The Rod and Greg Show: What Will DOGE Do For America?; McConnell's Secret War on Trump

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, we've got a jam packed show for you today,
and we appreciate you, uh driving home with us every
weekday Monday through Friday from four to seven. Nice little
dusting of snow to day. Now, I know you do
not like snow.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
I hate it and global warming.

Speaker 1 (00:13):
I'm kind of with you, but we do need it
in an ountain and then the mountain, So this lease
stay in the mountain.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Let me ask you a question. This is a this
is we are not. Snow is inevitable. Okay, it's inevitable.
Why can't people drive in the snow where there's snow,
when it's snow falls, it is light. I feel like
I'm in one of those bumper car rides at the
amusement park. I mean, people are just flying around everywhere,
did they not? You know you can if you have
four wheel drive, you can't go eighty because it's four

(00:40):
wheel drive. It doesn't work. Ice will let everything slide.

Speaker 1 (00:43):
Yeah yeah, I don't. And all you do greg slow down.

Speaker 2 (00:47):
Yeah see, it really is what you gotta do. But
it's and it's the ones that don't slow down that
seem to be I find that when this first snow falls,
especially when you first people it's it's as if they've
never seen it.

Speaker 1 (00:57):
Yeah, it's okay, I'll I'll take Keith for this. But
it's those guys and those jacked up trucks, those pickup
trucks that are going ninety miles an hour, thinking well,
I'll hit somebody and just go off. Or is it
you know? Am I wrong in saying that?

Speaker 2 (01:15):
No? Well, I think there's this idea that if I
have a four wheel drive, somehow my car won't slide
on ice, and that's just not Actually no, no, it is.
It's gonna slide.

Speaker 1 (01:22):
It is not, that's for sure. Well, we've got a
great show lined up for you today. We invite you
to join us as you work your way home coming up,
or we'll talk about the Department the what is it,
the Office of Economic Government Efficiency?

Speaker 3 (01:35):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:35):
Yeah, DOGE? Department of Government Efficiency.

Speaker 1 (01:38):
Efficiency hard at work right now? Do you see people
are volunteering because they're being told you're gonna work eighty
hours a week and we aren't going to pay you.
And people are still signing up.

Speaker 2 (01:47):
Yeah, to worry. I love it and I love it,
and they want to get things done. I want to
be substant if they want to get something done. One
of our interviews this week just reminded me, though, that
Doge can come up with all the recommendations in the
world still has to pass Congress, and I'm like, yeah,
that stinks because that means they have to do something.
I just wanted Acant to just go with a battle

(02:07):
act and just start chopping it all off.

Speaker 1 (02:10):
Well, we'll talk about that a little bit later on. Yes,
Mitch McConnell is going to be another pain in the
butt to Donald Trump in the next couple of year.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
Announced he's not just whispering.

Speaker 1 (02:20):
We'll talk about that. And we've got to talk about
the allegations against the Duke lacrosse players. And the woman
who made the original allegations admitted today what eighteen years
later she lied.

Speaker 2 (02:31):
It's a very sad story because it did change the
trajectory of those young men's life, did it ever? They
became a pinata for the media.

Speaker 1 (02:38):
And I think the direction of the country, Greg, I
think this. I don't know what happened to the country,
but this triggered so much about race, about privilege, about misogyny.
I mean, it just triggered everything eighteen years ago. And
now she comes out and says, I'm sorry, I lied.

Speaker 2 (02:53):
Yeah, it's yeah, the ripple effect of those allegations and
how it went national and all the and then all
the race talk everything, and the media just feeding it
just like you know, just like a coal fired, you know, furnace. Yeah,
it's it's just it's just really and people's lives were
materially and measurably harmed because of it, and you can't

(03:14):
get that back. And and look, they dismissed the charges
ultimately because it was they couldn't know anything evidence. I'm
telling you, the media treated them all guilty until proven innocent.
And even when it was dismissed, it was still the
whisper Oh well, you know it really did happen. They're
all white and rich, and it was in it was
in North Carolina. Yeah, of course it was racist. Well,
remember the district attorney, he wouldn't give up on it.

(03:36):
I mean, he's you know, he just kept pushing this
and pushing this and pushing this.

Speaker 1 (03:41):
There was no evidence. Matter of fact, one of the
one of the three that were charged weren't even in
the house when the alleged rape took place. Yes, he
was out of an ATM machine provable, and he was
charged just provable.

Speaker 2 (03:53):
It was in hindsight that the insidiousness of that prosecutor
and looking at for public office and for notari is
truly what was evil about that? Yeah, sure it was
a whole episode.

Speaker 4 (04:04):
There was.

Speaker 1 (04:04):
Well, we've got a couple of a big boohoos to
start off with today. First of all, this story about
Joe Biden in the final days of his administration. He
is selling off all the steel that was sent to
the border to build the border wall, and he's now
selling it off. He's getting rid of it. It's just
days before Donald Trump takes over here in what about
forty days.

Speaker 2 (04:25):
And there's no and there's nothing. There's only spite motivating that.
There's nothing. There's no saving government money. There's it's all spiked.
That's all it is. We want to make it harder
for him to do what he's going to do. And
I heard that the I think Texas is going to
buy some and other states. Look, we'll by it and
give it back. And because it's coming for a deal,
I hear it's a fit quite the fire set. They're

(04:48):
just trying to get it out of possession of the
federal government. So that Trump can't use it.

Speaker 1 (04:51):
And here this is all this steel that's been sitting
there for what four years now, and all of a
sudden out of spite, Greg Yes, Joe Biden, because Donald
Trump says, you make me president, I'm going to start
building that wall again. Joe Biden is sending away all
the material. Who's getting screwed on this one? The American taxi?

Speaker 2 (05:09):
Yes, yeah, yeah, just like everything else.

Speaker 1 (05:11):
Thank you, Thank you, Joe Biden. Now the other boohoo,
the Washington area food workers pledging to refuse service to
anybody connected with Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (05:25):
Yeah, this is a problem. I'm going to tell you.

Speaker 1 (05:27):
Right, you're kidding me. Folks. Come on, and.

Speaker 2 (05:29):
The Washingtonian, which is you know with their local paper,
there clashes are coming for Trump officials dining out in DC. Quote,
I have the power to make you wait twenty minutes
to get your entree. Man, I'm just gonna tell you
right now, if they're motivated, these servers and these restaurants,
if they spot you as a Republican we're working with Trump,
then to delay your entree twenty minutes, they're spitting in it.

(05:52):
So you know, say, they're not just delaying a twenty minutes.
They're doing something to your food too. Is this will
have a chilling effect on dining? I think, or should
you know? I haven't even told you this, but went
back in the Gilded Age, back when Trump was president.
He had just finished that historic post office that they
had refurbished as the Trump Hotel, and I was able

(06:13):
to stay there during the Trump administration and rod it
was like a who's You could see cabinet members, you
could see people that were in the lobby. They at
a beautiful restaurant there, and it was like a Republican
party at that hotel. Now now Trump has sold that
property to a different hotel here, but that was that
was a place you could feel safe, your food, willing
to get spit on, and that it wasn't going to
get delayed absent that. And that's not the it's not

(06:36):
the Trump International anymore. It's it's I think there's it's
high time for a good Republican restaurant tier to come
up and say we don't spit in your food, and
we actually get it to you when it's when it's
ready to be served. I think that's going to be
a big plus.

Speaker 1 (06:49):
Remember the story that broke and I'm not sure if
it's in Washington, d C. It may have been in
the in Baltimore. But Sarah Sanders, who was then the
press secretary for President Trump, went out and they refuse
to serve.

Speaker 2 (07:01):
I know, remember that story. How ugly and how I
mean she is a a young man, she's wonderful and
she's and she the're denying her service, telling her to leave.
And you had Maxine Waters telling just inciting violence, like
go after him when you see him in public, Shame them,
yell at them, scream at them. I mean, you know,
they never that this stuff never comes back to haunt
any of them and they never have to account for

(07:21):
their behavior. But that's that's that was par for the course.
And now you have these guys. Here's what's funny. Though.
He had his bartender in DC, and he's the way
that the story's described is he's worked a number of
DC's top restaurants and bars. He voted for Kamala Harris.
He's dreading the incoming administration on a personal level. However,
he says Republicans tip more and are generally lower maintenance

(07:45):
guests than Democrats. He says, my tip average from Republicans,
at least ones that I've worked for, coworkers I know
I've worked with, and we recognize is close to a
thirty percent tip With Democrats. I'm surprised if it's ever
over twenty percent. And he says that the drinks that
Republicans order are just no fuss drinks, and that the
Democrats always have you know, special and grass drink substitutions. Rainbows, Yeah, rainbows.

(08:11):
They're just high, high maintenance. And so be careful what
you ask for, you guys out there, because it doesn't
sound like business would be bad if when Trump comes
back into office.

Speaker 1 (08:20):
Well, what I'd like to know is Republican money does
it look different than Democratic money?

Speaker 2 (08:24):
Not at all.

Speaker 1 (08:25):
It's just like, isn't it all green?

Speaker 2 (08:27):
It is? I mean, I don't know how anyone would
ever even I don't know who would own a restaurant
and would say that they're okay. I would fire whoever
said that, and.

Speaker 1 (08:36):
A heartbeat, yeah I would too. All right, a lot
to get to when we come back now, we'll talk
about DOGE and what can be done to cut down
the sides of government. We're all keeping our fingers crossed
and really hope it happens. That's coming up on the
Rod and Greg Show and Utah's Talk Radio one oh
five nine k n RS. I mean, the American people,
we've all known for decades probably the government has gotten

(08:58):
too big and out of control, and Donald Trump has
given to them the authority to come up with a
plan to reduce the size of government. And I've never
seen so much excitement around. I mean, people will want
to see what they can do.

Speaker 2 (09:09):
There are thirty six trillion reasons why we should be
getting serious about government spending. And I think that usually
those are just numbers that are so big no one comprehends.
But there is a national appetite to stop. Yes, say,
people inherently know this is this trajectory is not sustainable.

Speaker 1 (09:24):
Yeah, it's just crazy. Well, joining us on our newsmaker
line to talk more about that right now is doctor
John Eastman. He is a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute. John,
how are you welcome back to the Rodding Greg Troop.
Thank you for joining us.

Speaker 4 (09:35):
John, thanks very much for having me on.

Speaker 1 (09:38):
Look forward to the discussion. John tell us about the
challenges that this new department faces, what they can do,
I mean, how big of a challenge, is it in
your opinion?

