a

(47:03):
bill in the Utah legislature that would allow doctors to
object to providing a non life threatening medical service based
on their medical, moral, religious, or ethical beliefs. Do you
agree with this bill or do you disagree? You can
vote right now. An instapol up on our X page.
Just search it out at Rod and Greg Show and

(47:23):
make sure you follow us each and every day. We'll
keep you up to date as to what's going on
with the show each and every afternoon. If you're just
joining us now, State Center, Evan Vickers introducing a bill
that would allow physicians doctors to exercise a conscientious objection
if providing medical service if it would conflict with a
doctor's medical, moral, religious, or ethical beliefs. We're taking your

(47:47):
phone calls on that eight eight eight five seven eight
zero one zero. But you have an interesting story about
this that you want to share.

Speaker 2 (47:53):
Yeah, So I was trying to think of you know,
the left can be but they're very mean people. And
you know in the Irs they went out after a
right of center organizations. You can find people that from
the left that will mistreat people they identify. Remember my
Orcus said, you know what a domestic terrorist is. It's
someone who goes to a school board meeting to protest
their school board, or goes to church, or is a

(48:16):
veteran or owns a gun. Well, what if you came
to your doctor became aware that you were at your
school board meeting Matt about some curriculum, you were a veteran,
and you come in with your maga hat on, and
they have an ethical objection to you because they think,
as my Orcus said, you could be a potential domestic terrorist.
And they are opposed to domestic terrorists. And so I

(48:39):
was thinking about that, and I thought, well, maybe that's
a logical extreme. I don't know, And then I remembered
back when I was Speaker of the House, we were
fighting the Obamacare expansion bill, and the House is all
by itself. Governor wanted it, wanted it in the House.
We were just we just knew we don't print money,
we couldn't do it. So we're fighting it and we
are just getting beat. It's during the session, we're getting
beat to a pulp me. He is just out there.

(49:00):
They're putting tombs will pretend greystones or you know, tombstones
on the on the lawn of the Capitol, and they're
just just it's just ugly, ugly terrible there. So my
doctor's worried about me. I'm actually losing hair at this
point because like I'm just working in stressed all the time.
So he has me going for a stress test. Okay,

(49:21):
I'm taking this stress test and one of the things
they have you do is they put these little stickers
on your your heart and he put me on a treadmill.

Speaker 1 (49:28):
Okay, oh, I've done that.

Speaker 2 (49:30):
And I'm on the treadmill and I'm I'm staring at
a wall the treadmills at a wall, like, look at
the wall, and I don't you know when I go
to a doctor, I'm not wearing my politics on my sleeve. Okay,
I'm just a patient, So I'm not talking about any
of this stuff. And the doctor with the nurse inside
there and they're behind me. I can't see them because
I'm running on this treadmill. He says, what's wrong with you?

(49:52):
And this healthy Utah, this medicaid expansion? What's your what's
your problem?

Speaker 1 (49:58):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (49:59):
And he asked me, did you know beforehand that he
knew who he is? He was unaware. And I was
referred to this guy for the stress test. It's not
my normal physician. You go in there to get this test.
And he starts grilling me on this bill and I'm like, look,
ten percent of a number sounds like it's a cheap deal, right,
What if it's a Lamborghini? Yeah, you know, ten percent
of that's still going to be real money. You can't
we don't know what. We don't print money, we can't

(50:19):
do it. Well, while I'm trying to explain it, I'm
walking on I'm kind of huffing a little bit. I look,
there's a picture on the wall, and I look at
the picture and it has glass on it, and in
the glass I can see his reflection and he is
making faces about me to the nurse. He is pointing
at me, and just I can see that he hates
he hates me. I can see that that doctor who's

(50:42):
doing my stress test hates me. And so I was
thinking to myself while we're doing this, well, maybe he
should have conscientiously objected to helping me with that stress test,
because I could tell by my answers he didn't like
me by his gestures to the nurse. It was kind of,
you know, kind of uncomfortable.

Speaker 1 (50:58):
Was this stress test one where they just run you
as hard as you possibly can just to get your
heart right up? Or was this just a kind of
a slow.

