The Rod and Greg Show: White House Smithsonian Report; Should ICE Wear Body Cameras; Who is Nikki Floris?

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
We have got a lot to get to today. We're
going to be talking about, you know, the debate over
why don't ice agents greg have body cams? I mean, yeah,
doesn't every police officer in America now to almost have
body cams?

Speaker 2 (00:15):
They do, They do, and I do. And I think
there I think I've watched where there was a lot
of hesitation from law enforcement. It seemed like a gotcha thing,
you know, I mean, let's put body cams on our judges,
Let's put body cams on our teachers, let's put body
can we can take that argument out and stretch it
out and good information could come from it. I think
that was kind of the recoill. What I think is

(00:36):
happening is law enforcement has discovered that body cams are
probably their best resource. Yes, you can write a probable
cause statement, and you will, that's the process. But the
video that that are companies that usually makes the case
much stronger than what you would put in print. So
I think law enforcements actually identified body cams is a
great way for them to in their profession, to make

(00:58):
sure that those that act in a way that deserves
being arrested, detained, whatever it may be. It's it's pretty
much all for all to see through the cameras.

Speaker 3 (01:07):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:08):
Yeah, so we'll talk about that. We'll talk about He
didn't mention her name, but her name did come up
in documents that he released last Thursday talking about election fraud.
And we're talking about Nikki Flores Well, who exactly is
this woman and why does her name keep coming up?
Greg about running a shadow government.

Speaker 2 (01:27):
This is the part everyone wants to talk about. The
Chinese hacking our our our election databases, which is serious,
absolutely serious. The idea that our intelligence community and the
FBI wanted to slow roll that so that then President
Trump before the you know, the twenty election, would not
get it, would not get that information in its entirety.
How they they pushed that out so that he wouldn't

(01:49):
know and this this FBI agent and they He provided
a clip of of this statement from her from an
email where she describes her job as running across the
FBI's shadow government.

Speaker 1 (02:04):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:04):
I have not seen that get the kind of attention
or commentary that it deserves, because it is striking, it
is draconian, it's traitorous. I would think, and I would
think that there would have already been indictments for that
kind of talking about what she did, and we know
that she did. Behold, they took a report and cut
it into thirteen separate ones and just milked it till

(02:25):
they could get to the Biden administration. Just they had
it in November, and they went through January twentieth of
the following year because they were trying to keep it
from the President. I think those things are as bad
as the President conveyed on Thursday night.

Speaker 1 (02:37):
Well, we're all talking about those stories. We've got others
lined up, but I want to start off it is.
It's kind of entertaining right now, Greg, to see the
Democratic Party starting to punch each other.

Speaker 2 (02:47):
Yeah, well it's about well, I don't know if we've
been saying on this show, just let them do it.
We don't interrupt them, let them, just let the crazies
keep running the asylum. Just let it happen. Those be
an accounting. Yeah, well, I think a lot of these Democrats,
at least over this weekend went, uh yeah, we let
her start speaking up.

Speaker 1 (03:07):
Someone signaled them, Greg, Okay, start speaking up, yep, because
we could be in a heap of trouble if we
don't start doing something The first out of the shoot
was Van Jones, former advisor to President Obama at the time.
I see, I think Obama supports this effort. I mean,
this is what he always wanted is I think.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
Their voices aren't as strong as he'd like him to be.

Speaker 1 (03:27):
But Van Jones over the weekend basically told those on
the left, the radical left, to stop pooping in his
punch bowl.

Speaker 4 (03:33):
I am tired, tired, tired of a set of people
on the very far left in the Democratic Party, my party,
telling us that in order for us to be progressive,
we now have to believe ideas and support ideas that
are completely nuts. I am a progressive Democrat. In other words,
everything that's good in our party I believe in have

(03:55):
been leaved in for a long time. But what does
that have to do with supporting Amas?

Speaker 5 (04:00):
What they have to do with putting up candidates who
say we should have no police, no prisons, we can't
deport anybody even if they commit rape or murder.

Speaker 6 (04:10):
Israel shouldn't exist.

Speaker 5 (04:11):
These aren't terrible ideas, These are awful ideas.

Speaker 4 (04:15):
Where did these ideas even come from?

Speaker 2 (04:18):
Who was putting the poop in the punch bowl?

Speaker 4 (04:21):
Why these ideas that are punch bowl.

Speaker 1 (04:25):
I've never heard that expression of you, it's disgusting. Stop
putting a poop in the punch bowl and telling us
theds or ice cubes.

Speaker 2 (04:33):
Yeah, that's what I've never heard that, But you know what,
he's He's right. I think the Senate race where the
main or Graham Platner, had to drop out because he
hasn't he's a Nazi and he's a he rapes women,
and so they said, well, we might not be able
to carry this one through to November, so they force
him out. They all of a sudden, they knew all
this information, but once they saw the polls and realize
this guy is not electable, they kicked him out. And

(04:55):
then the subsequent you know, debate that they had, it
was it was. It was worse. It's not even good comedy.
It was so bad these candidates, and even the one
they ended up picking, which was probably the most normal
of the crazies, who doesn't actually show well either. I
think that highlighted to him. We've all watched that that
main debate and you're like, there's not a sane person

(05:16):
on that stage. There is, and so I think they
start to realize when America starts watching that, and I
think Susan Collins is a Republican, might be the most
was thought to be the most vulnerable Republican senator in
this upcoming midterms. Not with that, she might not.

Speaker 1 (05:30):
Be anymore miserables, not anymore. No, well, first there's Van Jones,
then Bill Maher. Bill Maher was asked by Jonathan Carl
on ABC, if he had to pick someone right now
for the twenty twenty eight presidential rates, who's he leaning toward.

Speaker 7 (05:45):
My vote is in play because it can't be Trump running.
So I'm not living in communist America. I mean, I
know the talking point is that it's not communism and socialism. Okay,
I've read the quotes from the ds A platform from
their own mouths. Don't tell me I'm not seeing what

(06:05):
I am seeing. And DSA again, they they say things like,
you know, takeover of key industries government, that's communist.

Speaker 1 (06:15):
Bill Martin says he'd lean for JD Events over the.

Speaker 2 (06:21):
Yeah, yeah, do you have do you have a governor?
Former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Yeah, this quick.

Speaker 1 (06:25):
Yeah. So he was on Mornings with Maria on Fox
Business Channel today and he was asked about socialism within
the Democratic Party.

Speaker 8 (06:33):
Socialism has not worked anywhere on the globe. Maria promises
of free lunch, free buses, free rent, free everything.

Speaker 6 (06:44):
There's no such thing as free. Someone always pays.

Speaker 8 (06:49):
This is a dream, this is nirvana, this is utopia, yea.
And they're selling to young people who are buying it.

Speaker 6 (06:58):
But it's not going to work.

Speaker 8 (07:00):
And this socialist movement is the best thing the Republicans
have going for them.

Speaker 2 (07:05):
That is the crux of it right there, the reason
that you're seeing this, and it's amazing the media works,
and even the talking heads in the Democrat Party they
work in such coordination. One day you wouldn't know that
anyone isn't subscribed to the far left agenda. And then
you wake up another day and the media's turned against them.
The Cuomos and the van Jones and the Bill Mahers

(07:27):
are all speaking out. It's because it is the best
thing the Republicans have going for them, and they're like,
if we ever lost the midterms, which the party out
of power usually wins the midterms, this is how we're
going to do it. We're going to sign up to
cuckoo for cocoa pops over here the socialists slash communists.
That's what the American people won't want. And they're right,
they're right. I mean, there were seventy seven million people

(07:50):
that voted for Trump. That's high watermark in terms of
voter participation. The midterms won't have that high of a
voter turnout as the presidential year does. But man, you're
not getting Trump's sized voters going for socialism and communism
in America right now. You're not. Hopefully we never do.
But they I think those socialists, I think they're more
interested in commandeering their political party than they are winning

(08:11):
the midterms.

Speaker 1 (08:11):
You may be right, because they think the next step
would be winning the presidency in twenty twenty eight. I
think any Republican congressional candidate who has an opponent on
the Democratic side this fall just needs to grab the
platform from the Democratic Socialist of America and read it
to challenge them to say, I would like to share
with you what my opponent stands for. No prisons, no police,

(08:36):
you know, just just lay that out and the American
people aren't going to buy this.

Speaker 2 (08:40):
Now, you know. Judge Gibson here in Utah, she drew
a district that maybe that district would agree with that
that platform, and then Ben mccadams will have to own it.
But I think you you force and put on the
record every Democrat candidate do you support this Democrat Socialist
of America platform?

Speaker 8 (08:56):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (08:56):
And I make them say yes or no.

Speaker 1 (08:58):
Yep, they won't. All right, more coming up here on
the Rod and Greg show in Utah's Talk Radio one
oh five nine, O kay Nrs said, now they're talking
about body camps. Tom Homo, who Holman? Who is the colman?

Speaker 8 (09:10):
Who?

Speaker 1 (09:10):
Yeah? Sorry is the borders are? Basically came out and said, hey,
I like body camps. I know any problem with that.

Speaker 9 (09:17):
When Democrats shut the government down, I was the part
of that negotiation steep up on the hell they kept saying,
they kept going to Minnesota. All the mistakes they say,
have the Minnesota I don't think, you know, there's a
lot of them. Do the mistakes they claimed in Minnesota
a lot more. I don't think the mistakes. But one
thing they asked, if we want body camps, I said, well,
there's money one hundred and twenty million dollars in a

(09:38):
bill you're.

Speaker 2 (09:38):
Holding up for me to buy the body campers.

Speaker 9 (09:40):
So the reason there's not body campus nationwide right now
because they shut the government down. And anybody don't believe that,
look it up now that we have the funding body
cameras wmen purchased.

Speaker 1 (09:50):
On our newsmaker line. Right now to talk more about
this is Logan Seacrest. He's a resident fellow at the
Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties at the R. Street Institute. Logan,
thanks for joining us this afternoon. Give us your take
on this debate going on right now over bodycams.