Speaker 4 (09:49):
Well, you know, I think it's a very big challenge.
Dating back fifty years ago when the last serious effort
to reign in federal spending occurred under Richard Nick and
Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act of nineteen seventy four,
and that says, any time a president doesn't want to
spend money, is that Congress is appropriated, it has to

(10:11):
ask permission from Congress to do that. And you know,
that kind of defeats the purpose if it was the
you know, the excessive spending from Congress in the first place,
and so that Act is going to pose a barrier
to them. You know, the president will have to speak
permission from Congress before he can uphold any spending. But

(10:32):
I think there's a way to deal with that, and
this is the article I published earlier this week. The
Constitution doesn't give us unfettered power to spend money, as
Nancy Pelosian famously spurs years ago. The statute the Constitution's
tax is very clear. You can raise taxes to spend

(10:53):
money for two purposes, to pay the debts of the
United States and to provide for the commons and the
general welfare, and they were quite explicit about that that
didn't mean local funding. And for the first three quarters
of our nation's history, Congress stood by that line, and
when they got out of line, the President's vetoed those

(11:15):
local projects are what we today called pork barrel projects,
sending federal money to help some local program that the
local people ought to be paying for themselves. And so
if the president wants to cut spending initially, he should
start with those kind of unconstitutional local projects. And he
should say, because this is unconstitutional spending, I don't have

(11:36):
to get your permission. I just can't do it. I
have a duty under the Constitution to uphold the constitution,
and these are unconstitutional spendings, and we're not going to
spend money for whatever local project you steamrolled through Congress
to please your constituents.

Speaker 2 (11:53):
So I think you're exactly. I love this line of logic.
And I wasn't aware of that act until I read
your article and realized that. I realized that Congress was
probably going to have to give a yay or nay
or support what they were doing, but that it's it's
It was news to me that that an executive branch
cannot has to spend everything Congress sends them, and they
don't have to get a choice. But let me ask

(12:14):
you this. I'm imagining that even the interpretation you're you're
describing of common defense and general welfare, when you're looking
at these local pork barrel projects, there's going to be
some litigation. They're going to try to take this to court.
I would guess those that want that money. But what
about federal matches? Okay, so like medicaid gets like a
traditional medicaid in Utah, I think it's a sixty percent

(12:36):
match or sixty five percent match, But when you talk
Obamacare expansion Medicaid expansion, that's a ninety percent match. Is
there any way where Congress or the government could say
we're going to make that a seventy percent. They don't
have to spend a time, they just have to say
our match to the state is going to be less.
Is that an area that that gets into your common
defense in general welfare or is that something that Congress

(12:57):
would have to change themselves.

Speaker 4 (13:00):
Well, I think Congress would have to change it. And
there's the Supreme Court when it dealt with the Affordable
Care Act and the Medicare match. They were mandating that
states expand their Medicare program or lose all of the
existing Medicare funding from the federal government. Now, let's put
to one side whether the Medicare was even part of

(13:23):
the general welfare in the first place. That's a big
nut to crack. I want to start with, you know,
other more clearcut local projects, like expanding a road in
Salt Lake that the folks in Salt Lake got to
pay for. I'll give you this story here. I used
to live in Long Beach, California, and they had a
ballot initiative to raise our property taxes so they could
widen a couple of our roads and make them nice

(13:44):
medians with palm trees and all that. And the voters
voted it down. They didn't think it was worth the money.
And the next thing we know, the city council they're
going to Washington, d c. And getting a grant to
do the same thing. And you know, so we didn't
think it was worth the money, and we were going
to benefit from it. Why the heck with people in
Utah or Rhode Island or South Carolina have to put
the tab for our one road, righting this is the

(14:06):
problem with these local projects, and I think if we
start there, we're going to have a major step in
the right direction. The Medicaid funding or Medicare funding, there's
a contractual overlay that Congress promised the state's certain funding
that they would create their own Medicare programs. That's going

(14:27):
to lead be a little bit more hard to unravel,
but you could certainly say, look, okay, here's the end
of our contract, and you know when that ends, we're
going to have a reduced federal share. That would be
a step in the right direction.

Speaker 1 (14:40):
John, As you talk about that unconstitutional spending. A lot
of that, as you mentioned, goes to local projects like
you know, Long Beach and what you're talking about. I mean,
what kind of an impact would it have on various
communities who in a way depend on the federal realmant
to fund some of these projects. If that money didn't
come their way.

Speaker 4 (14:58):
Well, we would start one up benefit with the cost,
and then people would make a more serious assessment on
whether we really needed that road widening Palm Tree project
or not. It's when it's free money, which everybody is
what they think that is that we spend I'll quote
one of the one of the more famous veto messages
from a president. We spend lavishly, and we we you know,

(15:21):
we spend ourselves into oblivia. I used to say we
we spend like drunken sailors. But that's really unfair because
drunken sailors have to quit spending where they money.

Speaker 2 (15:32):
So unfair to the drunken sailor. He's far more frugal
than what we're seeing here. Yeah, So so let me
ask you this. I I have friends that are in
the political class. I'm a recovering public servant myself, there's
all and there's lobbyists federal that that that are laughing
right now and think that this uh, this the talk
of a government efficiency. Uh And and because of Congress's role,

(15:53):
they think this is spitting in the wind. They they
give zero chance for this to have any kind of
measurable impact lowering the deficit, uh, deficit spending all of that.
What's your honest take do you think? I mean, these
are the people saying this to me probably want to
keep access to the public treasury the way they're doing it,
so I can see why they hope that this is
not successful. But in your eyes, I mean, it is

(16:15):
a big it's a herculean task. A lot of the
money that the government spends is an entitlement spending, which
is automatic. It doesn't even go you know, Congress doesn't
even decide that anymore. What's what's where do you put
the prospects of doges really lowering our deficit, cutting spending,
finding some some logic in what's going on, Maybe people
going to work that are federal workers instead of one

(16:37):
percent or whatever the percentage is.

Speaker 4 (16:39):
Yeah, I mean, I think I think the way this
plays out is if they if they take my advice
and start with the unconstitutional spending, the purely local spending,
the pork barrel stuff, and they start with that, and
then they get sued, and you know, you'll work your
with Supreme Court. We have a very originalist Supreme Court,
and there's no question that these limitations on the spending

(17:02):
power were part of the original design and understanding of
those clauses of the Constitution. And I think there's a
very strong chance that this court will agree and uphold
those kind of cuts. Now, will that make a big
enough dent to matter when you're looking at those entitlement programs?
Maybe not, But getting this problem fixed in the first instance,

(17:24):
where the courts get back in the game, and enforcing
the limits that the Constitution imposes on congressional spending, I
think would be a huge step in the right direction,
and then we can tackle some of those other things later.
But if we get the principal re established that our
founders gave us that you know, you don't you don't
you don't get to get money from South Carolina to
spend in Salt Lake City and vice the person.

Speaker 2 (17:46):
It's just that.

Speaker 4 (17:47):
Simple, and you know that we always knew this. On
the other side of the coin, the taxing coin, they
had a provision that says, if you're going to raise
taxes in the States by direct taxes, it's got to
be a portion according to population. That was so we
couldn't levy taxes in one part of the country to
a greater extent than in another part of the country,
and new transfers of wealth from favored regions to unfavored regions.

(18:10):
The spending clause did exactly the same thing. I can't
spend money out of a general tax pool that benefit
only one part of the country and not others. That's
the general welfare and common defense restrictions on that spending power.

Speaker 1 (18:23):
John is always great chatting with you. We've got to
start somewhere and hopefully we'll we'll get rid somewhere. Thank you, John,
enjoyed the weekend. Thank you, Thank thank you to both.
All Right, that's doctor John Eastman joining us on the
Rod and Greg Show and Talk Radio one oh five
nine knrs. Did you know that before we had the
Department of Government Efficiency, many many moons ago, Greg, we

(18:46):
had what was known as the Bureau of the Budget. Really, yeah,
it was called the Bureau of the Budget, and their
task was I think basically the same thing.

Speaker 2 (18:57):
How'd that go?

Speaker 1 (18:58):
Well, well, we're about to find out. Good question, you're
about to find out.

Speaker 2 (19:01):
You really piqued my interest. I am hanged with bated
breath to this interview. I cannot wait to find out.

Speaker 5 (19:07):
Well.

Speaker 1 (19:07):
Joining us on our newsmaker line right now is Amity
Schlay's well known author and contributor in the Wall Street Journal.
She wrote about this, Amity, how are you, and welcome
back to the Rodden Greg Show. Thanks for joining us.

Speaker 6 (19:19):
Very glad to be with you.

Speaker 1 (19:20):
All right, Amity. The difference between the Bureau of the
Budget and the Department of Government efficiency. Is there a.

Speaker 6 (19:26):
Difference not for our purposes because the article in the
Wall Street Journal where I and friend Hill the Congressman
described the situation. Was a new law in twenty one,
that was nineteen twenty one a century ago, created this

(19:46):
Bureau of the Budget, and we actually still have it
in the form of the OMB. But at the time
it was tasked with something Doge like, which was to
really handtech or you can pick your adjective pick at
the various departments of government to make sure they spent less.

(20:07):
And they went in there, this Bearer of the Budget
and harangued and traded, and the president at the time
even had the authority thanks to this law, to impound
money that wasn't being spent, so he would take it back,
law it back.

Speaker 5 (20:25):
And it had what.

Speaker 6 (20:27):
Is similar to the Doge proposal, which is a kind
of it was half pep rally and half bullying session.
The government department had to come together twice a year
in a big auditorium in Washington, and then the budget Director,
who was conveniently a general scary, would harangue and talk

(20:47):
to them and exhort them to save more, and the
US President would be present. So imagine you're before the
president and there Wislim's music. They created a two percent
club for the department that cut its budget by two percent.
Then they created a one percent club for that department
that cut its budget by one percent, even above and

(21:08):
beyond what was written in the law that year. And
then they created a woodpecker club for that department that
pecked away at a budget here and there. So it
goes on like that, a lot of humor, but some
muscle behind the effort. And it's a classic if you
think about business. It's a classic example today with the

(21:30):
doze of responsibility without authority. The departments of the US government,
as we're hearing about the Doge don't report to the Doge.
They have the ear of somebody important that would be
the president. But the doze, you know what is it
actually an annoyance or power? Well, this will unfold.

Speaker 5 (21:48):
No.