Speaker 2 (51:05):
Walk one it was? It was, I don't know, something
in between. It was. It was had a high, high
incline and and I did it for a while, so
I was breathing a little heavy, but I wasn't like
running full blast and checking my heart see if I
was going to keel over. I wasn't.

Speaker 1 (51:19):
But the doctor figured out who you were and decided and.

Speaker 2 (51:22):
He didn't see that I could see his reflection in
the in the glass of the picture on the wall,
and I could see him mocking me in, pointing me
and making faces, and uh, yeah, it wasn't It was
awkward for me, but I didn't let him know that
I could see him doing it.

Speaker 1 (51:35):
So, yeah, and you you passed the test.

Speaker 2 (51:37):
I apparently passed the test. They didn't give me any
answers inside there, But I was gonna tell my doctor
if he gave me a bad grade. I think it's
it's on a curve. I think this guy already had
had it out for me, So I wasn't going to
take the bad news. But there wasn't ay bad news.
I was fine. But see, these doctors have opinions, folks.
You got to be careful to get opinions. And you
might think, oh, moral, religious beliefs. You might think you
might be giving the benefit of the doubt. They might

(51:59):
have some beliek's out there that you might not subscribe to,
and they might not want to help you. Yeah, then
the question is, well, do you want their help?

Speaker 1 (52:06):
But we we've heard from from our callers, our listeners today, Greg,
we had a couple say doctors opted out. Told us
about why went and found another physician to help us out.
Everything was okay.

Speaker 2 (52:17):
I love this.

Speaker 1 (52:18):
So it sounds like it's already taking place without any protection.

Speaker 2 (52:21):
I think that, and I liked that the one one
story was that he did the doctor didn't even introduce
the issue until the patient made the decision of which
which the doctor didn't want to perform, and only then
they said, well, I'll find someone else, or I can
find someone else. So I think there's tackle ways to
do it. And uh, we'll see, yeah, we'll see.

Speaker 1 (52:41):
All right, coming up, Mike Lee apparently doesn't have anything
to do, so he's going to join us on the
Rotted Greg Show.

Speaker 2 (52:46):
He's in town. I don't know if you know. I'm
a champion, multiple championship assistant coach.

Speaker 1 (52:51):
You're a water boy.

Speaker 2 (52:52):
Oh, hydration is important. You keep trying to belittle that role.
It's a very important stat You got a trophy for
being a watch I got my trophy too, and I
got a jacket, says coach for being a water boy.
Waters part of the game brought. I don't even know
why you even.

Speaker 1 (53:06):
Keep taking you ever offer a play.

Speaker 2 (53:10):
I used to do some special teams.

Speaker 1 (53:12):
I did run down the field and tackle the guy
and isn't that what it is?

Speaker 2 (53:16):
And when they were really really young, I was the
ten play guy make sure every kid that they are
ten plays in. I had to get every kid oft
their ten plays in. So that was that was one
of my jobs too. Okay, but I will say those
were my glory years. Like that's I loved that. That's
the aging kids. I love football. I think that these kids,
you know, they just look like they're just like math majors.
They look like they're going to rock the science fair.
You put a helmet and some pads on them, they

(53:37):
become monsters of the Midway. It's just inspiring.

Speaker 1 (53:40):
I loved it. Yeah, they're fun to watch. Oh did
you We haven't talked about this today, but did you
hear what happened in Chicago today? There was a Southwest
Airlines flight it was forced to perform a goal around maneuver.
They were landing at Chicago's Midway Airport when a private
jet taxied right across their path on the runway. And
the videos out there you can see the video, but

(54:01):
that that Southwest pilet goes oh oh, touches down and
takes immediately lifts off again. Wow, came that close by
the way. All right, well, Utah sender Mike Lee has
decided to join us tonight. There's a lot to talk
about with Utah's Republican congressman. He's been a busy guy,
very busy on social media. I noticed Mike likes to
get on social media.

Speaker 2 (54:20):
He's on a lot. Actually, I think here's a story
about that, really that he's so prolific that they say,
how does he how is he able to put contribute
so much?

Speaker 1 (54:28):
But he does.

Speaker 2 (54:29):
He's got a lot of followers. He's he's doing it.
He's he's having a conversation with America. It's great.