Speaker 10 (10:05):
Well, yeah, I mean, you know, I think we've had,
you know, two fatal shootings within the last couple of weeks.
We had the fatal shootings earlier this year, and none
of them have body camera footage because most of the
agents weren't wearing body cameras, you know, the shoot the
recent shooting in Maine. Investigators are basically relying on grainy,

(10:29):
distant security cam footage. And it's kind of an absurd
situation considering that body cameras are now standard issue equipment
for most American police. You know, more than ninety percent
of departments in large cities have body camera programs. About
four out of five US police officers wear them regularly,

(10:49):
you know, many states mandates statewide bodycam adoption, and almost
every state has adopted some kind of regulations around their use. So,
you know, kind of just setting aside the broader immigration
debate for a moment. You know, I don't think this
is really a question of you know, enforcement policy or
tactics or anything like that. It's just a question of
whether armed federal agents should have access to the same

(11:10):
technology and follow the same rules that the average county
sheriff or beat cop does. You know, when an agent
uses deadly force on behalf of the government, the public
deserves an objective record of what happened. And I just
make the other point that body cameras aren't just a
tool to uh, to kind of go after police. You know,

(11:31):
a lot of the federal officers I talked to want
body cameras because they increasingly view them as a form
of protection. You know, I think body cameras can protect
officers from false allegations at least as often as they
expose any kind of a misconduct. So, you know, if
the recent shootings in Texas and Maine were justified, justified,

(11:54):
the footage would just would just serve to prove that.
So yeah, I think it's just it's just a basic tool.
At this point, the basic standard is should tool of
policing that the federal government should adopt.

Speaker 2 (12:07):
I think you're exactly right. I think that what you
described has played out as well. I think the original
body cams for law enforcement, there was some hesitation from
law enforcement, but I think if you were to ask
them now, they they it is a form of protection.
It is a form of you know, where they get
to state their case and be able to I mean,
hearing a probable cause, reading a probable cost statement versus
seeing the video is a whole different world. And I

(12:28):
think that the local law enforcement understands that. I've heard,
though and I read that that there's money available to
do this, but we're not and there's even some political
will verbally to do it. But you point out that
they're not spending the resources they have for body cams.
I think there's a statement from a home Tom Holman
where he says that that there's been line items for

(12:48):
these body cams for this express purpose. They support it,
they want it, but they're not able to get it
passed in Congress. What's the what's what's the gap here
that they're saying they want it, but they're not getting funded.
You're pointing out that the funding they received should be
able to accommodate it. Where are these ships passing in
the night not seeing the same the same point.

Speaker 10 (13:08):
Yeah, I think you've just had uneven execution at the
federal level on this. You know, the Biden administration and
directed agents to body cameras. President Trump came in, he
revoked some of those Biden executive orders. You know, after Minneapolis,
the Trump administration kind of reverse course. Then Sexuary Nome
pledged nationwide rollout quote as funding becomes available, and then

(13:32):
Congress did appropriate, you know, ear mark twenty million for
body cameras specifically, and out past a further seven seventy
billion dollar package with another flexible funding in there to
outfit every federal agent many times over. Yet you know,
as you say, only about half of field offices so
far half cameras at least ice field offices. You know,

(13:53):
the partlem of Hemeland Security have promised that the restaurant
the way, but even then, the stated goal is only
one camera per team, not per agent, which is progress,
of course, but it's still kind of insufficient to tell
the whole story. Of some of these situations. So, you know,
why is this happening. I think there has been a

(14:14):
worry in the past that ICE agents are kind of
would be docked or threatened if some of this video emerged,
and the just video document documentation puts some at greater risk.
And I think, you know, these concerns are legitimate, but
they're exactly why states and localities have written governing policies
about how footage released, what's redacted, and that kind of thing.

(14:36):
You know, these rules exist precisely, precisely to maintain officer
of privacy while providing the public and objective record of events.
You know, I think right now we can have the
worst of both worlds. We have little documentation of these
lethal incidents and no rules governing what happens when footage
does exist, you know. And I think the other issue
is that cedral acquisition is is kind.

Speaker 6 (14:57):
Of slow by design.

Speaker 10 (14:59):
You know, contracts of the size go through a competitive
bidding and security review that local police department just buying
a few dozen cameras doesn't have to do, you know.
So the like I say, DHS has plans to purchase
these cameras using this twenty million that Congress provided, and
I think over time, those cameras it'll be it'll be

(15:21):
money well spend. You know, cameras tend to pay for
themselves over time by reducing for those litigation resolving officer
complaints more efficiently. It's pretty interesting. You know, departments that
used body cameras have seen many fewer complaints against officers
because that, as we said, that video routinely exonerates them
from being falsely accused. So yeah, I think it's just

(15:45):
been a matter of uneven kind of federal orders and
and I think we'll get there eventually, but it's it
has been frustratingly slow.

Speaker 1 (15:53):
Logan Seacrests from our Street Initiative. Thanks Logan for joining
us talking about body cams on ice agents. More. Rod
and Greg show coming your way on this Monday afternoon
right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine.
In kN R S president's news conference or speech to
the nation on Thursday, where he raised the issue of
election integrity in this country, pointing out several issues that

(16:16):
I think he feels need to be addressed.

Speaker 2 (16:18):
Yes, I'm glad. I mean, while we didn't see as
much coverage of it from the regime media and the
traditional networks. Yeah, well they're kind of they allowed this
to go on under the nose, so they're embarrassed about it,
I guess at best. But I do think when you
hear a quote that an FBI high ranking FBI agent
was running a shadow government, it's surprising that person hasn't
already been indicted. But that was that was one of

(16:40):
the things that was shared by the president that caught
my interest. And there's a lot to that story.

Speaker 1 (16:45):
Yeah, well he didn't name her, but in the documents
that he released, her name's all over him, it is,
and she openly talks about a shadow government. Well, who
is Nikki Flora is joining us on our any hour
Newsmaker line around now? Is Kaitlin deeeds Kalen is a
just this department and reporter at the Washington Examiner. All right,
the question is Galen? Who in fact is Nicki Flores.

Speaker 11 (17:08):
Well, Nicky Flores is no stranger to controversy, actually, when
it comes to some of the things that we've seen
over the last several years in Washington and some of
the bureaucratic nonsense that we see happening behind the scenes,
and Nicki Flores, I would say of notable acclaims. Some
people might remember that she had a hand in trying
to downplay some of the materials that we saw leaked

(17:30):
out of Hunter Biden's laptop that led to a swarm
of controversy right before the twenty twenty election, with different
outlets and different social media companies trying to even suppress
that information.

Speaker 6 (17:44):
And you know, she was in the FBI at that
time as well.

Speaker 11 (17:47):
So Nicki Flores came up in recent days because what
we saw on Thursday was the President Donald Trump talk
about how there was an FBI official who said, inside.

Speaker 6 (17:59):
An internal communitcation with one of.

Speaker 11 (18:00):
Her subordinates, quote, I'm basically running a shadow government across
the FBI at this point. Now Trump didn't say this
full quote, needdn't name Maky, but just going through the
information that his administration released for the public to see,
it is clear as day that the reference is pointing
toward what she said in this discourse.

Speaker 2 (18:20):
It was an odd clip, but it took the top
of that email. And if you look at the very
top of it, and I missed it the first time
I looked at it, you see her name. You see
Flores Kama Nikki and it shows her, you know, what
her position at the FBI, and it takes that sentence.
My question is when I saw it, and I found
out about thirty minutes after the address, because I found
that quote to be so disturbing. I was disappointed a
name wasn't attached to it. My question is, what would

(18:42):
you have to say if not I'm running a shadow
government across the FBI to raise the iron or see
prosecutions or indictments already happening. I mean, this seems to
be as draconian as you get, but yet we're it
feels like we're just at the starting point.

Speaker 11 (18:59):
Yeah, I mean, I think there's there's a lot of
questions really right now about what can be done about this.
I mean, I think at the first point, I think
some people want to know what was the full context
or the relationship that Flores have of her colleague and
what she was saying. Was it in any way a
sarcastic kind of No, I mean, that's not something that

(19:19):
you would want to say, even in a sarcastic context
to somebody who you're communicating with about official business. And
this was about suppressing information that the FBI had about
China's interference or attempts to interfere in our twenty twenty elections.
So that's not something to really joke about whenever you're
talking about information.

Speaker 6 (19:37):
Relating to that.

Speaker 11 (19:38):
And she was also on note in a separate piece
of information that the White House released last week downplaying
other parts of China's interference campaign. There was one part
where she thought there was a baseless allegation about there
being organized protests that some people in China were trying
to essentially galvanized protests in the US, and she threw

(20:01):
cold water on that report. But this was also trying
to throw cold water on the fact that there was
a plan to manufacture fake licenses so at Chinese individuals
or people over here in the US could take on
some of these fake licenses try to be registered to
vote or get registered to vote illegally, And so that
was something that you know, across the ward she was

(20:22):
downplaying the reports in some ways, it seemed like she
was trying to keep her former boss, FBI Director Ray
from having any embarrassing moments because he had previously testified
that China wasn't a major issue when it came to
looking into foreign interference, So that was part of the
calculus as well in making this, and we learned even

(20:42):
last July July first, twenty twenty five, Chuck Grassley first
gave all of us the information that we were that
we previously didn't know about these efforts by the FBI
to suppress plans for China to interfere. So that dates
back to back then, but we're also getting this new
information now about it additional levels of Chinese interference that
were suppressed.

Speaker 1 (21:03):
Calen, How did she gain so much power? I mean,
I'm obviously very powerful within the intelligence community. How did
she attain that power?

Speaker 11 (21:12):
Well, it was in twenty twenty two Ray named Flores
to be the intelligence analyst in charge of the Washington
Field Office's Intelligence Division, and so that was whenever she
really started to be very powerful, I would say, in
the bureau's role of overseeing elections and things to that extent.
She also previously served under two prior officials in the

(21:37):
FBI who have since been removed as well, some of
which were individuals that were part of broader investigations into
January sixth types.

Speaker 6 (21:47):
Of cases and handling.

Speaker 11 (21:49):
So obviously she kind of stems from this leftover's side
of the FBI that current director Cash Hottel was tasked
to be removing, and he did remove for as well
as dozens of other people in the FBI since then.
So I think that in terms of you know, what's
going to come further about this, does Floorers have any

(22:10):
sort of, you know, additional potential investigations into her.

Speaker 6 (22:14):
I cannot say at this time, but.

Speaker 11 (22:16):
I have reached out to her current employer at Microsoft
to see if they would have any comment about her
current role there as a risk management analyst in the company.

Speaker 6 (22:26):
I have not heard back from Microsoft.

Speaker 2 (22:28):
You know, a lot of people yet frustrated we see
Fauci lying under oath or you'll see examples of this happening,
and people say, well, what can be done about? I
think just us knowing broadly about it is better than
we were from the start. But I got to believe
what the President addressed this nation about could not just
be more fodder. It has to have some more substance
to it. You know, we've seen that when fifty thousand

(22:50):
voter files from the UK were hacked by China, there
was a lot of stories in the what I call
a regime media about it we got what two hundred
and fifty thousand individual voter information that were hacked by China.
What do you look at your crystal ball tell me
that something, something actionable is going to happen over the
type of information we're now privy to.