Speaker 6 (21:49):
And in the twenties, the Bureau of the Budget and
particularly the Budget director there were two, one named DAWs
you've heard that name, it's important banking family, and then
General Herbert may Hugh Lord the second budget director. They
did have authority, they had moral authority, and they scared

(22:09):
departments into cutting and I think also part of the
stories Department. The government department employees, the bureaucrats of Washington,
of the various grades and rank, are still lonely people.
They work in their office and they hear about the president,
but they don't get to see them. And here was
the President patting on them on the head, handing out
stickers so to speak, singing their praises and scolding, which

(22:34):
is also not very modern, and that kind of works.
They like the attention, and we know this from other
spears of our life, but it's not what we expect
from government anymore. So there was Coolidge, who was one
of the presidents in this period, was not afraid to shame,
which is also unfashionable currently. He actually told the assembled

(22:55):
government employees and high rankers that overspending was characteristic of
undeveloped people. Ambled. I never stood up. So oh wait,
So Zach Combo is not familiar to us in government anymore.
It's familiar from the family and other spheres.

Speaker 4 (23:18):
So there you go.

Speaker 3 (23:20):
And when I.

Speaker 6 (23:21):
Started to write the Coolide biography, which I read a
long time ago, it appeared in twenty thirteen. This one
man and I want to give them credit named Jerry Wallace,
who had worked i think in the National Archives, said, Amity,
you got to pay attention to these semi annual budget meetings.
And I'm like, what's that? And why should I care?
And I found them fascinating. The published whole books about them,

(23:43):
and I suppose the headline is the administrations of Harding
and Coolidge. Those were the presidents at the time really
paid attention to the project of cutting the budget, and
their employees saw that they cared and therefore tried too.
If an is random and kind of like throws out
a line and then leaves it, well, he won't have

(24:05):
abiding authority. But if he actually shows his devotion to
the project, well, sometimes employees will rise to the occasion.
They want to be like too. They're good people, they're
just underloved employees. Coolidge took it to the point where
he lived in the White House. Harding was kind of
a slob. You know, Prohibition was on in this period,

(24:26):
and I'm sorry to say that about a US president,
but he was Harding, So he drank in the White House.
That's not Why is that not a good sign? Why
does it matter? Because it shows the president's lack of
respect for certain laws. Well, if the president doesn't follow
the rules, why should we. Coolidge was the opposite. Coolidge
lived a pristine white House at great with forcing great

(24:48):
tension on his family. But the point was, if I'm
going to ask them to cut, I have to cut too.
And he even fired the White House housekeeper. Isn't that
terrible a lady been there since the tast Missus Jaffray,
And she was a power herself, an important bureaucrat, and
she wrote a tell all book about how Cool, among

(25:09):
other things, how Cool. It wronged her, But he replaced
Missus Jaffway with Miss Riley from New England, who kept
every record of every all of purchase by the White House.
And when she cut two thousand dollars from the White
House entertainment budget, he wrote a little note in her notebook,
fine improvement, Miss Riley.

Speaker 2 (25:28):
You know, okay, I know this is this is really
interesting history. And I'm listening for arrows in the quiver
for President Trump in this incoming administration. I don't know
that the Woodpecker Club is going to go, Miles. I
don't know if calling people un developed people won't. But
you mentioned devotion to the cause that will certainly be
felt by this president. Just a prediction, just quickly, will
will doge be successful in your mind in terms of

(25:50):
cutting government waste?

Speaker 6 (25:52):
I'll just say that depends on Congress, the president. The
president is no, it were not necessarily doom. The Congress
could be heartened. And there are plenty of people in
Congress who really care about the budget, who are upright,
people stuck in a bad situation and now with wider opportunity,

(26:13):
may rise to the occasion. So one thing that is important,
which takes us back to the beginning, is they did
pass this law, the Budget and Accounting Act of nineteen
twenty one, and it's a little law, but what it
did was give the dad of the country, who happens
to be the president, more authority over the structure of
the budget. He basically and his office, this Bureau of

(26:35):
the Budget, wrote the budget for the first time, instead
of sitting there like dad with ten kids or five
kids coming out of each wanting a car each making
a beautiful case. Get up with five cars, right, Yeah,
So that was very interesting. So you need the law
and you need the folk. Maybe a President Trump's advisors
will focus him to show up. He seems fran Tilla

(26:58):
and I wrote in this article weaving president and Trump
is born for this role. Yeah theater.

Speaker 1 (27:04):
Yeah, and we can hope. Amity is always great chatting
with you, thank you.

Speaker 2 (27:08):
Running against the heart break so much amity slaves.

Speaker 1 (27:12):
Author talking about the first effort to cut the budget
would be part of the Woodpecker Club. I love that one,
all right more, coming up, heading home on this Friday evening,
already starting to uh darken up out there. But if
Elon and the VEC and apparently President Trump, if they
have their way, this whole daylight savings time thing may
go away for it.

Speaker 2 (27:32):
Actually, I would like to just keep daylight savings time always.

Speaker 1 (27:38):
We're in standards.

Speaker 2 (27:39):
Yeah, then the daylight savings is where it gets. We go,
we spring forward. I like that time better than this time.
But I would like to not keep switching times. I
I just were not the economy anymore. We don't know,
that's true, that's just it's just it's a it's a true.
It's outdated.

Speaker 1 (27:55):
We don't need it. All right, Well, we'll see what happens,
all right. Uh, let's talk about our dear friend Mitch McConnell.

Speaker 2 (28:02):
And we use that term, my dear friend, we mean
born enemy. Yeah, maybe you don't feel that way, but
I'm highly frustrated.

Speaker 1 (28:10):
Or Mitch fell down the other day, Pelosi fell down today.
Mitch McConnell fell down the other day apparently injured his
hands severely and hit his head pretty good.

Speaker 2 (28:19):
By those sounds of it, Man, these guys don't know
how to let go. They don't know how to move on.
They really don't.

Speaker 1 (28:24):
Well, are we about to see a battle between Mitch McConnell,
who will no longer be the majority leader, and one
Donald Trump. Joining us on our Newsmaker line to talk
about it right now is Christopher Bedford. Chris is the
senior editor for Politics Washington correspondent at Blade's Media. Christopher,
thanks for joining us. I mean, how much of a
pain in the you know, what is Mitch McConnell going

(28:46):
to be for Donald Trump?

Speaker 7 (28:47):
You know that seems like a huge pain. I was
kind of wondering if his anger was going to fade,
if he was going to step aside, step down a
little bit after the stunning mandate the American people handed
to Donald Trump. But he has not indicated that one bit.
One week after Donald Trump's election, he went to aich

(29:09):
is kind of a neo conservative think tank, and at
their dinner, as you set something in the ward, he
promised that he was going through everything he can to
resist some of the changes in foreign policy that were
being suggested by more populist conservatives than the MAGA types,
who are dismayed with the last couple decades of American
foreign policy, I think rightly. So they're joining, they joined

(29:30):
the American people in that dismay. And then he gave
an interview just a few days a few weeks later
where he compared MAGA kind of trump conservatism to those
people who didn't want to fight Hitler in the lead
up to World War Two. He says, he claims that
they used the same slogan, which make with America first.

(29:50):
Of course that's true. A country putting your country first
is not that obscene. But he's trying, he's trying to
tie them to those same people that would have let
the Holocaust happen, that would have been okay with World
War two. And it's a really mean spirited smear, and
it's one that he's really doubled down on. He he
is absolutely committed to ongoing war in Ukraine and Europe

(30:12):
to ongoing war in the Middle East through increasing the
military budget, and since that puts him at odds with Trump,
with Jade Vance, with Hesa, I think they could becoming
a blowstone.

Speaker 2 (30:23):
So the synic in me looks at a guy like
Mitch McConnell, and I think he has done very well
in the in the halls of power, because I think
that I think he's frankly profited from it. His wife,
Elaine Chow, was Trump's Transportation secretary, and and there must
have been some kind of relationship with President Trump for
for for Elaine Chow to get that cabinet appointment. But

(30:46):
I don't I think the gravy train has ended, and
I think that is at the root of his of
his attacks. Do you see it that way? Do you
think that this is a protection of an establishment where
you have maybe a military industrial complex, or you have
have trading companies and Lang Chow's family has a lot
of investment and business and trade and things like that.

(31:09):
Is this a financial issue for him?

Speaker 7 (31:14):
It's certainly possible. He's profited a great deal on his
access to power. But this specific fight with Trump, from
what I'm able to tell comes down to a real
difference and ideology. He is a through and through defense hawk,
at defender of the blob, a defender of the deep state,
at defender of, like you said, in the military industrial complex,

(31:34):
and champion of these things. When it comes to a
fight with the military industrial complex, get out of the way,
Social conservatives get out of the way, Babies, get out
of the way, whoever else, any other constituency that's something
he cares about. He cares about that. He cares about
his judicial project or publican judicial project, and he cares
about making sure the corporations and can donate unlimited amounts

(31:56):
of money to politics. Those areas basically his passion. And
he's been extremely powerful in Washington, DC because he's willing
to surrender so much of the conservative agenda to Democrats
in exchange for protecting those things. And the Democrats don't
really care as much about those things except for the
judicial fights where they've kind of demonized him. He's kind

(32:16):
of created like a third party that takes care of Mitch,
that sends money back to Kentucky, that protects that and
he is just completely disinterested in his old age with
playing along with a new idea and a new sheriff.

Speaker 1 (32:31):
With John Thun becoming the majority leader, is the real
majority leader still going to be Mitch McConnell. Do you
think Chris I mean, how much influence will he have on.

Speaker 7 (32:39):
Thuon That's going to be something we're gonna have to
wait for see because Thune has not developed a reputation
for being a really independent thinker or player in the past.
He has always been someone who you if you wanted
to know what Thune was going to do, you'd look
and try to figure out what McConnell was going to do,
because he would follow suit. A lot of his staff

(33:00):
would take what's basically amounts two instructions for McConnell's staff.
He wasn't his own man. But this sort of fight,
if McConnell decides he's going to burn it down and
his back and forth with Donald Trump is going to
put throon in a very difficult position. He doesn't want
to be fighting Donald Trump and the Republican public with
the same level and he may end up having He's

(33:20):
going to have to prove that he's his own man
and willing to resist.

Speaker 2 (33:24):
So my final question is this last Tuesday, he had
another fall. I think he was at the Reagan Library.
People are saying he's eight two years old, but he's
an old eighty two year old and very frail. Do
you I know he has two years left in this term.
I don't think he's running for reelection. Do you see
him exiting before that term is Overgiven that these falls

(33:46):
are becoming more frequent, and these paralysis where he just
fades out and stares and someone has to kind of
get him out of it, it's not obviously not a
good look. Does he Does he stick around his entire
last two years of his term? For his home state?