Speaker 1 (54:34):
Well, let's have a conversation with him right now, Utah
sender Mike Lee, Mike, thanks for joining us tonight. Let
me ask you. You've been in Washington for a long time,
and with everything that's going on with doge and eliminating
government jobs, how would you describe the mood in the
nation's capital right now?

Speaker 15 (54:50):
Look here, long standing problems in our government. People all
across this country, really from one end of the political
spectrum to the other, understand that something's terrible wrong. And
you have to hand it to President Trump for going
in and exercising a bold, prominent degree of leadership, leadership
that says there's a new sheriff in town. It's time

(55:13):
to no longer do things the way we've always done them.
Taxpayers are, of course, six static that we're finally looking
for ways to reduce government, to cut down a waste,
broaden abuse, and it's no surprise there are plenty of
moans and groans emanating from federal employees who are now
required to show up to work or at a minimum,
to respond to an email about what they've been doing

(55:33):
and with.

Speaker 2 (55:34):
Their job entails.

Speaker 15 (55:35):
But the bottom line is the days of business is
usual are over and it's time to start showing real value.

Speaker 16 (55:41):
For the work they do.

Speaker 2 (55:44):
You know, I have a couple of questions, Senator, but
on the topic of the email, we had a couple
of callers yesterday that were government employees and they are
more than happy to and actually want to show what
they've done five things they did over the last week,
but their supervisors told them not to answer the email.
And there seems to be in an earnest way, not
in a way to subvert the president. Some confusion or

(56:07):
lack of clarity on who should be reporting or how
who should be responding to emails? Is there is there?
I don't mind the pace, and I think, you know,
go fast and do you see any legitimacy? And some
of the federal employees that that are being told by
their supervisors to not reply to the five things they've

(56:27):
done because there just needs to be a better understanding
from even the cabinet members on how to when to
reply or any any details like that, or is this
just they should just reply I could reply to I'd
like to reply to the five things I did today,
so I don't have a problem, or callers that called
in didn't have any problem either, But what do you
think about that in terms of the communication between the

(56:49):
cabinet members and DOGE and their efforts.

Speaker 15 (56:53):
Well, first of all, any federal employees who's being told
that by their immediate supervisor is in a really tough
position and there is heavy fault to be carried there,
and the part of the supervisor who's claiming that, especially
where it's contrary to what the President of the United
States and others to them he's delegated, including many instances
specific statements from the Cabinet Secretary in question that's an

(57:15):
active insubordination that, as I see, it's likely warrants termination
by the supervisor telling him, Hey, you don't have to
worry about what the what the president says or what
the cabinet secretary says. I'm defying that order. Look, that
should be grounds for termination right then and right there.
I would refer them to Article two of the Constitution,

(57:38):
which says that the executive power in the US government
is vested in the president.

Speaker 7 (57:43):
Now, look, I.

Speaker 15 (57:44):
Get change is often met with resistance before it's accepted.
But those who are diligent employees and are consistently show
up to work and perform are unfazed and and we'll
likely remain untouched in all this. They welcome this shift,
those who fall into that category, and they know it'll

(58:05):
make all employees begin pulling their own weight.

Speaker 16 (58:09):
But what I have a.

Speaker 15 (58:11):
Hard time with is these supervisors, many of whom I suspect,
are acting on an impulse driven by public sector unions
who are telling them to just defy a presidential or
a secret or secretarial order or both. That's unacceptable.

Speaker 1 (58:26):
Mike. Do you think sunder laid that Elon Musk and
this Doe Jefford is making progress here. What's your sense
right now? I mean, when will we actually know and
really see some changes.

Speaker 15 (58:38):
Well, look, the website that the dose TAM is put
together is where the good it's keeping people updated on
what they're saving, and I think we're still sort of
at the beginning stages of that. I think we're seeing
almost what might.

Speaker 1 (58:53):
Be described as the tip of the iceberg.

Speaker 15 (58:55):
I think there will be more of that, I hope
and expect, and I'm working to ensure that this will
be a coordinated effort between the White House, the President's
administration generally, and Congress, because in order to make the
savings lasting and somewhat permanent, so this doesn't just turn
up to be a flash in the pan exercise, I

(59:16):
do think we need to look at making some statutory
changes to lock in some of the savings that will
be realized with these cups.