Speaker 11 (23:13):
I'm really glad you asked about that, because I do
look at the address last Thursday from President Trump as
pretextual in nature, as a sort of way of getting
out the information that the country has needed for a
long time about what types of different various acts took
place in twenty twenty that might have moved the needle

(23:33):
or caused our election systems to be less secure than
we thought they were. We all knew that there was
something there, but we all knew that there was efforts
in place to diminish or downplace some of the areas
in which our foreign adversaries might have tried to intervene.
For example, we see all this effort since twenty sixteen

(23:56):
by the left to elevate the terms in which Russia
allegedly sought to intervene, but we never hear anything else about,
you know, any other countries, at least from the left
perspective when it comes to election interference other than Russia,
and there are far more bad actors at play here.

Speaker 6 (24:11):
But I'll tell you this one. There was a grand
jury that we saw.

Speaker 11 (24:14):
You've probably done some reporting on it yourselves and coverage
about the grand jury that was assembled in South Florida
looking into different actors such as the former CIA director
John Brennan, looking into FORMERCA director James Coney. That is
a grand jury that was entangled for the sole purpose
of looking into there with potentially, as we know it

(24:35):
from different sources, a potential conspiracy against rights against President Trump,
against the rights of him to run for president again,
because there was you know, there was cases that were
filed against him back whenever Biden was still president. There
was the effort to try to undermine him when he
was president in.

Speaker 6 (24:52):
His first term.

Speaker 11 (24:53):
I strongly believe that there are these subpoena efforts that
we've seen taking place in that case down there, because
this administration, but more so the Justice Department, wants to
get accountability for all the people that had tried to
stop President Trump, even when he was president the first time,
and even when he was on the campaign trail again

(25:13):
back in twenty twenty four and twenty twenty three. So
I do think that this is a serious front. I
do think that there could be some announcements here for
in the next few months, because I do think that
time is of the essence to get a case like this,
especially one that could be alleging a grand conspiracy off
the ground.

Speaker 1 (25:32):
Well, I hope, Greg, I'm with you. I hope somebody
in this whatever you want to call it, is going
to be held accountable for what was done.

Speaker 2 (25:41):
It's true. I mean, I know it frustrates people. I
think knowing is most of them. I mean, knowing is
better than not knowing. I think we our eyes are
the insidious, the insidious nature of all of it. But
if Americans are getting tried for things of this nature
and probably less all every day, and to think that
we're we're privy to such crimes and no one's going

(26:02):
to be accountable, that's that's gonna be hard to digest.

Speaker 1 (26:04):
It is, all right, more coming up Rod and Greg
with you on this Monday afternoon and talk Rady on
one oh five nine can Arrest New Week coming up
twenty fourth of July. At the end of this week.
Wow wow, Yeah, it is. We all agree that California
is a bit goofy.

Speaker 2 (26:21):
That's why.

Speaker 1 (26:21):
That's way to put it. Is that an understatement?

Speaker 2 (26:24):
Yeah? Cuckoo for cocoa pops off the rails? Uh yeah,
crazy track.

Speaker 1 (26:30):
Well, how about this story coming out of I think
It's San Jose. A video posted by an influencer. His
name is Tom Bartleson. He goes by the online name
of meat Dad Okay showed packages of Rabbi steaks and
ground beef with wired security devices secured to them at
a Walmart in San Jose.

Speaker 2 (26:51):
Yeah, because they know what I'm shoplifted.

Speaker 1 (26:53):
They don't want to Is that the goofy?

Speaker 12 (26:56):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (26:56):
Yeah, you've ever heard?

Speaker 13 (26:58):
You should have.

Speaker 2 (26:58):
Seen me trying to get a red bull in New
York City, Downtown New York City convenienced or that had
it all locked. You had to press a button for
someone to come.

Speaker 3 (27:05):
No one came.

Speaker 2 (27:06):
I was just snaking my arm in the adjacent cooler,
trying to get my arms stretch my arm over to
get a red bull. I felt like I was like
a jewel thief. It was insane.

Speaker 1 (27:17):
The three pound package of ground beef wrapped with a
security lock that would typically be used for more high
value product it's a package of ground beef, and they're
now having to secure it to make sure it doesn't
get well.

Speaker 2 (27:28):
At least costs more than a red bull. It should
have seen what I mean it is, and it's it's
because of lawlessness, and no one's doing anything about it. Nope,
you know they they they have just normalized criminal behavior
to the point where you're going to get more of it.

Speaker 1 (27:43):
Yeah, kind of great, All right, second hour, Well they're rotting.
Greg Show's on his place right here on Utah's Talk
radio one oh five nine k nrs.

Speaker 2 (27:58):
There's no salary cap. You guys get more, probably paid
judge more than our whole lineup in the the Pirates.

Speaker 1 (28:05):
He's not even playing, he's injured. He could be out
front of the thirty Days.

Speaker 2 (28:09):
And you don't even see our best pitcher, Skemes. You
know he's hit. The lineup is just the rotation's wrong.

Speaker 1 (28:14):
Who's that guy Milwaukee who throws at one hundred and
five miles an hour Mizerowski? Yeah, well doesn't that hurt
your arm? I'll tell you what majorre Baseball.

Speaker 2 (28:24):
I don't think they they don't have the staying power
some I think that you throw that hard you're not
throwing that hard for long.

Speaker 1 (28:30):
Well, I think in Major League baseball, if you don't
throw a ball one hundred miles an hour, you aren't
cutting the mustard.

Speaker 2 (28:35):
Yeah, that used to be a phenomenal moment when they
noted it was this Chapman who threw the first one mile.

Speaker 1 (28:42):
I remember, I thought it was Chapman. Maybe not, maybe
with someone else.

Speaker 2 (28:46):
I don't know, what do you think? I think my Yankee?
I think your Yankees. Well, you guys are eleven games
over five hundred or four games above five hundred, and
we're playing in your stupid Yankee stadium.

Speaker 1 (28:56):
So no, oh, that's right. I forgot about Nolan Ryan. Yeah,
we could chuck it ago.

Speaker 2 (29:02):
I'm still looking at this game. I I you know,
I'm just gonna just I'm just gonna temper my expectations
now because I think that's wrong about baseball is you
can see in the in the Yankees and the Dodgers
just everything that's wrong.

Speaker 1 (29:15):
With and Dodgers are trying to get that picture out
of Detroit.

Speaker 2 (29:18):
There's just no there's no end to the all star
teams that you guys try to put together, and then
those small market teams they don't. They don't mind. Their
fans might mind, but the owners don't because they get
what's called a luxury tax. They get paid well for
being the minor league team, the stepping stones for the
blue bloods in baseball. Why I don't understand why why
you tall would ever want a major league baseball team

(29:38):
under the current financial arrangement of salaries.

Speaker 1 (29:42):
I don't. I don't get it either.

Speaker 2 (29:43):
You are guaranteed to be a bottom feeder under this,
under this system right here.

Speaker 1 (29:48):
Now, maybe this area is bigger than I think because
we only see, well, you see more of it because
you go back and forth on the south end of
the valley. I'm from up north. You know, it doesn't
seem that big. As someone wants to describe Salt Lake
City as a small town with big buildings.

Speaker 2 (30:04):
I know, I think it's I think that.

Speaker 1 (30:06):
But it's changed years ago.

Speaker 2 (30:08):
Yeah, I think the Wasatch Front. So when you include
all four counties, you know weaber Davis, Salt Lake County,
Utah County. That is a major metropolitan area. I will
tell you though, that I think that Utah sports fans
like winners were at least a chance to win. And
you see that in the Jazz. When the Jazz were
playing bad this year, I don't think their attendance was
all that great. I don't know that they were.

Speaker 1 (30:28):
Think they did pretty well.

Speaker 2 (30:29):
Did they get right?

Speaker 1 (30:30):
Yeah? Most of the game, I don't get.

Speaker 2 (30:33):
So my information was anecdotal. I knew so many people
that season tickets that just weren't going to do it.
They weren't. Then I heard that over and over. But
it sounds like they still get a good attendance. But
I think in baseball, where you have over one hundred
games a year and you have a lot of home games,
if you don't have a product on that field that
gives you a chance to even be in a win.
I just think it's hard.

Speaker 1 (30:52):
But you know what happens. It doesn't happen all season long.
Remember when the Jazz were not that good. But if
the Lakers can to town, the Celtics came to town,
people would go to the key see those they come here.
And you know the same with baseball. If the Yankees,
the Dodgers, the Red Sox, other great teams come to town,
people will go see them. They'll see their their favorite players.

(31:15):
That's the one redeeming value. I guess it would be
that we'd get to see those players in our hometown. Now,
speaking of Bunny, I wonder how many people who are
in our audience on this hot Monday afternoon Gregg would
say that their college degree was worth it.

Speaker 2 (31:32):
Yeah, you know, because collegure degrees. And this is my
philosophy on degrees, it's not a trade school necessarily. I
think that a lot of times your degree in college
you learn how to learn. You're given new crik, you're
giving new information. You need to digest it and be
able to, you know, regurgitate it back in some form,
be it tests, whatever you may have to do. And
so I don't think that you have to have a

(31:54):
career related exactly to a college degree. That said, there
should be some I mean, you learn how to learn,
but there also should be something that doesn't preclude you
from other opportunities. In some of these degrees or majors
seem to be so outlandish, I don't know that they're
even interesting to a prospective employer in terms of what

(32:14):
you're touting your bachelor's degree or your degree in colleges
is from. I think you could have a chilling effect.
Frankly in some of these studies that they've come up
with in these schools.

Speaker 1 (32:23):
Well, I didn't realize that this new effort by the
Education Department was part of the Big Beautiful Bill, but
apparently it is and the program. Basley says that this month,
the Department of Ed will begin rolling out a new
accountability test that most colleges and universities will soon have
to pass. Okay, so you say, what is the accountability test?

(32:44):
Here it is, it's pretty simple. If greg and undergraduate
program's graduates okay, don't earn more than workers who never
went to college, that program would be cut off from
federal student loans.

Speaker 2 (32:58):
That sounds very reason.

Speaker 1 (33:01):
Again here it is, if an undergraduate program's graduates don't
earn more than workers who never went to college, that
program could be cut off from federal student loans. And
there are some examples out there. Yes, I think even
here in the state of Utah we don't have that information,
but around the country it would apply. Now, the same

(33:22):
goes for any graduate program whose graduates earn less than
someone with only a bachelor's degree.