Speaker 7 (34:01):
Republicans have been making moves to try and make it
so that if he has room to retire without the
Democratic governor, Andy Basheer being able to select his replacement.
They've just passed push through veto proof legislation that would
allow them to the leading candidates to in the party
to suggest three different replacements that the governor can choose

(34:22):
from to try and to protect that seat were McConnell
to be forced out. But I really do think that
we're in another kind of sad Cochrant level of place,
or where you're you're going to need to be wheel
this person out. He is power and access to power
in the halls of power. That is his identity. This
is who he is. Being mister Republican is always you

(34:45):
go back to some of the stories of him dating
in college. Has always been cential to his identity. And
I think it's the last thing in the world he's
going to give up. I for one, I look forward
to drinking wine and watching my grandkids. But some people,
really they're just subsess with power.

Speaker 1 (34:58):
All right, Chris, thank you very much. Chris Bedford. He
is the national political correspondent for The Blades, talking about
the struggle that Donald Trump may be facing when it
comes to dealing with Mitch mccaddall. Greg and I just
hope they push him aside. They thanks, thanks, match for
your service. We're going in a different direction.

Speaker 2 (35:16):
Well that would be That would be the diplomatic way
to say it.

Speaker 1 (35:18):
Yeah, I have a I don't know words, get your
butt out of here.

Speaker 2 (35:21):
I want to take a paint gun to the room
and just start launching it and just saying it's time
to get out. Just boot him. You know, he falls
all the time. It didn't take much to whoop him
out of there.

Speaker 1 (35:32):
Well, he is getting older, and you know.

Speaker 2 (35:34):
His staff they're just soft too. I just hop the
whole bunch of them. They just get out.

Speaker 1 (35:38):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (35:39):
Oh they're killing our country.

Speaker 1 (35:40):
Yeah, that's true. That's true. All right, more coming up
on the Rod and Greg Show. We'll talk and get
your thoughts on the stunning revelation coming out of the
Duke lacrosse story that's coming up right here on the
Rod and Gregg Show in Utah's Talk Radio one oh
five nine canters. All right, story of the day I
think today is the stunnied admission by the woman her
name is Crystal Man, who eighteen years ago, can you

(36:02):
believe it is that long ago?

Speaker 2 (36:03):
It is a long time accused.

Speaker 1 (36:05):
Three Duke lacrosse players of raping her during a party,
and she has finally come forward and said it wasn't true.
I made Now.

Speaker 2 (36:16):
What's not stunning is that these men, these young men,
were innocent. That's not the stunning part. Because everyone that
this was being discussed and the story wasn't true, but
people threw race into it and all this other stuff
in privilege, privilege, everything else. So but but that's why
the charges were ultimately dropped, so that part's not stunning.

(36:36):
What's stunning is that she can now just say, yeah, yeah,
I lied about That's the part that's like, at least
you know when people are accused, and in this case,
particularly as much as that they dropped those charges, those
those young men probably have lived with this, the you know,
the scorn of this and the burden of this their
whole lives. And now her coming forward shows how how

(36:58):
it was just all false and malicious to the highest degree.

Speaker 1 (37:02):
And the thing she cannot be prosecutor for lying under oath,
the statue of limitations is run out, long gone in
North Carolina. Here's what she had to say about her
story about being raped by three lacrosse players at Duke.

Speaker 8 (37:14):
And I testified falsely against them by saying that they
raped me when they didn't, and that was wrong. And
I betrayed the trust of a lot of other people
who believed in me and made up a story that

(37:39):
wasn't true because I wanted a validation from people and
not from God. And that was wrong. And I hope
that they can forgive me.

Speaker 1 (37:51):
Be difficult to forgive her, wouldn't it great? Yeah, it
would be very very difficult, in my opinion.

Speaker 2 (37:57):
Yeah. Well, I hope these I mean, I don't know
how you do it, but I hope they moved on
or tried to move on, and they've buried this in
their lives and they don't have to revisit it. But yeah,
now it's I mean hearing her say that that's what
we knew, but now you have it officially. And shame
on every single person who wanted to continue to just
throw fuel on the fire and make this about race

(38:18):
and make this about people's household incomes and who goes
to college and who didn't and what was going I mean,
it was just it was disgraceful. It was and it
was all done for clickbait for the media and the
public and and and these leftists with their social agenda.
But then this prosecutor had had goals or had at ambitions,
uhc ambitions, weal ambitions and used this and use those

(38:42):
young men men to try and gain political favor.

Speaker 1 (38:45):
Well, I have a couple of three thoughts on this.
First of all, Greg, I don't believe a word she said.
I really don't.

Speaker 2 (38:50):
You don't believe she's right?

Speaker 1 (38:52):
No, I don't believe a word she said. Here's why
is she trying. Now she's serving time in prison for
stabbing her boyfriend to death.

Speaker 2 (38:59):
Yeah, OK, yeah, for murder.

Speaker 1 (39:01):
So is she trying to get early patrol by admitting
this is this part of the process she's going through.
So first of all, I don't believe her. Why is
she doing this?

Speaker 2 (39:10):
How greg you believe her story? You don't believe her sincerity? Yeah?
Why she's doing it?

Speaker 1 (39:14):
Yeah? Yeah, I don't believe her on that. Think these
three young men who are part of the team, they'll
never get that time back. Where how long did this
go on? I can't remember, but the story breaking, all
the media attention that this story got, the trial, that
crazy district attorney who sworey out of solid cage come

(39:37):
to be no evidence whatsoever of any of this. So
they'll never get that time back. And that's who I
feel sorry for right there, those young men. I'm not
sure what they've done with their life since then, and
hopefully and then the last thing, the impact this had
on the nation. Yes, and it just drove this nation
further and further apart. You've got these you know, rich

(39:59):
Duke UNI lacrosse players. You go to Duke. It ain't cheap,
you know, And attacking a black woman, an exotic dancer,
who did this apparently to support her daughter that she
had out of wedlock. You know, so what what I mean?
I don't know if I accept her apology. It's wrong
on this.

Speaker 2 (40:20):
If this happened eighteen years ago, we were watching before
the show a clip where in twenty thirteen this was
still being adjudicated. That's just eleven years ago, So you
had minimally.

Speaker 1 (40:29):
Two three years.

Speaker 2 (40:30):
Yeah, yeah, I said, well, if it's eighteen and that's eleven,
there's seven years of this going back and forth and
being adjudicated, from from the night of the party to
them finally being dropped. That looks like it took seven
years to do that in terms of But my thing
is this even beyond that. And this might be a
small thing, but I don't think that that lacrosse program
at Duke survived this. I think that the coach was like, go,

(40:53):
I think there's there was impact to so many people's lives,
people that had no touch on it. This It just
it was it was an absolutely ripped this country apart,
It ripped that that university apart, It ripped, it destroyed.
These lives, didn't destroy hopefully but it forever changed and
the worst trajectory kind of way. Three innocent men who

(41:16):
had did not do what they were accused of doing.
And you know, it brings us back to if you
look back at the commentary there, that is all the
identity politics where we are today is is great, is
probably on steroids. What was being discussed back then, And
you got to ask yourself it was stories like that
that fueled the kind of dei and woke and and

(41:38):
just insanity to all the all of this, all these
movements pitting Americans against each other on every every recognizable difference.
You can go back to that case and look at
that's where you started to really see the tension and
the and the contention be fueled.

Speaker 1 (41:54):
Well, this DA politically motivated DA greg He wanted to
win an election in Durham, right, yep, which is predominantly
a black community.

Speaker 2 (42:03):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (42:04):
So what was he trying to do? And then he
had the state attorney general has to step in on
this case and say, you know, looking at the evidence,
it's just not there. Charges dismissed. Yet this DA continued
to push and push. I don't know if he's been disbarred,
but if he's still an attorney today. He shouldn't be.
It's so bad he did.

Speaker 2 (42:24):
He was pushing for the prosecution of one of the
young men. You pointed this out earlier in the show.
He had evidence that he was at an ATM. The
camera on the ATM had him pulling money out when
when the alleged rape was going on, he had an alibi.
He was not anywhere near that home. He was out
of that place. He was an ATM. So he saw that,

(42:44):
knew that, didn't disclose it to the defense, and then
still continue to go after that young man. That is
that's that that that leaves ambition and gets right into evil.

Speaker 1 (42:55):
When you do that, it does all right, I want
to hear get your thoughts on this eight eight eight
five seven zero one zero eight eight eight five seven
eight zero one zero, or on your cell phone dial
pound two fifty and say, hey, Rod, do you believe
what she says? Is there a motive behind it? What
about these young men who went through this horrific period
in their lives being falsely accused of raping a woman

(43:15):
at a party. You're calls and comments coming up here
on the Rod and Greg show. In Utah's talk Radio
one oh five nine Knrs Crystal Mangum who admitted, finally
admitting that she lied about being raped back in what
was a two thousand and eight by three lacrosse players
at Duke University. And I've shared with you I don't

(43:36):
believe her. I think she's angling for maybe in early parole.
I mean, how about the time and the impact this
has had on these things. I mean, if you go back, Greg,
if you look at this, they fired the head coach.
You mentioned that they fired the head coach, they ended
the program. These three men were kicked at these three
young lacrosse players were kicked out of the out of

(43:57):
the school, and there was very very little evidence, but
this DA continued to push for it, and she convinced
people that it really did happen. Now, one thing I
wanted to add, which I didn't before the break, was
think about the impact she's had on other victims of
rape who now say it really did happen to me?
And people are going, are you sure? Are you sure?

(44:20):
And that's you know, did it really happen to you? Yes,
it happened to me, But because of her, Now, how
difficult is that going to be for people who are
in fact victims of rape.

Speaker 2 (44:31):
It really is true. I mean we've talked about it before.
The cry wolf and politicizing crimes or prejudice or whatever
it may be. It absolutely damages the times where these
things actually do occur and their has there should be justice,
and they are destroying those those chances because everyone will
be so cynical when they hear it because of the

(44:53):
of the conduct like this. The liars that are just
trying to take advantage of this and really really ignite race, racism,
and everything else into their cause. She said in there,
and I know that you're questioning her sincerity, but she's
saying I wanted the validation of others, and that's why
I was saying those things to make myself feel like
I was important. She probably want to shake down, She

(45:14):
probably wanted some kind of financial settlement to make it
go away. But no, that destroys real moments when people
need justice, where some where a crime has been committed.