Speaker 2 (59:25):
Senator, A long time ago, I talked to you about
one of my favorite radio or podcast guys, Dan Bongino.
He's I think his voice and his perspective has been
so important over the years in terms of being a
truth teller and really putting framing the issues that we're
all confronting in a way that we could all understand.
And I've learned that you've known Dan Bongino. He has

(59:47):
spent years and years, maybe over a decade, building an
incredible and large audience that do listen to him, and
I think he contributes a lot. I actually did not.
I worry when I see that he's going to leave
those conduits to communication to be the deputy director of
the FBI. I can see why his leadership could be
used there. But is it that bad that we have

(01:00:09):
to lose a voice like Dan Bongino nationally inside the FBI?
What am I Should I be worried about something like that?
Or is that fine? I think that maybe things might
be worse than I think if Dan Bongino has to
leave what he's doing to serve in the FBI.

Speaker 15 (01:00:26):
Looks as a longtime fan of Dan Bongino's personally, I've
known him for fourteen years. We're dear friends, and as
a fan of his shows, and as a somewhat frequent
guest on his show, not as frequent as I am
on your show, of course, but I frequently I will
miss having him on the radio. But honestly, Greg, this

(01:00:48):
is a good trait. This is worthwhile Dan Bongino is
exactly what we need here to go ahead and help
Cash Hotel reform the FBI. Bongino is a cops cop,
is a true friend of mine, that genuine American patriot.
He's a friend of the people and of the Constitution.
So yeah, I'm really going to miss seeing him on
Fox News on his own radio show, and I predict

(01:01:11):
that one way or another, Dan will have an even
bigger audience on the Dan Bongino Show once his tour
of duty and government is complete. But regardless and between
now and whenever that may happen, Dan's not a shrinking violet.
We're still going to hear from him quite regularly, I'm certain.
And he's got incredibly sound Joshman. He's got the standard,

(01:01:33):
highest standards of integrity, a work ethic like few people
I've ever known, and I can't think of a better
man to serve as Cash Betail's deputy at FBI.

Speaker 1 (01:01:43):
One final question for you, sender Lee. Donald Trump certainly
has come into the White House, has been very transparent
and open and meeting with the media all the time.
What a difference we have in this president compared to
the last one. The fact that he's constantly answering questions,
trying to communicate with the public, to share history and
where he's going. How much of a change is that
from the previous administration underly.

Speaker 15 (01:02:07):
Well, when the previous administration was headed by a guy
whose pulse was sometimes in question, whose ability to communicate
was affirmatively disproven by his own efforts to communicate. This
is a night and day difference. Donald Trump has boundless
energy for a man of any age, not even to

(01:02:30):
mention a man well into his seventies. Donald Trump is
an enormously energetic figure, and the physical energy is matched
by his mental energy and his drive. And this really
is a blessing because we need a president, We need

(01:02:53):
a chief executive who can lead. Our previous president did
match that. Regardless of where you fall on the ideological
political spectrum, you have to appreciate the energy that Donald
Trump brings to the table, energy that was manifestly absent
in the last administration. The contrast couldn't be greater.

Speaker 1 (01:03:11):
TEUs under Mike Lee joining us for our weekly chat
about what's going on in the nation's capital. The President
again today, Greg as we played well, we'll play this now.
The President, the White House tours are back. They've been
gotten for what about four years? I think maybe even
a little bit longer than that. Milania Trump came back
in said we're going to re establish him.

Speaker 7 (01:03:29):
She has.

Speaker 1 (01:03:30):
There was a tour today at the White House and
guess who showed up.

Speaker 4 (01:03:33):
But I want to thank you very much for Tommy.

Speaker 5 (01:03:35):
The tour is so great and just such a good
job first lady who worked very hard and making it perfect.
And I think you're going to really love it. And
I heard you were here and I said, let's stop
by and say very smart looking people. I must say,
very smart.

Speaker 4 (01:03:49):
Maybe somebody you'd be you'll.

Speaker 5 (01:03:51):
Be here as the president, right, nobody, somebody in this room,
as he shads, have a good time, have a great tour,
and you're gonna give them a special tour.

Speaker 4 (01:04:00):
Okay, you're gonna get a special to have fun everybody.