Speaker 2 (33:30):
Yes, wow, well, yeah, I support So if you look
at some of the ones that they are talking about,
these a lot of them are the arts, okay, and
there are art classes you can take art in, there's
art schools. I don't think if you went to a
if you went to a traditional institution of higher learning
to get an art degree, I don't know if that's
what's making or breaking artists of our day. Is the

(33:53):
actual degree. I think there's ways that the artists in
that in the various fields can become artists and success artists.
And then some are these studies like women's studies, ethnic studies,
gender studies, all of those seem to be throwaways too,
where I don't think it's the same. I think you'd
be better off with a more general bachelor's degree than

(34:15):
with some of these studies. Interesting Penn State forty two
thousand undergraduates. Okay, they graduated big school. I can't pull
it up right now. But one of these studies, one
of these specialized degrees, graduated ten graduates out of forty
two thousand undergraduates. But they graduated ten students. They have
twenty eight professors of that study, of that specialty or

(34:39):
that that degree, that studies program, that studies program is
twenty eight professors with ten graduates. So I think it
would fail this new standard. I'm just guessing I'm just
going to take a leap. Maybe it pays a lot,
I don't think so.

Speaker 1 (34:51):
It seems to me there was a story not long
ago here in the state of Utah where if the
University of Utah had the same situation. Do you recall that,
greg Ands seem to me there was a story there
in which maybe five people graduated out of this program,
or to be because the state legislature this year tried
to analyze that, didn't they, as I recall, yes, they did,

(35:12):
and they found out, you're getting like five graduates for
a program that we're spending hundreds of thousands, if not
millions of dollars on, and it's only cranking out five
or six graduates.

Speaker 2 (35:21):
Yeah, no, it's it's it's it's a problem. And I
think they're going to have to because here's the thing.
I don't think tuition's going down. They can.

Speaker 1 (35:28):
It keeps going up.

Speaker 2 (35:29):
You know, assistants, federal loans, they keep going up. They
keep saying, well, we should just forgive those loans, the
students shouldn't have to pay them back. But the cost
for higher education and a degree keep climbing, and I
don't know that the return on investment is looking favorable anymore.
I think it's a new world, and I think that look,
it's a it's a combination of things. I think these

(35:51):
schools have just gotten. I mean, they say out loud,
now we can't hire conservatives as our faculty because they're racist.
They don't acknowledge sign which is an irony when you
talk about some liberal causes and it's you know where
it doesn't touch science. It actually contradicts it. But anyway,
I think that there they are. They have run themselves
aground or I read your institution of higher learning and

(36:14):
the institutions of higher learning. So it makes sense to
me that you would have some kind of litmus tests,
some kind of measuring measure measurement that says, if you
if you could make more money and any chosen career
that does not require a college degree and a and
a certain uh you know, degree or group, and if
you got one there you would make less than someone

(36:36):
who never darkened the door of the place. Then that
that's probably not the yea, that's probably not where tax
payer money or anyone's tuition money ought to go towards.

Speaker 1 (36:43):
Well, here a couple of quotes, and then I want
to give to our listeners on this, I've got a
question for him. But here's this. A spokesman for the
Department of It. His name is Nicholas Kent. He says,
if a program cannot show that it leaves its graduates
financially better off, then if they had ever never enrolled,
it should not be underwritten by federal taxpayers.

Speaker 2 (37:05):
Yeah here, okay.

Speaker 1 (37:07):
But then you have the other side of the equation.
Earnings is only a small piece of the puzzle that
you do learn to learn.

Speaker 2 (37:15):
Well and I do book okay to that.

Speaker 1 (37:18):
So the question would be, you know, how do you
feel about a program like this where universities throughout the country.
This the only public universities can't do anything. Private universities
would have an accountability test, and you've got assured that
those graduates who leave your program are in fact making
more money than someone who never went to college.

Speaker 8 (37:42):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (37:42):
I love that. We're going to start staring at this
little bit more. I look, aren't you afraid? I look
at these schools and not so much. Utah has its problem,
has its challenges, I would say.

Speaker 1 (37:52):
But we should say to tuition in this state is
fraction fraction early.

Speaker 2 (37:56):
Yeah, what I mean you our Appalachian state was thirty
thousand of semester twenty years ago. So I can only
imagine what what what some of those schools back east
would cost today. We're looking at very we're looking at
lower tuition. I was fortunate enough. I got two kids
now that have degrees, and there's no way on earth
I could have I could have paid for that tuition

(38:16):
if they were going to schools, you know, out of
out of state of Utah. That's that's the reason why.
And that's UVU and USU respectively. But that said, they
become a little propaganda centers. These these schools they're they're
they're pushing ideas that that we wouldn't subscribe to. And
there isn't a diversity of thought. I've got no problem

(38:37):
with higher education one of them, you know, learning how
to learn. Being you're confronted with some maybe some ideas
philosophies that you didn't think of, you didn't really subscribe to,
but they're new. You got to think it through and
you got to weigh what you believe, what your values
are versus some of the competing thoughts that are out there.
What that doesn't happen anymore. It's it's it's this is
your choice in higher ed. You you sign up and

(38:59):
you sing off this sheet of music you can afford,
or and if you don't, well, then you're intellectually a
failure or your moral failure because there's no diversity of thought.
It's just what we're telling you is going to be
the kid who wants to send their kid into that environment.

Speaker 1 (39:15):
Yeah, well, I'd like to know from our listeners their
feelings about higher education and this idea, the accountability test.
If an undergraduate programs graduates don't earn more than workers
who never went to college, their program would be cut
off from federal student loans. Do you support that idea?
Eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero on
your cell phone dial pound two fifty and say hey Rod,

(39:37):
or leave us a message on our talk back line
by downloading the iHeartRadio app and make sure you find
can Arrests to leave a comment on our talk back line.
We'll get to your calls and comments. The value of
college Anymore coming up on the Rod and Gregg Show
and Talk Radio one oh five nine. Can Arrests be hid?
State of residents have less confidence in higher education institutions nationally,

(39:58):
with just over half of the resis London's fifty three
percent expressing certain levels of distrust. We're bringing this up
because the Department of Education now looking at a new
program that says it's a very simple accountability test. It
says if an undergraduate program graduates don't earn more than
workers who never went to college, that program could lose

(40:21):
federal funding. And we're going to get your comments on
this eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero
cell phone dial pound two fifty or leave as a
comment on our talk back line.

Speaker 2 (40:30):
All right, let's go to Allen, who's been waiting in Taylorsville. Allen,
Welcome to the Ronning Greg Show.

Speaker 3 (40:37):
Hi, thank you. Yeah.

Speaker 14 (40:38):
I attended the U and got a history degree back
in the nineties. In my senior seminar, there were twenty
of us, and I was the only one who had
a job lined up after graduation because I was going
in the Air Force.

Speaker 6 (40:52):
I distory agree.

Speaker 14 (40:53):
I joined the Air Force. Five years later I got out.
I couldn't get a job with my history degree, so
I went back to college on the GI bill got
a computer science degree. Now I'm twenty five years in
that industry.

Speaker 8 (41:09):
Job.

Speaker 2 (41:09):
Yeah, so the saying that you learn how to learn
it only goes so far. With a history degree, you
might have known history, so you didn't repeat it. But
but Alan, it wasn't getting you into the door on
it with an employer.

Speaker 1 (41:20):
Well, Alan, I was going to ask you, why did
you why take us back? Why did you think a
history degree would get you a job?

Speaker 14 (41:28):
I was going to make the Air Force a career
and I didn't. It didn't matter what my degree was
in as long as I had one. How so air
Force commissions work? Yeah, and then after five years, decided
it was time to get out. And so, uh, then
I realized I needed a job.

Speaker 2 (41:44):
Yeah, I'm with Allan.

Speaker 6 (41:47):
I was.

Speaker 2 (41:48):
I studied history. That was my you know what? My
thing was the same, I learn how to learn. And
I'd been working in some you know, political campaigns, and
I saw you didn't need a political science degree to
really work inside of public policy or things like that.
So I wanted to study something I had an interest in.
But to Allen's point, and I didn't think that every

(42:10):
degree is supposed to be a trade school if you're
not going to be an engineer. If you're not going
to be there's certain things that you need to have
specific courses to have a profession in. But I do.
I do see how in nineties is an interesting time
because that's when I think it still was kind of
conventional wisdom everyone should have a degree, get any kind
of real job. And it began to decline after that.

(42:32):
And so I agree, he gets out out of the
air Force. I can see where that would be tough.

Speaker 1 (42:35):
Well, you know, I graduating what I did from college
or from high school. In the seventies, everybody went to college,
everybody in my class. I remember, where are you going?
What are you going to study? What are you going
to do? Nowadays, I don't know if that question is
being asked anymore.

Speaker 2 (42:50):
No, what I did. I started a small I had
a friend and we started a business.

Speaker 1 (42:53):
You started a small business, skitch, try do you have
any idea what you were doing?

Speaker 2 (42:57):
Not at all?

Speaker 1 (42:58):
Not always what you're doing now?

Speaker 2 (43:01):
Fake it till you make it. That's kind of my
approach as a radio host, you know, just faking it
till I make it. Don't laugh, you know people are listening.

Speaker 1 (43:10):
I am not laughing. You are a pro. Matter of fact,
we should pat you on the back today because for
the first time, and I've been bugging you, you have been.

Speaker 2 (43:19):
Thank you, rod Arkut, You've been telling me I should
be doing this.

Speaker 1 (43:22):
Wanted to do this. He wrote a column and the
column was in the Daily Signal today.

Speaker 2 (43:27):
That's right, it was publishing the Daily Signal today. So
I was the editorial letter at VU when it was Yes,
I used to be able to write anyway. You and
I have talked about that, I'd like to do a
little bit of contribution that way. And submitted it over
the weekend and it was published in the Daily Signal.

Speaker 1 (43:44):
And it's on our Twitter, our ex page now X
page as well, and I'm glad you did.

Speaker 2 (43:49):
It was at Rotten Greg Show.

Speaker 1 (43:51):
At Rotten Greg Show. Yeah, but you can see the
article that he wrote for the Daily Signal. Yeah, which
I think is part of the Heritage Foundation.

Speaker 2 (43:58):
Is the Harris Foundation wanted to have its media army,
they wanted to have a press corps anything else. They
had to get it away from the foundation itself as
a think tank and it's a media but it is
owned by the Heritage Foundation, but it's its media wing
for operation and it's Rob Louis. He runs it, but
you'll see him on Fox News. You'll see him do
a lot of interviews. He's a good guy on over
the Weekend.

Speaker 1 (44:18):
They accept it.

Speaker 2 (44:19):
Yeah, it's about John Solomon with just the news he's
really coming up with. He's worked very hard. He's done
a lot of investigative reporting that I just wonder if
Americans even see it because the regime media hides it. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (44:30):
All right, let's go back to the phones all as
in Salt Lake City tonight here on the Rodd and
Greg Show. Al, how are you? Thanks so much for
joining us.

Speaker 13 (44:38):
Oh, thank you, sir.

Speaker 3 (44:39):
Listening to you guys all the time.

Speaker 1 (44:41):
Thank you.

Speaker 3 (44:41):
I just want to make a comment, you don't necessarily
need college to have a great I'll pay so to
speak because again, you know, I actually did go in
the Marine Corps right out of high school. I was
doing environmental health and safety, got out of a marine corps,
went to work for environmental health and safety companies, and

(45:02):
I've made over one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a
year since buy what I was doing in the marine Corps.

Speaker 1 (45:07):
Good for you, Wow, congratulations out I was good. That's good.
I had my brother, Well, my wife's oldest brother, uh
enrolled in the Air Force. He wanted to be a dentist,
so he was. He was in the Air Force. They
told him to be a dentist. Once his commitment to
the Air Force was done, he set up his own practice,
had a very successful practice for a long long time.

Speaker 2 (45:28):
Well that's I think that's great. Yeah, I think that works.
And I look again, if you get into the medical field,
you're gonna have to go.

Speaker 1 (45:35):
To some school training.

Speaker 2 (45:37):
And I get that. And I think even you know, electrician,
you know you're gonna have to be if to be
an electrician, you where you could shock and kill someone,
you better have some better know what you're doing. That's
not college, that's trade schools. But same thing. There are
some some things that are just very specific and you
should everything else you watch, especially with AI. I think

(45:57):
that these degrees, especially these ender studies and these all
these different weird ones, I think that take them off
the general education list. Go back to your classic education
for your general led and see what you get.

Speaker 1 (46:11):
You have to all right, more coming up are your
calls and comments on The Rotten Gregg Show. If an
undergraduate programs graduates don't earn more than workers who never
went to college. The program could be cut off from
federal student loans. We're getting your reaction to it.

Speaker 2 (46:26):
Yeah, I think I think there's some practicality that needed
to happen, given especially how much people go into debt. Okay,
let's go to our great listeners. Let's go to the
Bart and Caysville have been patiently waiting. Welcome to the
Rot and Gregg Show Bart.

Speaker 3 (46:38):
Chapter.

Speaker 15 (46:39):
Dude, gentlemen, I would say that the basic idea that
college is supposed to equal money is a flawed concept,
even though that's what everybody does. I think that the
end of going to college is knowledge, and because knowledge

(46:59):
is intrinsically valuable, that's been monetized over time. But it's
kind of a false understanding of the purpose of higher education.
I just got an MS or an m A degree
up at us U, and I saw the impact of
what you're talking about. Everywhere programs are panicking because they're

(47:21):
graduating people that can't get jobs. I mean, I'm really
I understand that. I think there's a lot of wasted time,
space and effort spent on you know, basket weaving and
all the various studies all the you know, the study
X and study YI, which is pathetic, But that's that's

(47:44):
more an issue with with people getting easy money to
go to college, whether it comes from the government or
their parents, and people not doing their due diligence into
why they're there in the first place. So, like you
were saying before, I also graduated with a history degree
back in the eighties, hey Bart, And then I went

(48:04):
back just yeah, just recently. And so I understand the
consternation about I did history and policize, so I double majored.
But and I also went in the military, and so
I found that an easy road into that. But you know,
history taught me to think and when no matter where
I went in the world, whether I was in Afghanistan

(48:26):
or in Europe or in Africa, I could relate to
people because I knew their story. And I found that
really really valuable.

Speaker 10 (48:35):
Because other people that were.

Speaker 15 (48:36):
Business majors or that had some other kind of practical degree, yeah,
they were good in their field, but they did not
understand culture.

Speaker 13 (48:45):
They didn't understand language.

Speaker 2 (48:47):
That Bart didn't understand history. Let me ask you two questions.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but These are
the two things that's come to mind. One is the
critical thinking and the ability to learn, learning how to learn.
But even what you learn, are you trusting it that
it is what today what it would have been back
when you were in school. That's the first question is
are you really learning like like, are those schools just

(49:08):
getting a little bit too propaganda or they too ideologically bent?
Second is these kids, especially if you're not on Utah,
you're walking out of there with a couple hundred grand
in debt you have to put you have to tether
it to some kind of job because you're staring at
bills as soon as you get out of college. Hasn't
hasn't hired itself, tethered itself to professions because you need

(49:29):
to pay off all those loans. So the question is
is it's still educating? Is it still higher education as
we used to know it? And what do you do
about all that tuition that you end up racking up
when you go?

Speaker 15 (49:40):
The ideology question is is front and center. And the
reason I went to USU living in Kaysville instead of
you or backup to Weber or something like that, is
because I wanted to escape the wokeism I wanted to
escape the ideology. But what I found at USU if
it was everywhere, yes, all but every every professor had

(50:06):
a little rainbow flag and it would say ally on it,
and there was banners all over and and there were,
you know, transgender people everywhere until until just last spring
when when the when the governor came out and they
did like a band. You know, it's like it's illegal
to do that now, so that.

Speaker 12 (50:24):
They had to shift all their departments.

Speaker 15 (50:26):
So I think that's a real concern and it definitely
undermined the purpose again of education.

Speaker 2 (50:34):
Which I asking this question, but I just wanted to
hear his take.

Speaker 1 (50:39):
All right, let's go to Western Cageville, West wigh in
on this. What do you say?

Speaker 6 (50:45):
So, I think you're gonna have a lot of military
guys calling.

Speaker 14 (50:54):
I'm another one of them guys.

Speaker 8 (50:55):
I was.

Speaker 16 (50:56):
I joined to know three and I searched for four
years and then got out and then ended up doing
another seventeen in the reserves.

Speaker 8 (51:02):
And the.

Speaker 16 (51:06):
I tried going to school to college for a year.
I was I was going to go get a criminal
justice degree, and it just it didn't it didn't feel
right to me, and I ended up going into it.
Uh And the thing I found is that it the
IT industry doesn't really care about your you know, your

(51:28):
your college degree. It cares about certifications, whether or not
you know a specific you know, uh enough that.

Speaker 1 (51:37):
Of support and.

Speaker 3 (51:40):
For this.

Speaker 16 (51:43):
For that when we talk about this this bill, I
think it's a really good idea because I mean, if
you think about it from a business perspective, Let's say
you own, like a restaurant or something, you wouldn't hire
a ferrier to you know, work at your restaurant and
just keep them on the payroll because you know, what's
he going to do?

Speaker 6 (52:02):
No horses around? That's true, you know, So.

Speaker 16 (52:06):
It makes you know, I make six figures a year
and I don't have a degree. You know, I have
a bunch of certifications in the I T industry, But
you know, it doesn't. And that's not to say that
you know, certain degrees aren't aren't aren't profitable. There's there's
a bunch of smart guys I work with that have degrees,

(52:27):
and you know, they do really smart guy things and
you know they're they got they got a lot of knowledge.

Speaker 1 (52:33):
Yeah, but yeah, you're doing your thing. You're right, Wes,
You're right, Yeah, that's right. Ye, all right, we've got
more calls and some of our talk about comment. Yeah,
we'll get back to your thoughts coming up on the
Route and Greg show that a certain program people graduate
from there are actually earning money, making a lift, and
if they don't, they may lose their opportunity to have
so much.

Speaker 2 (52:53):
Students always had some pros and content with whether income
is your your sole measure of whether that that education's
worth it. And I hear what they're saying, but there's
still bills at the end usually when you're done, and
a life to proceed upon on. So I think the
compensation does play into that. Okay, let's go back to
our listeners. Let's go to Calor Larry, who's in Lehi. Larry,

(53:14):
thank you for holding. Welcome to the Ron and Gregg Show. Well,
thanks for having me from Kaysville to Lehigh. And I'm
a veteran there you go. Thank you for your service.

Speaker 1 (53:27):
So many so many military.

Speaker 17 (53:29):
But my work, I'm a consultant for higher educationation. I
help schools to become accredited, institutionally accredited, and I help
them to get out of accreditation jail, right, and so
this whole regulation came from the one big, beautiful bill
Ernest premium. And so what I like about it is,

(53:53):
for the first time, the Education Department is holding public
institutions and private institutions and for profit institutions accountable. And
so that may sound really crazy, but in the past
they've always gone after for profit and the publics have

(54:14):
always got away with not being held accountable for outcomes,
and same with private and so what this has done
is it's made it so that schools have to pay
more attention to outcomes like retention, placement and those kinds
of statistics that schools are going to be held accountable to.

(54:37):
And it works like this. After one year, if your
program doesn't meet the thresholds, then you have the opportunity
to revise the program or.

Speaker 10 (54:49):
Close it out.

Speaker 17 (54:50):
And if you revise it, you get another year, and
if you don't meet the outcomes at the end of
two years, you'll never ever get a student loan money
for that program. So I just thought that would help you.

Speaker 1 (55:04):
Yeah, real quick, how is the educating you work in education?
How is the education community responding to this? How are
they responding to it?

Speaker 17 (55:12):
Oh? Well, people are afraid, you know, I mean, let
me tell you what's going on. I mean, if you
watch the news, like there's one university back in the
East that is eliminating ninety programs. Wow, and that's because
they see it coming. I'm on the board of another

(55:35):
university and audio and video SAE they're going to have
to close down a location because they can't meet the premium.
There's no way with audio and video people, and you know,
the way to work doesn't And I'm on I'm chair
of the board of trustees of Brian University in Arizona,
and I will tell you they're very concerned. There are

(55:57):
programs they're eliminating because they know that they'll never make it.

Speaker 1 (56:01):
Yeah, all right, Larry, thank you. Interesting input on that.

Speaker 6 (56:04):
Great.

Speaker 2 (56:04):
I loved it. I mean that was that that isn't
that eye opening? He he helps with accreditation and an
accreditation jail. If they were going to they lost their
accreditation to get back be accredited. Uh, he helps them
through that. That's an interesting, great perspective, And I didn't know.
I mean, it doesn't surprise me, but wouldn't it be
something that public institutions of higher learning aren't held at

(56:25):
the same standard as others?

Speaker 1 (56:27):
Of course, you know, I want to bring up one point.
I think I've got time to get this in a
lot of this socialist movement in this country is being
led by young people. Young people who are frustrated, young
people who are over educated and underachieving. They're blaming the system.
They're blaming capitalism for this.

Speaker 6 (56:44):
Eh.

Speaker 1 (56:45):
Blame your education. Yeah, because get your education, give you
the skills you need to be able to have that job.
Maybe to affoord hours. Yep, that's where their angers should
be directed, my opinion. Third hour, they're routing Greg Show
coming up to stay with. Let's pull my little granddaughter

(57:11):
when she gets upset, she just goes.

Speaker 12 (57:13):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (57:16):
I think that's I think a primal.

Speaker 1 (57:17):
Grunty, primal grunt. Well, apparently illegal labor isn't farming's future.
Do you believe that? No is not? Apparently Uh. The
Department of Homeland Security's latest move limiting work spaces enforcement
and putting us up to immigration and customs enforcement raids

(57:39):
on farms around the country. Now, it protects some corporate
giants that are bleeding rural communities dry. So if you're
hiring illegals to work on a farm, you may get
an exemption. That sound like amnesty to you.

Speaker 2 (57:54):
It does? And is this the build it's in Congress
because we've got to We've got a motley crew of
Republicans are supporting it might be one from one one
from my Utah as well.

Speaker 1 (58:02):
Really, really well, let's find out what's going on here.
Joining us on our any hour Newsmaker line is Ammin Blair.
He is a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Amman,
how are you welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 13 (58:16):
I'm good, Thank you for having me.

Speaker 1 (58:17):
Aman, tell us exactly what's up with agriculture, illegal immigration
and boy does this sound like amnesty?

Speaker 3 (58:26):
Yeah?

Speaker 13 (58:26):
So, man, this is kind of a wicked problem and
the fact that we kind of created it, you know,
due to large, large industrial agriculture and their need for
cheap goods. What they did is a prioritized commodities outside
of the country because it's cheaper and and uh and

(58:46):
faster to produce. The can produca all year round given
certain climates. And so these corporations are international corporations, not
just the name for me meat packers that are currently
under investigation by the Trump administration, and so by by
focusing all their efforts and and and resources and and

(59:07):
UH policies and proposals UH to provide cheap imported goods.
What that does is then decreases the domestic supply and
it eradicates the competition. So a lot of times the
the your local farmers and ranchers really can't compete against
cheap imports. So they end up having to either go
bankrupt or go big to scale their their operation. And

(59:31):
when you do that, unfortunately they need labor and so
but because they're still making pennies on the consumer dollars
that they're receiving, they really can't afford, you know, living
wages for any American. No American is going to want
to work that type of labor. And so they have
two options. They can either do the H two a

(59:52):
visa route, or they can do the legal aliens and UH.
And it is very costly to do H two a
visa route. They have to pay for the sponsorship, they
have to pay for their paperwork to get done housing,
they have to go through multiple three letter agencies UH,
through their regulations and UH. And so they end up
just choosing the legal aliens. And so we've unfortunately created

(01:00:16):
a system where not only do we really Uh. Not
only do we rely on cheap imported commodities to feed ourselves,
we now rely on a kind of like a second
class citizen, uh, imported into the US to do the
dirty work.

Speaker 2 (01:00:30):
So, and I'll tell you the dilemma here. I think
that there's a bill in Congress that would say, if
you had been if you've worked in agriculture for last
two years or something, you would be There'd be a
you don't and you're not documented. There'd be some sort
of maybe amnesty is too strong a word, I don't
know what you want to call it, but there'd be
some pathway to stay and keep working. And here's my question.

(01:00:51):
I could hear the same argument made for construction, uh,
for for the services we could hotels and and the
service industry would probably make an argument similar to this.
Once you allow one segment of the workforce these kind
of accommodations, where do you how do you tell other
employers who may feel those margins are pretty challenging also

(01:01:12):
that they're not eligible for the same consideration.

Speaker 13 (01:01:17):
Yeah, you can't. That's the ag sector is now going
to be the overturn window. You know, once you say
yes to this, every other industry just like you said,
is going to say why them and not us? And
then in fact, if you look Mark ring Mullins actually
met with these sectors in the industries just recently to
talk about this and talk about the ice raids on

(01:01:39):
workforce work sites, and so really what we're doing is
we're just carving out immigration or really citizenship and for
industrial needs. And instead of looking at it as like
a system's approach and trying to figure out an actual solution,
they think it's by providing them a legalized way to

(01:02:01):
remain in the United States, thinking that that's going to
solve the problems, and unfortunately it's not going to. Look
you know, the Mexican cartels at the southern border, when
we whether it was in the first trip administration or
the Biden administration, we released certain individuals or family and
it's based off of their nationality and also the family

(01:02:21):
unit status, and so the cartels at that time would
just change documents, force them to throw their documents away.
Also they could fall within that category, and that policy
thin things going to happen here. How can we actually
vet and identify those in the AC sector and what
is considered an AG sector? Is that going to be

(01:02:42):
also the electricians that work on farms and ranches, welders
and you name it. And so it's going to be
very difficult to have a left and right limit on
who is and who is not part of this. And
then there's no vetting. Look, we can't even vet right
now who's coming at our southern border, let alone who's
on the here here.

Speaker 1 (01:03:02):
Em And as I'm reading through your story, it sounds
to me like these these big producers like like you mentioned, Tyson, Smithfield, Cargil,
are being given special treatment. What are they doing for
the little farmer, the little guy? I mean, are these
the guys that are really in trouble because of this policy?

Speaker 13 (01:03:20):
Emin one hundred percent, we're not doing anything really for
them at all. Right now, Like I said, there's an
executive order to conduct an investigation on antitrust laws against
the four Maybet packers. But look, the entire industry is
completely consolidated and verticalized, whether that is your retailer like

(01:03:40):
Walmart Krueger, they own such a large portion of the
share of the market, as well as even your equipment
like John Deere. The entire system is actually completely consolidated,
and it forces your independent farmer and rancher out of business. Look,
we've lost over one hundred and five thousand cattle ranches

(01:04:02):
in five years. We're continuously losing farms and ranchers. And
it's what's interesting. And you'll see the numbers and you'll
see the doubta and you're like, yes, but the family
farm and ranch is actually increasing in size. Well, that's
because these large corporations are feeding off these bankrupt farms
and ranches, consolidating them and growing their operations. So really

(01:04:23):
it's only helping and benefiting a select few that are
actually international corporations. They're extracting money from rural America as
opposed to having a decentralized programer and process and resources
in businesses. Really we need to focus on the main
Street of America as opposed to the Wall Street, and

(01:04:44):
these corporations represent that Wall Street.

Speaker 2 (01:04:46):
So you know, yeah, so what that does not sound
like a free market to me? That sounds like we
have anti trust laws that are being broken, because you know,
if you look at a grocery stores, you know, we
have a large grocery store store chain here that another
large grocery store couldn't buy it because it would have
too much strength in the market. You see that with hospitals.
How is it that we're seeing the consolidation of so

(01:05:08):
many different industries and it's not having federal antitrust laws
getting in the way or stopping it from happening.

Speaker 13 (01:05:16):
Yeah. So if you look at there was a really
good case, a cargo case in the nineteen eighties, and
this came up, and at the same time under the
Reagular administration, there was a man from the Chicago School
of Economics called Robert Borke. Robert Borke shifted the idea
of what antitrust means for him and the consumer welfare

(01:05:37):
doctrine and means that antitrust really is about getting cheap
products and that the consumer must be at the forefront.
So it's all about affordability, not market consolidation. And so
when we lost that case in the nineteen eighties, that
really spiraled the growth of these large corporations to what
we have today. And what many people think is we

(01:05:59):
have to wait for the federal government to act, and
that's only the case. Actually, the first anti trust laws
were actually built by states. Texas was second, and we
actually conducted an anti trust case against the Rockefeller Foundation
in nineteen oh five when it was the cotton in
Texas working a hand in hand with the rail and

(01:06:21):
they were not only concentrating the area, but they were
also fixing prices and whatnot because they had so much
market space in that area. So we could definitely do
it today. You don't have to wait for the federal government.
Your attorney general in each state could actually go after
each and every one of these and conduct anti trust

(01:06:43):
lawsuits and investigations into each and every one of these
organizations in nextities.

Speaker 1 (01:06:48):
Evin, thanks for the information. We'll have to see what happens.
Thank you for your work on this.

Speaker 13 (01:06:54):
Yeah, thanks for having me all right on.

Speaker 1 (01:06:55):
Our Newsmaker line. That's Ammon Blair is with the Texas
Public Policy Institutes taking a look at illegal labor and farming.

Speaker 2 (01:07:03):
Well, we talked about these young people, you know that
they might lose faith in a free market because we're
thinking what we have today isn't a free market, or
saying that the free market's failium I would say this
is big government and big business merging at the expense
of American people. That isn't a free market.

Speaker 1 (01:07:17):
At the American farmer and what do you say one
hundred and five thousand ranchers we've lost in the last
five years.

Speaker 2 (01:07:23):
Yes, and I and look, I wonder beef is so Yeah,
and it's in the processing of beefs down to three
three companies now Asure company.

Speaker 1 (01:07:31):
Yeah. More coming up, Rod and Greg with you on
this Monday and Talk Radio one oh five nine South.
Before the break, Greg about you know, these major corporations
and what they're doing and when it comes to agriculture
and using illegal immigrants to work the farms and stuff
like that, and the concern that some farmers have out
there that you know sooner or later the you know,
the big farm companies are giving special treatment whereas the

(01:07:54):
small farming is not getting a break at all.

Speaker 6 (01:07:56):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:07:56):
Capitalism Yeah, yeah, Well, if you ever heard of the
ten plus rule when it comes to the creation of wealth,
for one person that creates wealth, ten more people become wealthier.

Speaker 2 (01:08:07):
Yeah, that would be a supply side economics.

Speaker 1 (01:08:10):
Well, Jeff Bezos has come up with an idea. You know,
Fortune magazine ranks the richest people in the world. Yes,
he says, why don't you rank the people who created
more wealth for other people? Oh, wouldn't that be better?
Listen what he had to say, let me see if
I can find this audio bite real fast of what
he said about wealth creation.

Speaker 18 (01:08:31):
Somebody needs to make a list where they rank people
by how much wealth they've created for other people. And
so instead of the Forbes list that ranks you by
your own wealth. So you know Amazon's market caps two
point three trillion today, I owned about, you know, two
hundred billion ish of it. So if you take two

(01:08:56):
point three billion and subtracted out the piece I cut
for myself, then you know I've created something like two
point one trillion of wealth for other people. That should
put me pretty high on some kind of list. And
that's a better list. You know, how much wealth have
you created for other people?

Speaker 1 (01:09:15):
You know, that's a good question because the socialist movement
in this country is attacking people like base On.

Speaker 2 (01:09:20):
That's right.

Speaker 1 (01:09:21):
Well, look how many other people are getting wealthy as
a result of what he's done.

Speaker 2 (01:09:25):
Well, we've always said that the free market and a
free you know it, free markets lift more people out
of poverty than any you know, un program, federal program,
state program, county program, you name it combined. The free
market has delivered more people out of poverty than any
of those government sponsored programs, and so it stands the
reason of what he's saying is right. And you know
what else, that would out all these trust fund babies

(01:09:46):
inheriting their money where they haven't made anything. They're just
living off the interest that they were given when they
were born. We get those trust fund babies and out them.

Speaker 1 (01:09:55):
How many people have been lifted out of poverty by socialism?

Speaker 2 (01:09:58):
I'd say zero. How many people have murdered by communism? Millions, millions,
one millions.

Speaker 1 (01:10:03):
All right, we were talking about the value of a
college education earlier, getting some phone calls, but we got
some talkback comments as well. Listen, let's listen to what
some of our listeners are suggesting when it comes to
the value of a college education.

Speaker 19 (01:10:18):
A lot of things well great to know, are not
necessary for survival and life. So those degrees that aren't
making the money that supports a family, I say, audios.

Speaker 1 (01:10:31):
Good point.

Speaker 2 (01:10:32):
See. The interesting thing about twenty twenty six is it
self learning is a real thing.

Speaker 8 (01:10:36):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:10:36):
Before you had to go to an institution, I hire
learned to really get access to maybe the best thought
or different philosophical belief, whatever it might be. But we
can self teach now we can learn the world's are oyster.
With technology, you can explore and learn. You don't need
the school the way you used to used to. Yeah,
so I like it ought to be. How are you

(01:10:58):
going to make it? What are you going to do?

Speaker 1 (01:10:59):
Are we hurting our children when it comes to AI?
And like we bring this point up. I use A
and A I all the time anymore, chat gd GPT, Right,
I've got a question? What about A?

Speaker 2 (01:11:12):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:11:13):
Right? It used to be we had to go dig
it out. Yeah, and sometimes sometimes encyclopedias.

Speaker 2 (01:11:20):
Well, I got to warn you, folks, if you're if
you if you think AI is giving you all the answers,
be careful because if you use it like Google where
you're trying to get a factual answer, the AI is
still not accurate. If it's how a process? How do
I start a business? Well, we're all the elements of
starting a business. You might get the right answer. But
I asked it a question. I can't what was it about?

Speaker 1 (01:11:41):
It was like you actually argued with I did.

Speaker 2 (01:11:44):
I told it it was it was just Nicky flores.
I wanted to know more about and they said that
nicky floor and my II told me that NICKI Flores
didn't have anything to do with Trump's dress on Thursday.
I said, you are absolutely wrong. He absolutely does. He
even put the information in his uh that you could
look at why house dot com. And then you know what.
The answer from AI was, I stand corrected your.

Speaker 1 (01:12:04):
Correct You felt good because you beat AI.

Speaker 2 (01:12:06):
No, I don't because everything the only every time I
already know an answer. And I asked AI whether it
be Grock, Chap, GPT, whatever it is, it gives me
the wrong answer told me I had twelve refineries when
I had seven. It's it's just not accurate. You can't
gotta be careful with AI. It doesn't know facts like
you think it does.

Speaker 1 (01:12:24):
I couldn't tell me.

Speaker 2 (01:12:25):
Yeah, and I yell at it too, you know what,
and it hears me because it apologizes it does. Oh,
by the way, you got to see what AI said
about your car. I didn't even ask about your car.

Speaker 1 (01:12:35):
What my car?

Speaker 2 (01:12:36):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:12:37):
What are you asking AI about my.

Speaker 2 (01:12:38):
Picture of my car? And I was saying something and
then it ripped on your car while I was talking
about my car.

Speaker 1 (01:12:42):
Was it ripping on my car?

Speaker 2 (01:12:44):
He said, compared to mine? I looked like it was
a It was a it was a training car for
valet service. I'll show it to you. It was amazing
what it said.

Speaker 1 (01:12:50):
Did I ask you to compare the both I did.
It wouldn't know it.

Speaker 2 (01:12:57):
I was asking only about my car and it and
it said that car that that said your brand, It
said that car next to it, and it ripped on
it by itself. I didn't even prompt it. Yeah, huh,
I'll show you.

Speaker 6 (01:13:09):
All right.

Speaker 1 (01:13:09):
Back to our talk headline.

Speaker 20 (01:13:11):
I went to college many years. I have a master's
degree in nursing as a nurse practitioner. My degree does
not earn me as much as I was hoping, but
it is. It was a good education.

Speaker 1 (01:13:30):
And I want to add to that, Greg, what this
color just said. If you're happy doing what you're doing,
maybe you aren't making a ton of money in the world,
but you're just happy. Yeah, and you know, okay, should
we be critical of that, No, Jahn.

Speaker 2 (01:13:44):
If you think you're learning to learn, that's great. I
just don't even have the faith that you're learning critical
thinking or there's a diversity of thought happening in our institutions.
I hire learning where you're getting the full picture. I'm
afraid that the universities are made up of professors where
the saying goes, if you can you do, if you can't,
you teach. And you've got a bunch of professors out
there that are arrogant, they've got God complexes, they've never

(01:14:08):
had to make it out there in the real world now,
and they push philosophies and beliefs that they've never had
to apply themselves. And frankly, I don't think work. And
but they get to talk about it because there's no
check to what they say or say. You know, you're
actually completely wrong about what you're what you're promoting, or
what you say is the better way, And so I

(01:14:28):
I don't Maybe there's areas and fields where you can
still learn a lot and get something from it. I
fear that universities are getting so so hardcore, left driven
that you're not getting the full picture.

Speaker 1 (01:14:42):
You know, I don't know how you feel. I've been
doing this for more than fifty years now. Wow, that's
a long time, right that all I thought it was
way longer that I have never felt like this as
a job.

Speaker 2 (01:14:55):
No, No, that's and.

Speaker 1 (01:14:57):
I've done a lot. I've done all kinds of things,
from spinning the hits to managing. I've never felt it
like a job. And if you feel like that, I
really don't care how much money you make. Sometimes you
just make a good living. You're fine.

Speaker 2 (01:15:11):
Charles Schultz, who is the artist who created Charlie Brown Peanuts, Peanuts, Yeah,
he said the secret of Many people have said this,
but he said, the secret of life is doing something
you love.

Speaker 1 (01:15:20):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:15:21):
And I don't think Charles Schultz said I want to
be a multi millionaire. I know what I'll do. I'll
draw cartoons. I don't think that's how that went. I
think he did what he loved. He was an artist,
he loved cartoons. He was so good at it, and
it didn't feel like a job that he saw monetary success.
But I don't even think as you as you say
the monetary success is the is the measure. It's that
if you are fortunate enough to find something that's a

(01:15:43):
soul's code, something that you love, something that you would
do without it being a job, consider yourself lucky. And
I think that is the key to.

Speaker 1 (01:15:50):
You you're doing. Do you love public policy?

Speaker 3 (01:15:53):
I do.

Speaker 2 (01:15:53):
I love public policy. I love politics. I love being
on here. I had to beg you how many years
before you let me the door.

Speaker 1 (01:16:01):
Actually, but I mean, I'm the goofy kid, Greg who
would take this really dates me? A transistor radio, remember
transistor radio?

Speaker 13 (01:16:11):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (01:16:11):
I would tape it to my bike handles so I
could drive around and have a radio with you.

Speaker 2 (01:16:16):
Sound like Rush Limbaugh. Remember Rush Limbaugh came from a
family of doctors and lawyers, and the Limbaughs were not DJs.
We're not in the social economic status of the Limbaugh families. Uh.
And his name was Rush for heaven's sake, but he
it was in his soul's code. He was he was
doing the same thing you were as a little kid,
and he was pretending he was on the radio, and
his father was disappointed, and everybody's like, oh my gosh,

(01:16:37):
what are you doing? And he bounced around for a
while before he finally hit the you know, the show
and the vehicle that brought him to who he is.

Speaker 1 (01:16:44):
I remember, late at night, because of the signal and
the skips that you get, I'd stay up and I'd
tune the radio and try and list his stations that
we could get GRENA. We'd get w ABC out of
New York, We'd get w ls LS out of Chicago.
On you know, scratch you. But I tuned just so
I could hear it.

Speaker 2 (01:17:02):
Yeah, you're okay, that is the story I've heard. Familiar.
That's a familiar story to people who is what they.

Speaker 1 (01:17:08):
Want in this industry. If it gets in your blood.

Speaker 2 (01:17:10):
You've been in many versions of it too. You haven't
just been in radio, television and on the executive level,
not just on the entertainment side.

Speaker 1 (01:17:17):
But see, I go back to the point, if you
love it, if you love something you're doing, Yes, I
don't think the monetary value comes into plays.

Speaker 2 (01:17:25):
And if going to make love to learn and you're yeah,
you don't want to be almost doing it, so you
got to you got to figure out how you're paying
the bills, how you're making the mortgage and whatever, paying
the rent. But but yeah, I do think there is
something something beautiful about being able to do something you
truly love.

Speaker 1 (01:17:40):
Yeah, all right, more coming up here on the Rod
and Gregg Show and Utah's Talk Radio one oh five
nine to a NRS. What's going on? There was this
White House report coming out taking a look at what's
going on at the Smithsonian Institute. Something that you've experienced, Yes,
and a lot of discussion about that.

Speaker 2 (01:17:57):
It scarred me. I just didn't know, Like I said,
I just the things that they were attaching our history,
the motivations behind our history were just draconian and inaccurate
in my mind.

Speaker 1 (01:18:07):
Yeah, well I couldn't believe it. Yeah, well, there's a
lot of discussion about what's going on there. And joining
us on our Any Hour Newsmaker line right now is
Alan Mendenhall. He is a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
He looks at economic policy studies. Alan, thanks for joining
us tonight. I want to ask you. You say there's
more to what's going on at the Smithsonian Institute, more

(01:18:27):
than just the displays. What do you mean by that
and what do you have found out?

Speaker 12 (01:18:30):
Well, I guess so I went to graduate school, got
a PhD in English, and I was immersed in the
Marxism that was in these English departments. So sometimes you
get this vocabulary, or you get these ideological frames, and
people are operating within within those and they don't even
realize that that's what they're doing. And I think that's

(01:18:51):
what's happening at the Smithsonian. So it is incorporating sort
of this residual Marxism. So it's not out there doing
just pure Marxist economics, but it's using frameworks of oppressor
and oppressed, and it's borrowing from people like Gromsky and
Stuart Hall and Louis Altouse who are trying to take race, gender,

(01:19:16):
sexuality and pull those through Marxist theories. And that's what
you're seeing at the Smithsonian. So things that they're doing,
for example, would be they're using race, gender, climate change, immigration,
economic inequality, all these kinds of things in their exhibits,

(01:19:39):
and it's meant to influence the way people think about history.
And so they are politicizing the history in a way
to try to shape opinion so that people leave the
Smithsonian with a different view of American history than sort
of anything that would be favorable.