Speaker 1 (45:24):
Yeah, I wonder around people have been falsely accused, greg,
especially something as serious as this being falsely accused and
the impact that has on you.

Speaker 2 (45:34):
Yeah, And it's one thing if a crime does and
you've been in but this thing was so this is
a fish tank. The whole country, maybe world, was looking
at every all of this. It's so unfair. I don't care.
We can all argue and it is the case that
we are all innocent until proven guilty. You tell me
that people don't watch that and don't draw their own
conclusion that those guys were rich, spoiled kids that playreating

(45:59):
crimes and they were trying to get their parents to
get them out of it and thought they were rapists. Yeah,
they they just assumed it because of their their their biography.
They were just rapist.

Speaker 1 (46:08):
And I remember at that time, Greg, those three young
men fought as hard as they could, denying the allegation
time and time and time again. And but this da
who as we was very politically motivated on this. By
the way, he was disbarred eventually, good, you know, so
he's out and put these men, these young men through
the ringer. And what must have been going on on

(46:30):
that campus, you know, the division going on on that campus.
I think it's for division in the country. And it
came back to that age old issue of race in
America today and we can't we can't shake it.

Speaker 2 (46:43):
Is it me or do you feel like this country
and whatever racism does exist, it was much that it
didn't exist before Barack Obama became president. I think President
Obama introduced racial tensions to this country that we were
not feeling. I do not believe we were feeling them
to the degree that we did, and it was introduced

(47:03):
to us and we were accused of it during his
time in office. I think he and.

Speaker 1 (47:07):
It's he used it as an issue and he.

Speaker 2 (47:09):
Gets elected that should be like your proof that we're
not that we are colorblind. We just elected the first
black president. But then that in his eight years, we'd
never heard about more racial tension and more divide and
more I mean, it's and so I just it's unbelievable
to me. And we're still living through that, and I
think he's one of the major authors of it.

Speaker 1 (47:29):
Yeah, well I've said this before, Greg. He missed such
an opportunity to unite the country. Remember one of the
first things he did when he was in office. Remember
the the African American professor at Harvard whose home was
broken into, Henry Gates I think was his name, and
police thought he was the suspect in the break in
and caused division again in Boston, in that whole area,

(47:51):
and he brought the police officer engaged to the White
House to have a beer.

Speaker 2 (47:54):
Huh. Yeah, you may not remember that.

Speaker 1 (47:57):
That was one of his first acts. And you're going,
what did that do. I didn't do anything.

Speaker 2 (48:03):
Nope, it didn't do it.

Speaker 1 (48:04):
What it did withdraw to the draw Americas into attention
to as Barack Obama firmly believes, greg that there there
is racism in America. Let's be honest, there is.

Speaker 2 (48:16):
There is.

Speaker 1 (48:17):
Absolutely generally. I think for the most part, people are
not racist. Are there some? Yeah, they're also black racists,
So let's not avoid that either.

Speaker 2 (48:25):
Yeah, and look again, I go back to this. During
his Department of Justice, Eric Holder, his Attorney General, they
they were under the banner of racism and all of
that and discrimination. They attacked people on those basis that
those weren't factors, and it really did create this defensiveness.

(48:46):
I don't know if you remember, but I could not.
You could not disagree with a policy position that Barack
Obama took without being called a racist for doing it.
You could not have an objection to what he was
doing policy wise, or if you did, it was only
because of a moral failing of the color of his skin.
Could you ever disagree with him? That's that's the corner

(49:06):
that they were painting this country into, and they did
and they did, and I'm telling you it's he was
the I think he was the major contributor to these
things we're dealing with now.

Speaker 1 (49:17):
All right, more of your calls coming up here on
the Rod and Greg Show in Utah's Talk radio one
oh five nine K and r ask.

Speaker 2 (49:23):
So here's something that I've been wanting to mention for
a while or the last two days, and it's been
under my skin, and I'm just going to go ahead
and grab the reins right now and talk about it.
Inspector General put out a report about the FBI's involvement
or non involvement, you know, in the January sixth revenge
that happened where people, you know, people went on there
into the restricted area of the Capitol and even entered

(49:45):
the Capitol and and those that were arrested and they're
sitting in jail right now. It's been, uh, you know,
it's been the topic and the and the reason for
the January sixth Commission and all the everything that's happened
that accusing Trump of insurrection all this other stuff. Well,
the the Inspector General came out and in that report
identifies twenty six FBI confidential human sources, Okay, confidential human

(50:09):
sources who were at the capital on January sixth, thirteen
of which entered the restricted areas and four who entered
the capitol. Okay, Now I'm going to read you four
headlines from the regime media. Reuters FBI did not send
undercover operatives to join January sixth attack, Watchdog says, okay,

(50:30):
and Watchdog by that they mean Inspector General. That's Reuters, CNN.
No undercover FBI agents were at the January sixth US
Capitol riot. Watchdog reports Politico FBI didn't deploy undercover agents
on January sixth, undercutting conspiracy theories, ABC News Probe finds

(50:51):
no evidence FEDS were involved in inciting January sixth attack.
Let me just tell you this.

Speaker 1 (50:57):
Wait, wait a minute, I thought the report found they
were involved in this.

Speaker 2 (51:02):
Well that just me somehow the regime media rod has
created some bright line a difference between a confidential human source,
which when they are typically paid, they are operatives. So
even where Reuters say undercover operatives were not involved FBI.
They had confidential informants who they pay. These are spies.

(51:23):
These are this is the way you put that's what
they are. When they're domestically, there's their spies, twenty six
of them that were there. They even have them that
didn't go to the There were confidential human sources who
didn't travel to Washington, d C. Leading up to this
that the Inspector General identifies. Here's the definition of an operative,
a person engaged or skilled in some branch or of work,

(51:45):
a secret agent, or a spy. When when they say
their the FBI did not send any undercover operatives to
join January sixth, and they know that they were there.
They know that thirteen entered restricted areas, four entered the Capitol,
none of which have been tried, none of them have
been charged. Those headlines are just patently and verifiably false.
And I have a way to prove it. I won't

(52:08):
do it, but I would like to prove it. I
would like to get my own confidential human sources, and
I'd like to give each one of them a baseball bat,
and I want them to go into Reuter's offices CNN, Politico,
and ABC, and I want them to wreck the place, okay,
and when they get arrested for doing it, I want
them to say, Greg Hughes paid me, and I am
a confidential human source for Greg Hughes.

Speaker 1 (52:30):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (52:31):
I want to know if Reuter's, CNN, ABC or Politico
would think I was lily white in that effort. I
had no touch, I had no involvement whatsoever. That is
what they're trying to tell us, ladies and gentlemen when
they say THEPI had no involvement at all. Maybe they're
confidential human re or human source did, but not them.
They are purposely misleading the public with those headlines and

(52:53):
those stories. That Inspector General's report proves what Christopher Ray denied,
what Merrick Garland denied under oath. In front of committees
in Congress, they would always say, we had nothing to
do with it, we had we had no involvement. They
were if you know what you know now, they were
wordsmithing very carefully what they were saying. They were but
they were absolutely misleading the American people. They were misleading Congress,

(53:15):
and they were running with a theory or with a
narrative about President Trump that has been proven to be false.
And you know, just a little empathy, that's all I love.
I just love to give these reports, these news agencies
that wrote these false headlines a little empathy on what
someone paid to go in there as a confidential human
source and got them to do. If they would think

(53:36):
that the person who paid them and sent them was
involved in any way, I wonder if they'd have a
different opinion than the headlines they wrote. Well, I'm guessing, yes.

Speaker 1 (53:45):
My guess is that on January twentieth, greg one, President
Donald Trump is going to pardon almost every one of
these Jay six offenders, so to speak. Yes, I think
in twenty minutes, onen'd he become president like at twelve
oh one. Yeah, he gives us, He heads back to
the White House, he gets his big old pen out.
He likes to write with those big pens, and he'll

(54:05):
sign executive order after executive order, and I am almost
certain one of those is going to deal with the
suspected January offender.

Speaker 2 (54:15):
You watch, there's gonna be pardons. He Biden just did
fifteen hundred clemencies. It's a world record. They've no presents
ever done fifteen hundred clemencies for people, including a guy
that was harming kids. But he's a judge on the tape.
Kids to jail just so you get paid all these
record clemencies. You watch how Biden pardons the people that
were perpetuating in Congress. He will the lies about January sixth, Cheney,

(54:40):
Liz Cheney will get a pardon, will get a pardon.

Speaker 1 (54:43):
Hillary. Do you think Hillary will get a pardon?

Speaker 2 (54:45):
I don't know. I'm not sure.

Speaker 1 (54:47):
I'm sorry, but shift this guy telling the American people
time and time again, Greg, I have seen the evidence.

Speaker 2 (54:54):
Yes, a blatant lie.

Speaker 1 (54:56):
Never brought it up, never brought it up once, orever.
All Right, all right, we'll see what happens. Come January twentieth,
going to be a fascinating day. Sure is Inauguration day.
All right, Our number three of the Rodic Greg Show
coming up right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh
five nine. They are at stay with us.

Speaker 2 (55:18):
We mentioned this before, but remember, if you're an American,
you're watching the Army Navy football game. I can't wait.

Speaker 1 (55:24):
I love that. I don't know what it is about
that game, but I just love that game.

Speaker 2 (55:28):
Just bringing Daniel Penny.

Speaker 1 (55:29):
Daniel Penny, Yeah, bringing Pete Haig Saith and Ron de Santos.

Speaker 2 (55:33):
Beautiful.

Speaker 1 (55:34):
That's going to be beautiful.

Speaker 5 (55:35):
You know.

Speaker 1 (55:36):
The only thing about that they don't pass the ball,
you know, is it is three yards.

Speaker 2 (55:42):
Yeah, it's smash mouth football as every mill thos. Army
and Navy should fight that game, and I love it.
They compete at their brothers in arms at the end
of the game.

Speaker 7 (55:51):
But what a moment.

Speaker 2 (55:52):
I'm big time Navy. My family they were in the
Navy where my grandfather were veterans in the Navy during
World War Two. Uncle was in the Navy.

Speaker 1 (55:58):
I always love the uniforms, yeah, because they come at
real creative stuff. So it'll be fun to watch. All Right,
great hour coming your way. But let's start off talking
about what's going on in the transgender community. Puberty blockers
for people under eighteen with genderness for you will be
banned indefinitely greg across the UK don't. Yeah, where is

(56:20):
the United States on all of this? I mean, yeah,
we are way behind. You know. There was a very
important hearing before the Supreme Court was that last week
two weeks ago on this whole issue. And apparently the
attorney who was arguing on behalf of allowing trans surgeries
and gender blockers to take place. Made a little mistake,

(56:40):
Greg during this because there's always this issue. Well, these kids,
if you don't allow them to make these moves, they
could commit suicide. That's an argument you hear all the time. Well,
let's find out more about it. Right now? Is Leor Safer?
Le Or is an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
He wrote about this, all right, Leor, what mistake did
the attorney for the age cl you make when he

(57:01):
appeared before the Supreme Court?

Speaker 3 (57:03):
Well, so this happened during the oral argument at US
versus Skermeti, that's the case that challenges Tennessee's ban on
pediatric sexchange procedures. And the exchange happened between Justice Alito
and Chase Strangio, who's a transgender attorney at the American
Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU is arguing this case alongside

(57:26):
the Biden administration. And the remarkable moment that I wrote
about in City Journal came when Justice Alito asked Chase
Strangio about suicide. You know, how common is it? And
are these treatments known to reduce suicide? And you know
a few minutes earlier, in a similar exchange with between

(57:51):
Justice Soda Bayor and Solicitor General Priligar. The Solicitor General
said that the rates of suicide, and she did not
say attempts or thinking about suicide. She said the actual
rates of death by suicide among youth who identify as
transgender are quote striking. And so when Justice Alito set

(58:13):
Chase Stranger of the ATHLU up to address this very point,
you know, Strangio at first pivoted. He you know, he
instead of answering about suicide, he wanted to talk about suicidality,
which is different. Suicidality refers to thoughts about self harm,
gestures of self harm. It is not the same thing

(58:35):
as suicide, and in fact, it's not a reliable predictor
of suicide, as I point out in my piece. But
when the issue of suicide was actually discussed, Strangio said
that suicide is I believe his words were thankfully and
admittedly rare. Now that's important because you know, as you know, Rod,

(58:57):
many transgender activists and their media and the medical profession
in the Democratic Party for years have been telling the
American public that suicide is in fact very common in
this population of youth. Who identify as transgender, and they
have bullied parents into consenting to life altering body modifying procedures, drugs,

(59:20):
and surgeries on the basis of this threat. So to
see the ACOU back away from the threat, back away
from the claim the first time that they are asked
the question by a Supreme Court justice was frankly striking.

Speaker 2 (59:34):
So this entire debate, I think we're in the event.
I think a lot of the studies and I use
air quotes when I say that are going to ultimately
be inconclusive because we're I feel like we're at the
beginning of this. And I'll give you an example when
when as a state lawmaker, a recovering public servant, we
began talking about this a number of years ago, we
were told that those that are suffering from a gender

(59:56):
dysphoria or this trans issue about identify as a different sex.
This is decimal dust. We're not talking about any significant
number of people whatsoever. So the whether they can play
sports or not shouldn't even matter because it's it's such
a rare, rare occasion any of that would actually happen. Well,
now we have Division one women's swimming that's been that
We've watched happen the Olympics, the Olympic Games this summer.

(01:00:19):
It was in boxing. We had two different weight divisions
here in Utah. Utah State is is in the Mountain
West Conference, and there's an issue with the San Jose
State player women's volleyball player who's a male, and it's
causing problems as well. So we're seeing a lot for
something that was decimal dust. We're seeing this happen at

(01:00:40):
a higher frequency and in sports at a higher and
higher competitive level. What about the students, So you point
out thinking about suicide is absolutely not the same as
committing suicide. Much more people will think about it than
we'll ever actually commit it, thankfully. But my question is,
we don't even know the beginning of those that have
received this irreversible either chemical castration or irreversible procedure. What

(01:01:06):
will be the aftermath of those individuals when their lives
have been short circuited or changed in a way that
they wished as they became adults that their lives were
not changed. Isn't there a potential for there to be
a suicide or a lot of mental health issues when
we see the aftermath of these decisions being made more

(01:01:27):
and more socially acceptable and occurring more often.

Speaker 3 (01:01:31):
Yeah, that's a very good point. I mean, I guess
the broad observation here is that, no, we don't in
fact have long term outcome data from these procedures when
used in minors. You know, we don't know rates of
regret and satisfaction. Not that that is the most important
measure by which to try to understand whether these treatments
are ethical. But you know, with regards to suicide specifically,

(01:01:55):
so that is, first of all, it's a very complicated
issue and it needs to be you know, addressed with
nuance and care. I try to get into that a
little bit in my in my piece, suicide is almost
never the result of a single factor. It usually is
the result of a number of interlocking factors that you know,
that that happened to occur in an individual's life that

(01:02:20):
makes suicide, you know, appealing for that person in the moment. Unfortunately,
but you know, we don't have very good data on
what happens in terms of suicide after so called gender reassignment. However,
there is a study that was done. It was published
in twenty eleven. The Swedish study based on the Swedish

(01:02:42):
database going back thirty years of mortality and suicide risk,
and what that study found was that even after gender
reassignment within a thirty year time frame, the suicide rate
among trends, among those who had undergone sex reassignment, which
includes surgery, was nineteen point one times higher than matched controls.

(01:03:06):
And they tried to match for psychiatric morbidity as well.
So you know, we don't This study is not good
enough for us to be able to say definitively that
you know that these treatments don't reduce any suicide. They
could it could have been thirty times higher for all
we know. But what we can certainly stay on the

(01:03:27):
basis of this study is that it does not bring
suicide levels down to anything close to match controls. And that,
of course is of significant concern because these, you know,
these interventions, these drugs and surgeries have really significant health
and mental health impacts that can really detract from an
individual's quality of life.

Speaker 1 (01:03:48):
Your final question for you, isn't it sad though, that
a number of people may go for these treatments or
undertake this procedure before we really know what impact is having.
I mean, it could be a couple three five years away,
isn't it. And it's not unfortunate. There's some people who
may fall victim to this and they're realized, you know,
it didn't help them at all, and they're still struggling

(01:04:09):
with this.

Speaker 3 (01:04:10):
Well, it's not just sa Rod. I'd say that it's
a scandal. You know, if this is if this is
experimental medicine, which it is, this is an experiment, it
has to be treated as one. And that's what European
countries are beginning to realize have already realized, I should say,
they have basically banned these treatments outside of research settings.
And it's not even clear whether a research protocol will

(01:04:33):
be agreed on here because of the ethical issues. But
they have completely backed away from the routine prescription of
puberty blockers and cross sex hormones to minors, and surgeries
are virtually not done outside of the United States. We're
one of the only countries that offers surgeries to minors,
which is a scandalum too itself.

Speaker 1 (01:04:53):
On our newsmaker line Lee or Safer, he is with
the Manhattan Institute talking about a Supreme Court hearing on
this very delegate issue. Just a couple of weeks ago.
And oh, by the way, speaking of the Supreme Court,
Katanji Brown Jackson, who couldn't define what a woman is
during your confirmation here and remember this, remember that, guess
what she's going to be doing. She is going to
appear in a pro transgender Broadway musical.

Speaker 2 (01:05:16):
Of course, of course she is.

Speaker 1 (01:05:19):
She's going to do a walk on appearances.

Speaker 2 (01:05:20):
That's the stature and the you know the of that
August you know body, judicial body is that you're going
to be. You're going to be an act and a
transgender broadway show.

Speaker 1 (01:05:30):
It makes sense, all right. A lot more to come
on our number three of the Rod and Greg Show.
Here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine can
arrests of the legacy of Barack Obama. Many people are
saying it is tarnish, like you wouldn't believe.

Speaker 2 (01:05:43):
Yes, I would agree. I mean, I you put a
nickel on me, You're gonna get a bucks worth of
sea Get me on this one. I got a lot
to say.

Speaker 1 (01:05:51):
You know this, I know you do. Well, let's talk
about another legacy that could be tarnished. How about that
a Merrick Garland.

Speaker 2 (01:05:59):
You would have to have a legacy to tarnish. I mean,
I if the word legacy has any positive connotation, then
none of that would apply to Meryrick Garland. This has
been a disgrace from beginning, middle and end. But I
hear what you're saying. Well, I get it.

Speaker 6 (01:06:12):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:06:12):
Our next guest, El Bernell, she is the elections editor
at The Federalist, wrote about Meyrick Garland and it's calling
him the worst attorney general in the history of the
United States, and that certainly says a lot. She's joining
us now, Elle, what brings you to that conclusion that
Merrick Garland is the worst attorney general in US history?

Speaker 8 (01:06:31):
Oh?

Speaker 9 (01:06:31):
I know, I apologize to my editors when I set
it in. I've tried to make it short. It grew,
but yeah, I mean, then this list doesn't even cover
all of it. We saw Chris Ray resigning from the
FBI announcing that today. You know, he and Garland have
been in this together, and the litany of offenses from
both of them could fill more articles than one.

Speaker 2 (01:06:54):
So he almost was a Supreme he was nominated by
Obama to be a Supreme Court justice. I mean, I
can't even imagine what he would have been like as
a justice. It would have been such a disaster. How
will history you go ahead?

Speaker 9 (01:07:08):
Sorry, sorry, I was just going to say, it's a
sad legacy for Garland. I mean, like you said, he
almost got the Supreme Court. Well, he did get the
Spreme Court nomination, almost got the seat, and he actually
had not a horrible reputation as far as leftist judges
go before that. But then now it's it's puthetic to see,

(01:07:30):
you know, in this role at DJ, he's really left
the legacy for himself as politicizing the DJ, in the
words of none less than Joe Biden himself, who said
raw politics had infested the DJ's prosecutions.

Speaker 2 (01:07:46):
Well history, ever, remember that he was impeached by the
House of Representatives, and that's the Senate that Schumer and
the Senate just decided, maybe for the first time now,
we're not going to take that up. I mean, I
had heard that people had passed away and they didn't
take up the impeach articles of impeachment, or the president
had changed administrations. But will any of that stick to
Merrick Garland's legacy going forward?

Speaker 9 (01:08:10):
I think the impeachment looked less than the facts themselves.
The fact that he prosecuted his boss's presidential opponent and
tried to throw him in prison via Jack Smith's prosecution.
As a special counsel. He prosecuted pro lifers, prosecuted political protesters.
I mean, that is the legacy, and that will stick

(01:08:31):
with Garland longer than any impeachment process.

Speaker 1 (01:08:33):
The incoming Attorney General in your opinion, Now, how big
of a challenge is she got?

Speaker 9 (01:08:40):
Oh gosh, you know, it's not like it is so entrenched.
I was writing about some of these this behavior from
the DJ, and I think what a lot of people
missed when Gary Shapley and Joseph Wiegeler came out with
all of this craziness. For me about the DJ protecting

(01:09:01):
the Bidens in the Hunter Biden investigation is that some
of this happened before Joe Biden came into office, before
MARYTTR Island was in charge of the DJ. So this
it's not just about who's in charge, although that obviously matters.
This is there's an entrenched bureaucracy in the DJ and
then the FBI, and it's going to be probably the

(01:09:22):
biggest task of the incoming AG to root that out.

Speaker 1 (01:09:26):
How LA, I want to follow a question, how did
this become so politicized? What do you think happened here?

Speaker 9 (01:09:32):
L Well, you can probably you can take it back
further than this, But I think one of the things
that got people paying attention was you had the I
R s going after the tea party and the doj
IS involvement there. I mean, this is something a couple

(01:09:52):
of years ago, even then, when when all those things
were happening, and we can look back now and kind
of see that that was a precursor. No one would
have unheard of when when Trump, when Trump supporters panted
lock her Up about Hillary Clinton at Trump rallies, everyone
lost their every living mind because it was so horrible

(01:10:13):
to even joke about prosecuting a political opponent. Like the
Overton window has moved so far thanks to the Democrats
prosecutions of none other than Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (01:10:23):
You know, life seems to be like this pendulum. You know,
you get one group in there and it's you need
to fix things, but then it goes too far, then
there's problems there. Then the pendulum swings back the other way.
Did we have to live through Americ Garland a g
H this time?

Speaker 5 (01:10:37):
For this?

Speaker 2 (01:10:37):
Harris is Biden? Harris administration and the conduct of Merrick
Garland to really understand or appreciate the kinds of reforms
that Washington, d C. Needs. Did is he was he
necessary for us to see h to be safe for
as Americans and see the politicization of our our institutions
go away.

Speaker 9 (01:10:57):
I would like to say no, yeah, to indicate that
the answer was yes. I mean, I think for people
paying attention, we saw this coming a long time before,
what Garland has done with the DJ But yeah, I mean,
it's it continues to surprise people when things like this
come out, and it probably shouldn't, but I do think

(01:11:20):
what Garland did was put this political prosecution approach in
the public eye. And you know this is that is
what he will be remembered for.

Speaker 6 (01:11:29):
That's what people know about him.

Speaker 1 (01:11:31):
Well, a question for you all, and I appreciate your time.
We know it's short right now. Any predictions on the
Attorney general nominee in Pam Bondy. Do you expect her
to have much trouble?

Speaker 9 (01:11:43):
Well, we've seen you mean, if you mean a no
nomination in the confirmation process, We've seen what being done
to the other nominees, and it's it's not because of
any of their qualifications. It's for the same reason that
that the Kavanaugh rape hoax was perpetuated against Brett cavanaught
and upstanding and successful judge. I mean, every nominee is

(01:12:05):
going to stay a fight in the Senate. I think
the biggest fight that Bondie faces is going to be
clearing out the DJ. But I'm a Florida girl. I've
been a fan of Bondi for a while, so I'm
excited to do.

Speaker 5 (01:12:19):
What she does.

Speaker 1 (01:12:19):
El Bernell from the Federal List joining us on our
Newsmaker line here during the Rotten Greg Show, I kind
of agree with her. I mean, she's got a long list.

Speaker 2 (01:12:27):
Of things we I think maybe the worst in five
thousand years of human written history might be a little
might be a little more accurate, but I'll go with that.
We've talked about You're brutal on this Friday.

Speaker 1 (01:12:37):
You're saying Friday's were a little bit happier, but all excited.

Speaker 2 (01:12:41):
This this topic gets me, Yeah, it gets me salty.

Speaker 1 (01:12:44):
Yeah, all right, when we come back our listen back
Friday segments right here on the Rodd and Greg Show
and Utah's Talk Radio one O five nine k NRS
do you know what they call people who suffer from
a fear of Friday the thirteenth? Do you know what
that's called?

Speaker 2 (01:12:57):
Friday the thirteenth phobia? No?

Speaker 1 (01:12:59):
But christadcophobia.

Speaker 2 (01:13:01):
How do you know this?

Speaker 1 (01:13:02):
I don't know. I just heard that one day and
it's always stuck with me. Christadcaphobia, that's what you know? Well,
your birthday comes up occasionally on that it does.

Speaker 2 (01:13:11):
Since you're born in the month of October.

Speaker 1 (01:13:14):
Now, yes, all right, listen back Friday segment. What we
do is we take a look at the many interviews
we've done over the past week and pick out a
couple that we think you'd enjoy hearing again if you
didn't hear them in the first place. And that's what
we call listen back Friday. We talked about immigration, a
huge issue. Donald Trump is going to come in. He's
got a number of executive orders to do all of this.

(01:13:36):
But what is the roadmap for it? Well, we had
a chance to talk with Laura Ree, she is director
of the Center for Technology Policy at the Heritage Foundation,
and she talked about this. As a matter of fact,
they put out this roadmap and asked her about the
roadmap and our antiquated system that we currently have in place.

Speaker 10 (01:13:54):
Well, you're right that it is antiquated. It is very complicated,
as often described as the second most complicated law after
the tax code, and that's an accurate description. And all
of this was before Joe Biden took office. We had
a very dysfunctional legal and illegal immigration system. It was

(01:14:15):
too complicated, too slow, too expensive, and it's one of
the reasons so many people have come illegally because of
its easier, faster, and cheaper to do so than you know,
some rational human beings will We'll go that route and
post Joe Biden, however, because they have a race to

(01:14:36):
the line between legal and illegal immigration, they've truly, to
quote Obama, fundamentally transformed yet another system in our country,
like fundamentally transforming America. And the historic numbers that the
Biden administration have achieved all negative renders our immigration system

(01:15:01):
as an ash keep and it's not worth trying to reform.
We need to sweep it aside and start over and
make a simpler, fair, easier legal immigration system that would
change behavior and encourage more people to actually follow the law.

Speaker 2 (01:15:19):
Laura, you know, there's a very I think strong way
to start this administration, and that is to go after
the dangerous criminals that are here illegally. I think that's
a great place to start. I would personally like to
find the over three hundred thousand undocumented children that came
unaccompanied to our border that the Inspector General says, we
don't the government doesn't know where they are or you know,

(01:15:40):
if they're okay. I'd love to find and identify those miners.
That would be important. Let me ask you this. You
mentioned that the Biden administration erased the line between illegal
and legal immigration. And what comes to my mind is
in the debate between JD. Vance and Governor Walls, was
that they just said you could say the word asylum

(01:16:01):
and you didn't have to give any context, you didn't
have to do anything. You came right in and you
got a court date from three to five years in
the future. And I think that number is in the millions,
ten million or more. What do you do about people
who were given this app and this new status of
asylum seeker with court dates that are years away In
terms of deportation, I mean, most of Wilmot show statistics

(01:16:23):
show that people don't even attend those hearings. It's a
downtime where they get to enjoy being in our country
under some banner of being legally here. Is that something
that can be addressed by President Electrump when he takes office.

Speaker 10 (01:16:38):
Yeah, it needs to be and I agree with you.
The first step needs to be secure the border. Second
step is find and remove the terror threat, convicted aggravated sellons,
the over a million aliens who already have final orders
of removal, find the missing kids, get the backlogs down,
and then let's turn into rewriting our legal immigration system.

(01:17:04):
But with respect your question on asylum, Yeah, this is
the Left is very good at using emotional tools to
accomplish open borders, and asylum was one of them. They
called everyone asylum seekers, as if just simply claiming a
few words of fear made you untouchable. And the problem

(01:17:27):
is it is so easy to defraud the asylum system.
We don't have the resources to go run down everyone's claim.
You know, if you're from Nigeria, go to Nigeria and
investigate did this really happen to this person who's telling
us this? You know, multiply that a million times around
the world, and so asylum comes down to credibility. Do

(01:17:51):
I believe this story that this person is telling me?
And if you're good at appearing credible, then you're likely
to have asylum grant. But even regardless on the substance,
it buys people time because it is so easy to
defraud that millions apply for it knowing that it will

(01:18:12):
buy them years here and it gets them work authorization
after just a few months. And that's another key factor
of why people apply for.

Speaker 1 (01:18:20):
Asylum or how long will it take to throw out
the old and come up with the new when it
comes to an immigration system, I mean, are we taking
is it a year? Two years? How long is it
going to take if everybody got behind this effort, well, it.

Speaker 10 (01:18:35):
Would take it probably it could take up to two years.
But frankly, both sides of the aisle should be for
you know, a simpler, fair, faster immigration system because right now,
the way the law is written, every rule has exceptions
and waivers and exemptions, and it just creates busy work.

(01:18:58):
It makes the immigration attorneys, but you know that shouldn't
be the priority here. So it doesn't work for anybody else.
It doesn't work for family members, it doesn't work for businesses,
it doesn't work for the applicants themselves or the adjudicators.
And our immigration system needs to be for Americans and
for America, and so we got to change our priorities.

Speaker 2 (01:19:21):
We've got I think a robust discussion on our program yesterday,
and I think we'll be talking about again throughout this
show today about people that are born here and then
receive automatic citizenship. And there's my question is do you
do you see any prospect of Congress defining what that

(01:19:43):
citizenship means? There's certainly language in our uh in our
Constitution that says subject to jurisdiction where you can define it.
Does that do you see that that condition changing where
there has to be some legal process for you to
have been here and have someone born here for that
person to be a legal United States citizen or will

(01:20:03):
the status quo kind of carry on on that topic.

Speaker 10 (01:20:08):
Well, we've been living under an erroneous interpretation of the
fourteenth Amendment to come up with this notion of birthright
citizenship that merely being born, even if your mother arrives
one hour ago and gave birth to you, and if
she came here illegally, somehow that makes you a US
citizen that makes no sense, and most other countries do

(01:20:31):
not follow that notion. And so President Trump has said
he will end that with an executive order. The last
will sue against that. It will likely go to the
Supreme Court. But it deserves scrutiny, and pasted old interpretations
of it deserves scrutiny and to be overturned. If Congress

(01:20:53):
has the statute clarifying you know, you have to have
at least one US citizen parent to gain US citizenship currently,
that would help and be longer lasting than an executive order.
But again it's not necessary because it's an interpretation that
we have been living with these many decades in the

(01:21:14):
executive branch, and so the executive the president has the
authority to say this interpretation was wrong under the Constitution.

Speaker 1 (01:21:23):
Laura Reeds from the Heritage Foundation talking about a roadmap
for immigration reform. They got a lot of work to do.

Speaker 2 (01:21:28):
Greg there is they do, but I'm just relieved to
hear that they're spot in those those problems very early.
They're seeing what we're seeing out here too, so I'm optimistic.

Speaker 1 (01:21:38):
Well, did you remember what we talked about a little
bit earlier, Joe Biden's selling away parts of the border
wall that have been sitting there, rusting away for how
many years? And now he's selling them off.

Speaker 5 (01:21:47):
He is.

Speaker 2 (01:21:48):
I hear that the states are trying to buy it out.

Speaker 1 (01:21:50):
Texas is offered We'll pay one dollar.

Speaker 2 (01:21:52):
For it, yep, and giving back back.

Speaker 1 (01:21:54):
I love it all right. More of the Rott and
Greg Show coming up on Talk Radio one oh five
nine can Yes, there was a Kamala harrisiding this week.
If you've been wondering where she has been, well, she
showed up this week and guess what, sure she has
lost the cackle.

Speaker 2 (01:22:12):
I was just going to say, very on brand. You know,
we still have the same person. It's just you just
watched this and think what if she would have won?
What would life be like? I mean, I think you
would have. I'm just so happy.

Speaker 1 (01:22:23):
I think she was on glass number three of wine.
You're earlier this week as well.

Speaker 2 (01:22:27):
Total I'm telling you why, No, she really was. I
mean she was self medicating throughout that entire campaign. I
swear it. I swear it.

Speaker 1 (01:22:35):
Well, there has been talked that she is going to
stick around for a little while, maybe up until twenty
twenty eight. We had a chance to talk earlier this
week with Scott McKay. He's with a hay Ride, also
a contributor to The American Spectator. He wrote about this, Scott,
are you excited if Kamala is going to hang around?

Speaker 5 (01:22:52):
Well, because we want Democrats to lose elections. I think
that she's you know, she's like the golden ticket for
that use. You know, she's been in politics a very
long time, and she had success in California, which does
not look like the rest of the country, and you know,
is a place that people are trying to run away

(01:23:13):
from as is. So you know, the idea that she's
the front runner for twenty twenty eight for them, like
this is the greatest thing that's ever happened to Republicans.
And I'm actually working on a book right now called
The Revivalist Agenda, and it's a sequel to a book
I wrote a couple of years ago called The Revivalist Manifesto,

(01:23:33):
the main theme of which was we were about to
change into a totally new political era in this country,
and the one we've been in had been going on
since like nineteen thirty two, and all of the assumptions
that underlie that were you know, falling away I think
since the election, we've seen that this is like a

(01:23:53):
real theory that has some legs to it. In fact,
Mike Lee was on Twitter Friday night, I guess it
was with this long thread. Basically, his dates are different
than my dates in terms of the previous eras that.

Speaker 6 (01:24:09):
We've been in.

Speaker 5 (01:24:10):
But basically say, look, the fourth era of American politics
is beginning and we're going to really see it next year.
And I think, like you know, of course, I think
he's right. I wrote a whole book basically saying the
same thing. Part of what makes these eras work is
the party out of power can't get their act together.

Speaker 10 (01:24:28):
Right.

Speaker 5 (01:24:29):
The Democrats couldn't get their act together once the Civil
War got started, and it was twenty five years before
they were relevant in American politics again. And the same
thing happened to the Republicans after FDRs went in nineteen
thirty two. Right, the Democrats now are showing all of
the evidence of a party that lives in the wilderness. Right,
if they can't find somebody better than Kamala Harris, and

(01:24:52):
what's more than that, they can't do different things than
what they've done to put themselves in this position. Right,
So Daniel p He gets off in New York today
and they want to go in the streets and riot
and play the race card. The whole country looks at
that and goes, no, we just turned that out. We
don't want that. Like everybody is done with race in America.

(01:25:15):
Everybody's done with you know, the idea that the civil
rights era continues, right, Like people are finished with all
that stuff. And it's all the Democrats have, you know.
So if Kamala Harris is their standard bearer, this is great.
This gives actually gives the Republican Party an opportunity to
change the country in ways it needs to be changed.

(01:25:38):
So I hope she does stick around.

Speaker 7 (01:25:40):
I think it'd be fantastic.

Speaker 2 (01:25:41):
You know, I couldn't agree more. And I'll tell you
that I'm watching what you're watching. There is a real
there's a real argument going on inside the Democrat Party
and really on the talking head networks that you know,
the regime media, where the Democrats are arguing with each other.
One is arguing like the departing Democrat National Committee chairman.
He's saying that he wants to embrace identity politics and

(01:26:03):
he thinks that it wasn't pushed hard enough, and he's
going to name names when he leaves that office here
in the coming weeks, and he's mad that the identity
politics didn't take a stronger wasn't a stronger theme in
the campaign. You have others that are saying, we're talking
about things that aren't relating with everyday people, and what
we talk about isn't the experience the American people are having.
That one I want them to forget. I don't want

(01:26:25):
the Democrats to take that advice. I want them to
go straight as you do, to the Kamala Harris or
her message or narrative of identity politics abortion more than
eggs and milk being too expensive. I want them to
continue to try and socially engineer this country and tell
people you can't self determine or figure out what you
want to do, we have to do it for you

(01:26:47):
and I do I think that she ought to be there.
Will the people that are identifying what you and I
see is why they lost and why America doesn't identify
with the Democrat Party. Will that wing of the Democrat
Party prevail? Or do you think the Kamala identity politics
side liberal or liberal side of the party will will
stay in power in the coming months and years.

Speaker 5 (01:27:08):
Well, you know, you can go back to a little
bit of semi recent history and see what eventually is
going to play out. Right, Like Bill Clinton and his
crew came along in nineteen ninety two with the whole
new Democrat thing, which was a little bit more to
the center from what the sort of northeastern liberal set

(01:27:29):
that Michael Ducaccus represented, you know, like it was it
was a recasting of the Democrat Party and is something
that was a little bit more palatable to the American people.
Eventually they will come around to something like that. The
problem is is that Barack Obama set that party up
as a socialist party, and so you're gonna have to

(01:27:50):
purge out all of the Obama influences of that party
to make it possible for somebody rational, you know, to
get their nomination or to lead the party, because right now,
I mean, it's it's a very deep state, redistributed, redistributionist
identity politics party, and like there's really nothing else that

(01:28:13):
they bring to the table at this point, and so
it's start, you know, and the weird thing is all
they want to do is play identity politics, and they're
losing with the people whose identity politics they think should
be paramount. Like black men are flying away from the
Democrat Party, Hispanics are flying away from the Democrat Party.
And the whole party was set up basically to benefit them,

(01:28:35):
or at least to sell them on the idea that
they're benefiting, and you know, and you're bleeding people because
none of the stuff works, number one, and also because
you're trying to marry that brand of identity politics to
the LGBTQ stuff that blacks and Hispanics especially don't like.
And so like you just have a big, a big

(01:28:58):
mess that their party has become. Eventually they'll figure it out.
But like the longer it takes for them to do
that is the longer they're going to spend in the wilderness,
and the better the opportunity that you have to actually
change the country in ways it needs to be changed.
The other thing that's going on right now that I
think is so much fun, and I had another piece
last week at the Spectator talking about it, is you know,

(01:29:20):
so Pete Hegsith is is you know, in the crosshairs,
and they think they're going to knock him out because
they don't want a guy like heg Sith running the
Pentagon who actually cares about the troops and doesn't want
to waste money on garbage. So what do you do, Well,
he drinks a lot and he you know, he wasn't
a good husband. And you know, like what I call

(01:29:43):
that is the old game, right, you know the Clintons
used to call it the politics of personal destruction, which
was rich coming from the Clintons. Yeah, but you know
it's the old game. Oh well, we're just going to
do a scandal campaign on this guy and you know,
will make him unpalatable. And the American people saw that
coming had no interest in it. It was all based

(01:30:06):
in you know, built to try to scare off these
you know, sort of establishment rhinos in this in the
Senate Republican Caucus. And all of a sudden, what they're
finding is that the American people will not put up
with the old game anymore. And so Jony Ernst was
in the crosshairs of this, so was Lindsey Graham. And

(01:30:27):
they were like, oh, we don't know if Pete Hegseth
is you know, up to snuff. And you know, now
they're singing a little different too, because they can smell,
which you know they can smell the cooking, and you know,
it's really interesting to watch this because the American people
are done. We know this game. We know that it's
not about whether Pete Hexith drank too much when he

(01:30:47):
got back from Iraq. We know that it's not about that.
We know that it's about whether this guy would clean
up the Pentagon, and these people don't want him to
be in a position to do it right, So you
use the old game instead of actually abating the issue.
Everybody sees it coming. Everybody's disgusted by it. And that
was a lead balloon, which is one more indication that

(01:31:08):
we're in a little bit different era of American politics.
When you can't play the old game anymore, you actually
have to win on the merits now because people are
woken up and people know that the country is not
where it needs to be, and so you need serious
discussions and not stupid scandals.

Speaker 1 (01:31:27):
Scott McKay from The American Spectator talking about Kamala Harris
staying around.

Speaker 2 (01:31:34):
Well, I do, but I had a physical recoil at
even the mere thought of it at first, and then
I thought, well, that's exactly why she should stick around.
So I'm in. I'm all in. I she sticks around.
Give us some more wine. Make it for every race
you run, you get a free free case of wine.

Speaker 1 (01:31:50):
There you go. There, she's in, she's in, she's in.

Speaker 7 (01:31:52):
All right.

Speaker 1 (01:31:53):
Well that does it for us tonight and for this week.
As always great to be with you. Have a safe weekend,
mister Hughes. I know you'll be doing traveling. You be careful.

Speaker 2 (01:32:01):
You have an enjoyable weekend yourself.

Speaker 1 (01:32:03):
I will go navy and go army.

Speaker 2 (01:32:05):
Right, that's right, all right, go Navy beat Army.

Speaker 1 (01:32:08):
Have a good weekend, everybody,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

Cold Case Files: Miami

.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: What Will DOGE Do For America?; McConnell's Secret War on Trump

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;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

Cold Case Files: Miami

All Episodes