Speaker 1 (01:04:13):
He was smart on two fronts. First of all, to
go out there and say hi to him, right, and
then to give a shout out to Milania. Yes all
her referee. Heats a smart guy.

Speaker 2 (01:04:23):
He's very smart. And I'm telling you, man, the guy
has hit. He's hit his groove. He's doing so well.

Speaker 1 (01:04:30):
All right, Mary coming up on the right on Greg
Show and Talk Radio one O five nine. Okay, an arrests.

Speaker 2 (01:04:34):
I told my wife once after I had a town
hall meeting with a bunch of doctors speaking of Obamacare expansion.
They're all yelling at me, and I said, you know what,
here's my end of life instructions. If I'm towards the
end of life, find a nurse, because I don't want
to any doctor near me. They're gonna take me out
early if it's up to them.

Speaker 1 (01:04:50):
You just like confrontation.

Speaker 2 (01:04:53):
It finds you. You do you ask my wife? It
finds me. Since we dated, it finds me. I don't
look for it. It looks for me. I can give
you endless examples of where conflict finds me. I'm not looking.
I'm not looking for it. It finds me.

Speaker 14 (01:05:08):
You.

Speaker 1 (01:05:08):
You found conflict on a golf course over a shot
with d Oh.

Speaker 2 (01:05:14):
Yeah, well yeah he can't he dries me insane. Yeah,
I find conflict every time. Yes, well that's just a
constant conflict. I was born around him. I just inherited him.
But no, when I would date my wife, we go
somewhere and I just did.

Speaker 1 (01:05:27):
Did you ever get in an argument with your wife.

Speaker 2 (01:05:29):
No with people, I get into conflicts with people. I'm
at a concert I'm at I'm at Park City. I
mean that was one of those outdoor things. Idiots have
their girlfriends on their shouldes. I can't see the I
can't see the concert. I'm asking hey, pull her down.
I can't see. Guy behind me gets mad. He pulls
her down. After they keep ignoring us, and then they
want to fight. And then what do I end up doing?
Getting right in the middle of it. And it's just

(01:05:49):
I don't look for it. I was just I was
just there.

Speaker 6 (01:05:52):
It happens to me all time. Never to invite you
any type of public event together, sporting event, I cannot
even go. You can't like certain sporting events.

Speaker 2 (01:06:04):
I mean, I think the statute of limitations have expired
at this point that I am not ready to disclose.
How ugly those games get with me, and I am
not looking for it. I just want to cheer my team,
and they are just filthy people.

Speaker 1 (01:06:16):
You've been upset today because you your Penguins are playing Philadelpia.

Speaker 12 (01:06:19):
Yea, they just.

Speaker 2 (01:06:23):
Phone in their head. I would I'm so mad at them,
But that's me being that I'm telling you, conflict finds me.
If Queen Bee was on was here, she would tell
you it's almost supernatural.

Speaker 1 (01:06:33):
How conflict you have?

Speaker 2 (01:06:34):
A Yeah, it just comes.

Speaker 14 (01:06:35):
I just.

Speaker 2 (01:06:38):
I don't do anything. I don't do anything to deserve it, right,
you sure? I'm positive? In fact, this is what scares
me out of all these scary road rage stories, because
I get these lunatics that get get in my grill
and I'm I don't back down, and then next thing
you know, I'm gonna get killed. So I gotta like
twenty twenty five, I've got a well what.

Speaker 1 (01:06:57):
Speaking of somebody who doesn't back down, it's Scott Jennings.
I know this case. He is awesome. He was you know,
he's on CNN, the only common sense conservative on that
about the march of that having to be on that
channel every night, but he loves it. He apparently loves it.
And you know they're all this all this weeping and

(01:07:18):
whaling and gnashing of teeth about elon musk email. Tell
us what you've done, the five things you've done this
past week. Send out a second one. The media of course,
going oh, you can't do that to these four federal employees.
But guess what Scott Jennings wah in on CNN about
this last night.

Speaker 17 (01:07:35):
The amount of outrage, melting down and sort of outpouring
of emotion over this ought to tell you everything you
need to know. We had a lady on CNN today,
a supposed federal worker who said she was infuriated by
the getting this email. She had time to go on CNN,
but she didn't have time to send a thirty second
email saying well, here's what I was working on last week.