Speaker 2 (01:20:00):
You mentioned that this is something that's been long standing.
I have just maybe it's a Neanderthal. I just noticed it,
you know, blatantly as of late maybe last summer, taking
my family to the American History Museum, it Smithsonian. How
did it manifest itself prior to the way they blatantly
say that circuses were created because we wanted to We
are colonialists and imperialists and we wanted to take over

(01:20:20):
the world. What were they doing all this time to
maybe set the table for what we see today.

Speaker 12 (01:20:26):
So are you talking about the people who are doing
Marxist theory? Are the people who are curating the museums.

Speaker 2 (01:20:32):
I've actually conflated them. Maybe I shouldn't have, but I've
actually thought they were one and the same.

Speaker 12 (01:20:38):
Yeah, well, I mean I think now they pretty much
are one and the same. Regardless of whether these people
sort of identify as Marxist, what they're doing is they're
taking from classical Marxism this notion of oppressors and oppress
which in the Marxist sort of vocabulary would be like

(01:20:58):
the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. But then they're building on
what these cultural Marxists did, like so people like Grovsky
or Adorno or Marcusa, and they're trying to show that,
you know, we have to capture these institutions. We have
to capture schools, we have to capture universities, we have

(01:21:18):
to capture the media, we have to capture the entertainment industry.
This is what these cultural Marxists were doing because they
realized that, oh no, the proletariat never rose up and
overthrow the work overthrew the working class.

Speaker 3 (01:21:33):
Why is that?

Speaker 6 (01:21:34):
Why did that not happen?

Speaker 12 (01:21:35):
And then they said, well, it's because all these types
of institutions like the ones I just listed are basically
they didn't use the term brainwashing, but that's basically what
they suggested, that these institutions are informing the way people think,
and therefore we have to capture those institutions. So all
these Marxist theories theorists since the nineteen sixties have in

(01:21:57):
succession been advocating for ways to capture institutions ideologically, and
so we act like we're surprised, Like you say, like
when did this happen? Like it seems like it's been
that way for a long time. Well, some people seem
really surprised that it's that way, when in reality you've
got all these Marxist theorists that are outlining a playbook,
you know, over half a century ago.

Speaker 1 (01:22:19):
Now, yeah, Alan, why are institutions like this Smithsonian and others?
Why are they so vital to America? And that we
get the story straight?

Speaker 12 (01:22:30):
Well, because it's important because we need to have a
real understanding we need when we make decisions every day
about what we're going to do in our lives, what
we're going to do in our careers, how we're going
to treat people. You know, we need to base those
things on facts and reality and not on you know,
falsehoods or not on not on particular ideologies that are

(01:22:55):
meant to destroy and to tear down because society needs
people who are building things that we need to build,
institutions we need to grow, you know, and and all
these ideologies are specifically meant to tear things down.

Speaker 17 (01:23:10):
And that is.

Speaker 12 (01:23:13):
What's been happening is we're losing the America that we built.
So you know, all the great institutions, from checks and
balances to federalism, our constitutional structure, our Bill of Rights,
all these things are being diluted and replaced by grievance culture.

(01:23:34):
And that's particularly bad because it is actually Western culture
that did things like abolished the slave trade, abolished slavery.
The West never invented slavery, but it was the very
first sort of culture to start getting rid of it.
I mean, slavery was ancient, It existed in ancient civilizations,
it existed everywhere, it existed in the medieval world, and

(01:23:57):
really it was Western thought, a combination of enlightenment ideas,
commitments to natural rights and human equality and liberty, combined
with sort of Christian teachings on the inherent dignity of
the human person. These are all Western things, and they're
what enabled slavery to reach its demise. And when you

(01:24:19):
start saying, okay, everything from the West is bad, everything
that has to do with the foundations of America, they're
all bad, Well, then you're going to replace those things
with I guess tyrannical structures and attempts to dominate, which
is exactly ironically what they are accusing, you know, the

(01:24:42):
sort of traditional way of looking at American history of doing.

Speaker 2 (01:24:45):
So here's my question. You're seeing this play out politically.
You're talking the philosophical maybe the lurch or the you know,
slousch towards Gomora that we've seen socialist communism, just Marxism
maybe take hold in our country. But you're seeing this weekend.
You're seeing Bill Maher, who's a liberal, He's saying, I've
read this Democrats, Socialists of America. I've read their platform.
I'd rather vote for Jadie Vance. You're seeing even crazy

(01:25:05):
James Carvell say, I'm we're not communist. I reject this
Bernie Sanders and that ilk of socialist slash communists are
probably more popular and politically powerful today than they've ever been.
Is that just within the Democrat Party that will alienate
itself from the electorate as a whole? Or do you
see that having any kind of traction all this work
that you just described to what end is this gonna is?

(01:25:27):
What's going to happen next?

Speaker 13 (01:25:29):
Well?

Speaker 12 (01:25:30):
I think it's a play for young people because all
these politicians know that young people are feeling disempowered and frustrated,
and we have this housing crisis and their saddable student
loans and they can't buy homes, and they're delaying marriage
and all these different things, and so they're trying to

(01:25:50):
take advantage of that moment and capture the hearts and
minds of young people. They know that if you can
take people who are struggling or who are you know,
young and susceptible to ideology, that you can get them
early and win them over. And that's where you get
all the man Damie and AOC type followers and the

(01:26:13):
Democratic Socialists of America and all that. But I think
if you combat those types of arguments with history, with
real history, with data with evidence, and you make a
rational case for your point of views, and you do
it based on argumentation, and you do it based on
principle that in the long run you win.

Speaker 1 (01:26:35):
Alan Mendenhall, he's from the Heritage Foundation talking about the
Smithsonian Report issued by the White House. More coming up
on the Rod and Greg show movie The Odyssey over
the weekend. Yeah, liked it, enjoyed it, and there are
some weird parts of it. Yeah, every way the PC.

Speaker 2 (01:26:52):
People add some negative buzz amongst con service. It's kind
of is politically correct or something. I don't know what woke.

Speaker 1 (01:26:59):
Yeah, but I thought it was a good movie and
there was some Matt Matt Damon really does a good job.

Speaker 2 (01:27:04):
He does.

Speaker 1 (01:27:04):
Yeah, good, he does a good job with this one.
It's long, three hours almost three hours.

Speaker 6 (01:27:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:27:10):
Hey, did you see the protests broke out about National
Parks or cutting there's a protest on fifth or sixth
East and South Temple, uh, protesting the cuts on National
Parks parkland or.

Speaker 1 (01:27:25):
Is it staircase?

Speaker 2 (01:27:30):
People in the Royal you tell, they're very happy they live.
They're very they're very happy they live on that land,
they live around that land. They were never bad stewards
of that land. So yeah, they're the ones. Their voice
is what counts.

Speaker 1 (01:27:41):
The people are protesting are people who were socked with
their sandals.

Speaker 2 (01:27:44):
Yeah, they are people that humans are the enemy and
they want humans or the enemy. They want all humans
off of all land.

Speaker 1 (01:27:50):
Yeah, well, so good luck on that one. Did you
ever compete in track or run at any time?

Speaker 2 (01:27:57):
You know? I laughed because I run.

Speaker 8 (01:28:00):
No.

Speaker 2 (01:28:01):
Really, if there was a fight or flight instinct, I
gotta go with the fight because there's no flight in me.
I run like a duck. I've been mocked about how
I run. I can't. Yeah, no, No, I was never
found on a track meet at a track meet ever.

Speaker 1 (01:28:13):
Why I used to run. I used to enjoy running.

Speaker 2 (01:28:15):
Ran odd gate.

Speaker 1 (01:28:16):
I ran several ten caves and a couple of half marathons.

Speaker 2 (01:28:20):
Yeah, I have an odd gate. I don't know why.
I just have never been I don't know why, but
I've never been one. That's no, you don't.

Speaker 1 (01:28:29):
Actually does Queen Bee have video of you running?

Speaker 2 (01:28:31):
No, but she would tell you that I run like
a duck, not her, everybody, anyone that's ever seen me run.
I had to chase down a cab. My wallet fell out.
I was traveling, and the people I was traveling was
they saw me just burst out of this hotel. There's
like a half round. I had to get to the
other side of that guy got with my wallet. Yes,
And when I walked back to that group after catching
all the cab They're like, what just happened? What was

(01:28:53):
that you just did? That's the We never want to
see that again. So I guess I have a I'm
a bit of a spectacle and I'm runn well.

Speaker 1 (01:29:00):
I bring this up because a brit by the name
of Josh Kerr smash the men's mile world record, which
has stood since nineteen ninety nine.

Speaker 2 (01:29:11):
It's amazing. I thought it'd be. Yeah, so it's uh
Scott is from Scotland.

Speaker 1 (01:29:16):
He ran it in three minutes forty two point six
to six seconds.

Speaker 2 (01:29:21):
It averages like over sixteen.

Speaker 1 (01:29:23):
Miles miles an hour. He ran it. He maintained that pace.

Speaker 2 (01:29:26):
That is insane.

Speaker 1 (01:29:27):
I remember this, how old I am. When American Jim
Ryan broke the record and he got it to three
fifty one, I believe well, and now it's down to
three four.

Speaker 2 (01:29:36):
It was thought for the longest time that the human
body could not run a sub four minute mile.

Speaker 1 (01:29:42):
Well, yeah, I remember that Roger Banister broke.

Speaker 2 (01:29:45):
It cannot be done, and then it was done. Yeah,
Roger down to three forty two. She was that's crazy
sixty Yeah. I think he maintained sixteen and a half miles.
Did you make it one mad? Was he running for
his life? Maybe you get a little drowning up when
you made someone mad, you gotta run. Yeah, I don't know. Wow,
that's fast.

Speaker 1 (01:30:05):
Stood for twenty seven years, three forty two.

Speaker 2 (01:30:08):
Will it be broken?

Speaker 1 (01:30:09):
I bet it will be. Give it time, all right?
That does been for us. Tonight, head up, shoulders back,
and may God bless you and your family and this
great country of hours. We're back tomorrow at four. We'll
talk to you then

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Crime Junkie

NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal

.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: White House Smithsonian Report; Should ICE Wear Body Cameras; Who is Nikki Floris?

Episode Transcript

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

Popular Podcasts

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

Crime Junkie

NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal

All Episodes