(01:07:55):
This is what people in the private sector have come
to hate about how they view public sector. And I
think there's a great many, very dedicated public servants. But
you said, you know it's about control. Yes, it's about control,
and it's about finding out who is actually at their
job working and who isn't and doing it.

Speaker 1 (01:08:12):
And that's all. It's all about finding out who's at
their job and you know, what are they doing when
they're at their job.

Speaker 2 (01:08:19):
Look, we're not it's not a mob. It's not organized crime.
There are no no show jobs that you just pay for.
They have to reply back answer five questions of what
you did in an entire week. It's not that hard.
You're not getting laid off. You're not losing your job.
I'm telling you. In the eighties when I was a
bell Hoppin's Sherton, Okay, we had laid off steel workers

(01:08:39):
that were making These guys making a fraction of what
they used to make. We had a steel town where
they had the because it was the main income of
every resident in this small town, everybody. It hit the
entire town. Nobody could pay their mortgage, nobody could pay
their property tax. They bust those children to Ohio to
go to school being asked five questions and an email

(01:09:00):
versus your kids or bust to Ohio and you're unemployed
and you can't make your mortgage. We're not. They're crazy.
They live in a world that doesn't exist for the
rest of America. And nobody in America that I know
is just heartbroken over being emailed five questions, a real
question to answer five things you did for the week.
It's absolutely offensive that they're offended. I would just get

(01:09:22):
rid of anybody that's offended.

Speaker 1 (01:09:23):
You can just get just take a hike, see you later,
all right, mar coming up on the Route and Greg
Show and Utah Talk Radio one oh five to nine,
knrs Marlow Oakes, our state treasurer, has done a fantastic
job in trying to explain to the American people what
ESG is all about. He has, Yeah, ESG is kind
of a grading system if your environmentally sound, socially sound,

(01:09:45):
your company. You know, he's done a great job. And
one of the things that you and I have talked
about earlier, Greg was that over the years, certain groups
could not get bank loans because the banks didn't agree
with their political or social stand.

Speaker 2 (01:09:59):
You saw that, and there's this show on the Paramount
network Landman with Them with Billy Bob Thornton, and that's
one of the narratives is that the oil companies, extrategy
companies are saying, we can't get loans the money, we
can't get loans from traditional banks, we can't get insurance
because they were all going away from their businesses. That's
been going on with the social engineering of these well

(01:10:20):
to do around the world.

Speaker 1 (01:10:21):
Well, apparently there are some lawmakers back in Washington who
wanted to do something about it. It is called the
Fair Access to Banking Act. And joining us on our
Newsmaker line to talk about that right now is Justin
Hackett Haskins Justin as director of the Socialism Research Center
at the Heartland Institute. A great day I had to
have on the show. Justin tell us about this, what
is it and why are people trying to change things? Right?

Speaker 8 (01:10:45):
So, the Banking Act is one of the most important
bills working its way through Congress right now. Essentially, what
it would do is force all large banks, so not
all banks, but all large banks in the United States
with ten billion dollars in assets or more to treat

(01:11:06):
everyone fairly and equally when they come through the door.
So it doesn't matter what your views are politically, what
your religion is. It doesn't matter what your position is
on say, gay marriage or abortion, or on anything else.
It doesn't matter what kind of lawful business you are.

(01:11:27):
So if you're in the fossil fuel industry, or maybe
you're in the renewable energy industry, the bank has to
treat you the same. Whether you have access to capital
like lending, for example, or bank accounts like a savings
account or checking account. The bank should not be the
one deciding whether you should have access to these services.

(01:11:51):
That should be determined by other than when we're talking
about whether you're a credit worthy person or that kind
of thing. It should be based on financial consideration, not
on all of these other non financial considerations.

Speaker 1 (01:12:03):
That's all this legislation would do.

Speaker 8 (01:12:05):
And it's incredibly important because right now banks don't have
to do that. Most people don't know that, but banks
have the right to deny people based on non financial criteria.
So if you're a gun shop owner and they don't
believe in the Second Amendment and they don't think that
anyone should own guns, they can just not lend or
give bank accounts or payment services to all the gun

(01:12:27):
shop owners.

Speaker 1 (01:12:28):
And if all the banks make.

Speaker 8 (01:12:29):
That decision, well then that's the end of gun shop
owners in America. And so it's an incredibly powerful bill
because it takes that authority away from the banks to
decide as a group what businesses and industries and people
should be allowed to function in society in which one shouldn't,
and it puts it right where it belongs with voters

(01:12:51):
and their elected representatives.

Speaker 2 (01:12:53):
Justin a number of years ago, our state Treasurer Marlow
Oaks wrote a column and had a column in the
Wall Street Journal WI warning Americans and investors about this ESG,
this concerted effort from lending institutions to create some kind
of social score, even if it's on the you know,
off the books, so to speak, where they would ban

(01:13:14):
insurance to extraction industry or to or to issues or
causes that they didn't align with. You're describing this as
as maybe a large bank that has a personal bias,
But isn't it the case that there may be a
far more organized effort to keep financial services and institutions
away from some of these industries and causes and you know,

(01:13:38):
Christianity and things like that. Isn't it isn't a little
bit more draconian than just maybe a bank's preference.

Speaker 8 (01:13:46):
Yeah, I mean, there's there's been a widespread effort amongst
banks to join together in international organizations like the Glasgow
Alliance for Net Zero, for example, which is built around
owned the idea that the entire world needs to transition
away from fossil fuels and CO two emissions. And there's

(01:14:08):
been other similar sorts of alliances Principles for Responsible Investments
and other things where many of the large banks and
large financial institutions and asset managers and insurance companies have
all gotten together and said, essentially, we're going to kill
the fossil fuel industry. We're gonna kill cole we're gonna
kill natural gas. We're going to stop allowing people to

(01:14:29):
drive cars. We're just gonna do it over a few decades,
and we're going to use our private sector power, access
to capital, access to insurance, and other things to do it.
We're going to force people to make the transition, and
we're going to do it as a group. And that's
been going on now for at least the past five years.
It's really started much earlier than that, but it's really

(01:14:50):
ramped up over the last five years. And it's not
just on issues like that, it's on all sorts of
other issues. Marlow, it's one hundred percent variety. Is a
great guy, really smart.

Speaker 12 (01:14:59):
On this issue.

Speaker 8 (01:15:00):
That's what the whole ESG movement is all about.

Speaker 1 (01:15:04):
It's really more.

Speaker 8 (01:15:04):
It's not about one individual financial institution doing what I
think is the wrong thing. If that's all that was
going on, then it really wouldn't be a problem. It's
that there have been these systemic efforts amongst lots of
financial institutions all doing the same thing at the same time,
to kill whole industries or to d bank entire groups

(01:15:25):
of people.

Speaker 1 (01:15:26):
That's the problem, Justin Was it the boards of these
various banks? Was it their shareholders who were pressing them
in to do this? Where did this all come from
to begin with?

Speaker 2 (01:15:38):
Justin Well, I think it depends.

Speaker 8 (01:15:41):
In some cases a lot of the leadership of these boards,
on the board of directors of these various companies, and
sometimes the CEOs and other people are just left wing
people that want to move these institutions in the.

Speaker 2 (01:15:53):
Direction of the left.

Speaker 8 (01:15:55):
The same thing could happen on the right, of course,
but it tends to in recent years been more of
a left wing movement. But a lot of the pressure
has come from big asset managers and financial institutions on
Wall Street that have sort of a left wing bent,
so Black Rock, for example, State Street, Global Advisors, Vanguard,

(01:16:15):
these big asset managers that control millions of shares of stock,
and they can vote these stock in some cases in
many cases, and because of that, they have a massive
amount of power in these boardrooms in corporate America, and
they have been working hand in hand with the leaders
of these big financial institutions and with leaders of international

(01:16:39):
institutions like the World Economic Forum, the people behind Davos
and other big international groups the United Nations to all
as a group push the entire Western world in this
left wing ESG direction. And what this Fair Access to
Banking laws trying or bill is trying to do, if
it gets passed, is to stop one of the main

(01:17:02):
tools that's being used to force that transition by requiring
financial institutions, particularly we're talking about banks and credit unions
and things like that, to treat everyone equally and not
discriminate on the basis of their views on a particular issue,
with their political affiliation or on what kind of industry

(01:17:22):
they're in. As long as they're following the law, they
should be treated equally by these financial institutions.

Speaker 2 (01:17:28):
So you note your article that both the House and
Senate banking committees are supportive of this bill. I happen
to know that those banking committees have a lot of
swat with banks. They seem to really jive with each
other and trying to make each other happy. So if
there is support in those committees, what do you place
the odds of this bill being successful and passed into law.

Speaker 8 (01:17:49):
Well, I think in the I think getting out of committee.
So the first step with all legislation has got to
get out of committee first, and then it gets to
the floor for a full vote. The odds of it
getting out of committee in both the House and the
Senate is extremely, extremely high because of the leadership in
both chambers, I think is really strong. But on a

(01:18:10):
full vote in the House and the Senate, it really is.
At this point it tops up because the margin for
Republicans this is this has mostly become a part of
an issue where Republicans generally support forcing banks to treat
everybody equally and not discriminate, and Democrats are generally in
favor of allowing banks to discriminate. It's a really weird thing,
but that's the way. So we don't know how what

(01:18:33):
it will fare because of how close the margins are.
It's going to come down to the standard swing vote
people in the Senate, in the House like Lisa Murkowski
and people like that.

Speaker 1 (01:18:43):
Justin Haskins joining us on our Newsmaker line. You know what,
Greg has a great idea. I don't know if it'll
survive through Congress. As you know it's should know why
it's it should?

Speaker 2 (01:18:53):
When did the Democrats become the the you know, friends
of the big billionaire banks. I mean when did that?
When did that happen? Yeah? You know, I'm just just
so annoying. They just sold out this whole country and
they're not even apologetic for it.

Speaker 1 (01:19:06):
All Right, more coming up, they're Rod and Greg show
and Talk Radio one oh five nine. Canness, interesting story, Greg?
The New York Post had this this morning. A trans
athlete in California, Okay, missed a California girls basketball playoff
game amid Trump administration in the probe into protesters. Right,
so the player missed the game, okay, because it was concerned. Right.

(01:19:29):
The team lost by twenty six points. Did I say
something about these athletes? Yep? I mean they just lost
twenty six points.

Speaker 2 (01:19:38):
Hey, did you know that Speaker Johnson saying they got
the votes for the big budgets.

Speaker 1 (01:19:42):
It passed.

Speaker 2 (01:19:43):
It just passed.

Speaker 1 (01:19:43):
It passed. I believe it.

Speaker 2 (01:19:44):
It's got no taxes on tips yep. And no tax
on overtime really, and no tax on Social Security win.
You love this president.

Speaker 1 (01:19:55):
I believe it. It has just passed. In fact, let
me check here, real past. But I think the House
budget bill has past. Now goes to the Senate. No
idea what the Senate's going to do with it? But
it has past the House.

Speaker 2 (01:20:06):
I don't know what walkout music Speaker Johnson's using, but
he should have it. He's got a swagger about him
as he's walking through the halls of Congress right now.
They just got that thing passed. Good for them.

Speaker 1 (01:20:15):
Yeah, it's a tight, tight vote. I think we got
two hundred and seventeen votes, so you know what they
don't have.

Speaker 2 (01:20:21):
They have no margin of error. Having been a speaker
and trying to count votes. Boy, that guy's got He
walks on a on a razor's edge with that lack
of a majority. I mean it's a couple of bays.
So that's it's pretty good. He got a big budget bill,
but done that size the Senate. Now the Democrats are
so mad. They're just trying to put a wrench in
anything they can and they just lost it there. That's

(01:20:42):
a great win.

Speaker 1 (01:20:43):
They can't stop Trump right now.

Speaker 2 (01:20:45):
Keep that Trump train going, all right?

Speaker 1 (01:20:47):
That does it for us tonight, Head up, shoulders back,
May God bless you and your family in this great
country of ours. Thank you so much for joining us tonight.
We'll be back with Wingman Wednesday, starting it for

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

.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: Voters Oppose Nuclear Subsidies; Senator Mike Lee on FBI and Federal Job Reductions

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;}Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes