The Rod and Greg Show: Why Fathers Matter; Trump is Threat to Ruling Class, Not Democracy

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
We've got a lot to go over, a lot to
a lot of power pack important information to unpack. Share
with you. There's a lot going on right now in
America but also around the world.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
It's your lucky day because you're listening to us.

Speaker 3 (00:13):
Is very lucky.

Speaker 1 (00:13):
That's that alone makes Friday the thirteenth glorious day.

Speaker 3 (00:17):
Uh huh, because it is the thing Greg and Rod
it's Friday the thirteenth.

Speaker 4 (00:20):
Well, we.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
Have got a lot going on, as you might suspect,
like Greg says, you know the new cycle anymore. We
started at eight thirty in the morning, we look at
what we want to talk about. By the time four
o'clock rolls around, we're talking about something completely different.

Speaker 3 (00:35):
I love it. I do.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
You got to be nimble. It's like you're in a
boxing ring. You got about Bob, We've you got to
be able to punch, You got counter to.

Speaker 2 (00:40):
Do it all. Well, this kind of extends. This happened
is we were just leaving their last night that Israel
was launching a series of attacks on Iran to prevent
that company country from getting its nuclear capability.

Speaker 5 (00:53):
Right.

Speaker 2 (00:53):
Yes, more details are coming out about this Greig and
this operation. Apparently eight years in the making, and this
is pretty amazing as to what they and what they
have done.

Speaker 5 (01:04):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
Iran responded today sending hundreds of ballistic missiles into Israel,
including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Modern technology was able to
knock out most of them, up a few did get through,
causing damage in Tel Aviv. I think we're aware of that.
We'll talk about that and get you up to data
on that. But the president, you know, the one thing
that I think the world is learning about Donald Trump.

(01:28):
When Donald Trump says you've got sixty days, You've got sixty.

Speaker 1 (01:32):
Days, is exactly if you go sixty one days, guess what, Yes,
the consequences will follow.

Speaker 2 (01:39):
And that's exactly what he did.

Speaker 1 (01:40):
They should be pay pay attention, folks. These numbers aren't
just random. If he says sixty days, you got sixty days,
you don't have sixty one, you got sixty You.

Speaker 2 (01:49):
Got sixty And he told him, you know, you got
sixty days to come to the table and get this
thing figured out.

Speaker 1 (01:54):
So Dana Bash gets on the on CNN this morning
and she sounds pretty stunned by the conversation. And I'm
probably the President Trump even talks speaks with Dana Bash
because she's just she's just not a she has no
integers when it comes to well, she's not and she
has such a liberal bent and she has such a
there I just don't he'll never get a fair shot
with her.

Speaker 3 (02:14):
So I don't know why he talks for her, but
he did, and she asked him. She said.

Speaker 1 (02:19):
She he mentioned that something about Israel, and she he said,
she said, so you're saying that, so President Trump. I'll
just read the post. It says President Trump tells CNN
that all the Iranian negotiators that they were in his
administration were working with are today killed. And Bash says,
so you're saying Israel has now killed the people who

(02:39):
you were dealing with. And Trump says, they didn't die
of the flu, they didn't die of covid. Okay, she's
really really like taking him back by this. It is
shocking that everyone that they were negotiating with, and the
and the story had been they were going to try
and negotiate through Sunday to see if they could come
up with something, and if Sunday, if they walked away
Sunday like without getting an agreement, all bets were off. Well,

(03:01):
I think Israel in the hopes of a maybe a
surprise attack so that there wouldn't be them moving critical
assets away or hiding.

Speaker 4 (03:10):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (03:10):
They they opted for the surprise attack. So it turns
out that the Negotia people that they thought they'd be
negotiating with through the weekend starting tomorrow are now room temperature.

Speaker 3 (03:21):
Are no longer with us. They're gone.

Speaker 2 (03:23):
They're going to be showing gone, they are going to
be showing up.

Speaker 4 (03:26):
No.

Speaker 1 (03:26):
In fact, that the top three defense ministry leaders of
Byron are also room temperature.

Speaker 3 (03:32):
They're they're done. They're not with us, They're they're gone.
They're not doing well.

Speaker 2 (03:35):
Well, we're gonna talk more about that. We'll talk about
what the president. His popularity is growing thanks to his
crackdown on illegal immigration in this country. We'll talk about
how the president is threatening the ruling class. We'll try
and figure this one out because we've talked about that. Sunday,
by the way, is Father's Day. Yes, new research out
on the importance of dad's.

Speaker 1 (03:56):
Super This is an important article, important interview that will
have about the role of fathers. And it's intuitive. Nothing
you're going to hear is going to surprise you. But
this has a lot of research behind us, so it
puts a lot of data behind what we already kind
of knew and from a you know, just instinctively.

Speaker 3 (04:12):
But it's good.

Speaker 5 (04:13):
Yeah. Good.

Speaker 2 (04:13):
We still have Keith Urban tickets to give away. We
also have tickets to give away to Rockstock twenty twenty five.
We've got those tickets, Greg, So you just want to
keep on listening, folks, because we are just a barrel
of fun as you head home on that's very hot.
Matter of fact, which ones are going to? Let me
tell you how we're doing, like with Keith Urban and

(04:34):
the rock Stock. Okay, Keith Urban. In one of our
bumper musics, coming out of a commercial break, we'll play
a well known Keith Urban hit and if you are
the fifteenth collar, you could win a pair of tickets
to see Keith Urban and concert coming up on July eighteenth.
Another chance to win as well, Greg, You can, yeah,
you can go on our talkback line so well.

Speaker 1 (04:55):
Yeah, the talkback line for what these tickets? Oh yeah,
so go on our talk back line. If you go
to the iHeartRadio app and you have the full station
on the full page, so not just the thread on
the bottom.

Speaker 3 (05:05):
So you touched the bottom. You have the full Uh.

Speaker 1 (05:07):
You see the one oh five nine can rest. You'll
see to the right a microphone red circle. You press
that and give us your best dad joke.

Speaker 2 (05:15):
Yeah, and you could win.

Speaker 3 (05:17):
You can win Keith Urban tickets.

Speaker 2 (05:18):
That's easy.

Speaker 3 (05:19):
But we also got the rock Stock. Yeah, twenty five tickets.

Speaker 1 (05:22):
The these cover bands are coming uh to uh Smith's
Ballpark and uh and if you're the fifteenth color, and
so we're picking the different bands that they're covering. So
today I think we did what do we do yet
Journey yesterday? Today it's Aerosmith.

Speaker 2 (05:36):
Yeah, and we've done the Eagles.

Speaker 1 (05:38):
We've done that, yeah, because the rock because the cover
bands are the Eagles, Queen, Journey, Aerosmith. So today when
you hear an Aerosmith song, be the fifteenth color uh
in the bumper music and you can win two tickets
to rock Stock. That's August second at Smith's ball Ballpark
at Salta Insult.

Speaker 2 (05:56):
Like a cover bands.

Speaker 1 (05:58):
I really like cover bands. Some like to cover something
bands better than they heard the original so much. I
liked the kind of the different take.

Speaker 2 (06:05):
Yeah, it's kind of fun. All right, Now let's dig
into what happened in Iran and Israeli. Some details are
starting to emerge as to what happened. But this attack
was I mean, they did no one knew about this, Greg.
I mean, they are so good, Masad and the Israeli
Armed forces defense forces are so good at keeping things quiet.

(06:27):
But the stories coming out now, the attack which took
place last night was partially launched.

Speaker 6 (06:33):
Now.

Speaker 2 (06:33):
I don't know how they did this, Greg, but apparently
they built a secret drone base near Tehran. It was
built by Massad. According to Israeli officials, these were activated
at the beginning of the assault to take out ballistic
missile launchers, ensuring that Iran would be unable to respond

(06:53):
during the attack last night. So Masad don't know how
they did it, but they built a secret drone base
in Iran, not far from Tehran, so they could That
was just one part of the operation.

Speaker 1 (07:06):
And they went into these like these military leaders that
they were getting attacked in their houses wherever they're sitting there,
probably having a nice dinner, and next thing you know,
there's a drone or something. I mean, they got taken
out immediately, all at the same time. That's the good
news for me. I think that's a well planned attack.
The only thing I got to ask is, look at
all this Chinese. All the China owns a lot of
land in the United States near our military bases. Can

(07:28):
we think about this a little bit and say, if
you can build drone bases, I hope we don't have
something like that going on here.

Speaker 5 (07:34):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (07:34):
Well, another thing the Israeli intelligence did apparently they now
again Greg, I don't know how they did this, but
they smuggled vehicles into Iran outfitted with weapons systems capable
of taking out Iranian air defenses when the attack was launched.
These systems provided the necessary disruption for Israeli pilots to

(07:55):
fly with air supremacy. So number one, they build a
drone base, no one saw it. Number Two, they smuggle
vehicles into I Run with all this high tech military
equipment so they could disrupt whatever A Run was trying
to do. How on Earth they did all of this
is amazing.

Speaker 1 (08:11):
Well they were prepared they I mean, it's pretty scary
when you think about if they got nuclear if they
had nuclear bombs. I don't know if Israel would ever
make it too. I think even Benjamin Etyahu said we
won't have a next generation if they get nuclear weapons.
And I do not believe he's inaccurate. I think that
is a true statement or there's enough evidence out there

(08:34):
to say that's a pretty reasonable conclusion. So the stakes
are as high as you get, and they wanted I
know that.

Speaker 3 (08:41):
I suspect.

Speaker 1 (08:42):
I don't know, but I suspect, having what I seen
what I've seen with the Trump administration that he was
really earnestly trying to give peace and a and a
smart negotiation a chance. He was in the Middle East,
he went through that tour. Even within his own cabinet,
UH and his administration, there were harsh feelings someone of
the reempt and attack I ran sooner than later, like

(09:03):
before now, there were those that went in his administration
that wanted to go and he wasn't going to do that.
He wanted to have this opportunity to try and get
this done through negotiations. Think about that. Contrast that with Ukraine.
Russia going into Ukraine. You never saw Biden move a
muscle trying to get in there and trying to negotiate something.
So I think the President did try to find a

(09:24):
smart and less you know, a way to find a
piece and make sure they never had any nuclear bombs weapons.
But it didn't work, and I and I don't. Israel
is well within their right to protect themselves.

Speaker 2 (09:38):
I say, and didn't didn't. Trump during his trip to
the Middle Ages, there are a few weeks ago, he
made an appeal to the Iranian people. He said, come
to the table, negotiate with us. We want your country
to be prosperous. We want we want your people to
grow to have prosperity. That's what we want. So just
come to the table and sit down and talk to us.
They didn't, so you know, oh, he gave them a

(10:00):
sixty days daged sixty one. Everything changed. The interesting thing
about this story is the number of people within Iran
who are opposed to the regime greg working now with
Israel to try and disrupt Iraq. I mean, it couldn't
have happened without their help as well.

Speaker 1 (10:18):
Yeah, and just so you know, the United States isn't
just watching from Afar. They have actually now engaged in
the missile defense the Iron Dome. Iran has now finally
been able to get their legs under them in terms
of sending over ballistic missiles into Tel Aviv and in Israel,
and so the Iron Dome has worked, but to some

(10:38):
an extent, it has required the United States to intercept
a number of those missiles to protect Israel. And they're
doing it and they will, they are an ally and
we'll will help protect them. But I really think that
Israel has had a plan. Took them a long time
to get it where they needed it. And I think
that when you saw last night, I wondered why we
didn't see such an immediate response, understand why it was?

Speaker 2 (11:01):
Well, I want to correct myself. I said, eight years
is actually a month since the since the attacks back
in October where Iran launch missiles into Israel again. And
I think Nettaya, who saw the speed in which they
were developing nuclear weapons that frightened him. He knew the
Iranian air force or its defense system had been weakened
because they sent so many missiles into Israel back in October,

(11:23):
and they were you know, they're getting very very close
to nuclear capability. And Netanyah who said, uh uh, we
are moving, and we are moving now and look what
they have done. Pretty amazing story. All right, we've got
a lot to get to today. Thanks for joining us.
It is the Rod and Greg Show on Talk radio
one oh five nine. Canness illustrates just how poorly Americans
view the Democratics party's job performance on immigration. Ready for

(11:46):
this one, Only nineteen percent of likely voters in swing
districts across the US approved of the Democrats handling of immigration.

Speaker 1 (11:57):
Only nineteen You know what, I know how to change.
I can fix it. I know how to fix it.
Let's go to Los Angeles and let's burn everything down
and let's put people on top of the cars with
Mexican flags at work. I do you think we go
north in nineteen?

Speaker 2 (12:12):
That great idea?

Speaker 1 (12:13):
I think that's I think that's the that's the secret.

Speaker 3 (12:15):
Sauce. I just I just laid it out.

Speaker 2 (12:17):
Joining that's on our newsmaker line is Ingrid Jaques. She
writes for USA Today. She says, because of these riots,
she's very glad that Donald Trump is president of the
United States. Ingrid, thanks for joining us. What makes you
say that.

Speaker 7 (12:32):
Well, that that's a question that's bigger than I am.
I think to be able to interpret what Democrats are thinking.
But they are clearly not happy with with what Trump's doing,
and they're resorting to these same tactics we saw during
Trump's first term, when it's just protest after protest, and

(12:58):
I found it quite tiresome in the first term, and
we are seeing it again, and I think it just
if you really look at what they're planning to do
on on on Saturday to counter Trump's army parade, the

(13:18):
No Kings, and then the other one is the Women's March,
and they're they're planning it's it's it's it's hard not
to laugh because they're they're planning this. They want everyone
to come dressed as clowns because they want to quote
kick out the clowns. I'm assuming uh Trump and the

(13:39):
Trump administration, but they even advertised it as fine to
circus near you is what they're calling their protest events.
So yeah, I think just how they're how they're putting
these events together says a lot about where they're coming from.

Speaker 3 (13:59):
It's it's are to watch.

Speaker 1 (14:00):
And I agree with you when you when you see
these images coming out of Los Angeles and the riot.
I don't know how they think any reasonable American would
walk look at that and think, well, yeah, Trump's certainly
a bad player in all this. I mean, you look
at that, and it's disturbing. And it's disturbing to see
the Democrats defend it to support it. You call it
an odd strategy. Let me ask you why why are

(14:22):
they doubling down doing what they did? It's a repeat
of the first term. But then you have a senator
like John Fetterman, a stroke victim of all that, is
actually really calling this out within his own party, saying
that there's this is crazy to not be condemning this violence.
How why does John Fetterer Why do you think John Fetterman,
of all people, gets it, but it doesn't seem like

(14:43):
anybody else in that political party gets it.

Speaker 7 (14:47):
Yeah, good point. And I have also noted noticed that
about John Fetterman, and I you know, I give him
kudos for standing up to members of his own party
because very few other Democrats are really no one comes
to mind that's done so as consistently as Futterman has,

(15:09):
and because of it, I think he's making himself a
real maverick. But he specifically called out the violence that's
happening in LA and just said there's no excuse for
his fellow Democrats to be condoning it or trying to
trying to paint it in a way that's just simply untrue.

(15:31):
I mean, what we're what we're seeing, we can see
on TV. I haven't been there on the ground as
of yet, but it's very clear some of these protests
have gotten out of control. There's been looting, there's been
car set on fire, there's been freeways blocked, like these
are real issues. But yet key Democrats, whether in Congress

(15:55):
or Kamala Harris, they refuse to condone it. And that
just really makes Democrats look like hypocrites, especially after the
last four years when they've been obsessing over January six.
But yet that's what they still point to. I wrote

(16:16):
about what's happening in LA, but probably one hundred responses
saying the same thing from liberals, like, well, how can
you criticize what's going on in LA when January six happened.
It's like, yes, January six was bad, but you have
to be able to point out what's wrong in your
own party in the current moment, and they're not doing it.

Speaker 2 (16:38):
I Angrid, do do you think in a way that
those on the left and the Democrats see what happened
in twenty twenty with all the protest and all the
rioting about the death of George Floyd thinking that that
is what got Joe Biden elected. It wasn't. It was
COVID and maybe some cheating on the voting in my opinion,

(16:58):
But do you think, well, the big protest again America
will will not love Donald Trump, as if half of
the country doesn't love them to begin with. I mean,
what are these demonstrations going to get the left? If anything?

Speaker 7 (17:12):
That's an excellent question, But I think we're in a
very different time right now. I mean twenty twenty you
were in an election year and COVID was going on.
There was just there was a lot of unrest in
the country. But I do think that's an interesting point,
and there certainly could be some who are trying to

(17:35):
maybe harness a similar movement. And you've got Randy Weingarten
with the AFT. She's a partner organization with no kings.
She obviously has an agenda, but is the fact she's
involved with this is very ironic to me. She's trying

(17:56):
to call Trump authoritarian but almost single handedly kept millions
of kids out of schools for over a year, and
in some cases a lot more than that. So I
don't think she has any moral high ground here.

Speaker 1 (18:11):
So there's but there's a there's a cynical saying about politicians.
It's is that the politician will look and say, where
are the people going? So I can lead them there.
That's kind of the what people have said. I I
don't think the Democrats are following that. I don't think
they're looking at where the people are going so they
can get out in front of that crowd and lead
them there. My question is, is their hatred for Trump

(18:34):
so severe for over a decade now that they can't
they have no moorings, they don't even see what they're doing.
They're unaware, or do they honestly think this that attacking
Trump still is a strategy, it's a it's a way
to get people on their side. Is it a logical
strategy for them or are they just are they truly
just suffering from Trump derangement syndrome?

Speaker 7 (18:58):
Excellent question, But I really think it's the latter. I
think they're so blinded by their hatred of Trump that
they just that's all they can see. They can't see
what's gone wrong in their own party. They can't see
why men are flocking to the Republican Party because they
can't stand what's coming out of the Democratic one, and

(19:20):
you know, they keep ciding on the wrong side of
these eighty twenty issues like boys and men in girls' sports.
I mean, the country is very strongly against that. Yet
Democrats keep trying to, you know, campaign on that issue
that they want transgender athletes in women's sports, and they

(19:44):
just refuse to see beyond that, you know, anything that
Trump is for there against. And the same goes with
illegal immigration. I think polls are they're finicky, but I
think the country is still the majority is still on
the side of what Trump has done on keep getting

(20:05):
the border under control and following through with deporting illegal immigrants.
He ran on that and he's doing it, and I
think the country is appreciative.

Speaker 2 (20:15):
I think they very much are. All right, jah and
good thank you more. Coming up it is the Friday
edition of the Rod and Greg Show on Utah's Talk
Radio one oh five nine. kN rs Hey, One thing
we want to mention are are good folks over at
Rock one oh sixty seven. You know Hooker and dB Yeah,
good guy, Monny guys, Well they've got to they've got
you have a chance to win a lot of money.

(20:35):
Five hundred dollars in their Father's Day golf tournament coming
up tomorrow. Now, if you want to register, possibly you
could win. All you do is have to dial pound
two fifty right now and say the keyword Father's Day.
You could be an automatic finalist in the Father's Day
Simulated golf tournament taking place tomorrow at Belly Fair Mall
from one to three. Chance to win five hundred dollars.

(20:57):
I'd go for that.

Speaker 3 (20:58):
I would too, Sign me up, all.

Speaker 2 (21:01):
Right, joining us now on our Newsmaker line. Always great
to have this gentleman on the show with him talking
about Paul Godfried. He's a historian, a philosopher, and associated
scholar at the Masn's Institute, but also a contributor to
the Blaze. He wrote this great article about how Donald
Trump threatens the ruling class or the polite classes. I
think Paul puts it. Paul, how are you welcome to

(21:22):
the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 8 (21:24):
Yeah, I'm doing fine. I'm glad you read my piece
on Blaize.

Speaker 5 (21:28):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (21:29):
Well, Paul, let me ask you about that piece because
one of the lines you talk about is it's just
his mannerisms, his style. Apparently it doesn't work well with
the culture class.

Speaker 4 (21:39):
Is that right? Is that right? Paul?

Speaker 8 (21:42):
Yeah, it doesn't work well with the cultured class, who
are selectively dign in twenty opens his mouth. But what
I suggest there is it may not be because they
don't like his syntax or because he doesn't say nice
things about his opponents. They don't like what he's doing,
you know, and as I suggest, if an impeccably polite
person like Mike Johnson were doing the same things, they

(22:05):
would attack him equally. So, you know, it dawned on
me after speaking to many of these polite people and
my family, among my former academic colleagues and so forth,
that they really don't give a damn about what Trump.
They don't like his policies, and they don't like that

(22:25):
he is encroaching on policies who are attacking policies they like,
like using the government to discriminate against white male Christians. Uh,
the fact that he's cutting down on bureaucracy, that he's
investigating NGOs which are being used to support leftist causes.

(22:47):
He's doing all kinds of things. And then he's trying
to seal the border, which is particularly bad for the
left because they want all these illegals to come in
as future Democratic voters. That's why they don't like him.
It's not because he doesn't speak in whole sentences or
because he occasionally, you know, insults his opponents. Because the

(23:07):
next to Joe Biden, next to the Democrats, he is
a paradigm you know, of courtesy and tact and so
the other side does much more of what they m
up doing. And as a matter of fact, they even incited,
they even incited as enemies to kill them. But that's
that's okay because you know, they're not being impolite. They're

(23:29):
simply defending democracy as we understand democracy, which may not
be the way we understand democracy.

Speaker 1 (23:36):
Paul, what do you think is is there a central
issue that he is just so interrupted or challenged that
they just liked having the rules set the way they did.

Speaker 9 (23:44):
Is it that?

Speaker 1 (23:45):
Is it an open border that they wanted and they
liked that? Is it our foreign policy where it's not
perpetual wars the military industrial complex?

Speaker 3 (23:55):
What is it? Is there?

Speaker 1 (23:56):
Can you pin maybe a major issue that the ruling
class is enjoyed supremacy over that he is just pushing
back and that's why they're so upset well, he's not
the ruling class.

Speaker 6 (24:07):
The problem.

Speaker 8 (24:09):
The ruling class were in power under Biden, and they
would have been under they were in power under Obama.
They'd be under power in power under Kamala Harris, who
was incapable of running anything. You know, she would just
be a figurehead, another figurehead president. So it's the fact
that he challenges these people frontally and suggests that, you know,

(24:31):
they do not represent the people, although they do represent them,
maybe half the people, but you know, at least a
half the population is on his side, maybe more than
half the population at this point. So what they don't
what they don't like is that he challenges their power,
challenges their policies, and challenges their attempts to perpetuate their power,

(24:53):
for which they need all the illegals. That's why they
want the illegals to come in. You know, they've lost
their traditional working class base, they gave that up. So
now now they depend on LGBT public sector unions and
more and more. I think they're they're going to, you know,
depend on these illegals to maintain their electoral hold, you

(25:14):
know where where they can still win elections in blue states. So, uh,
Trump is screwing this.

Speaker 2 (25:20):
Up for them, you know, Paul, I've always heard it
said that when it comes to Donald Trump, someone described this,
This was many years ago to me about Donald Trump.
Donald Trump was invited to sit at the cool kids table,
and the cool kids didn't want him sitting at that table.
They never wanted him to be a part of their
their click or their table. Is that how they're reacting

(25:41):
to this, because it's kind of like, well, you aren't
a cool kid, so you shouldn't be at this table.

Speaker 8 (25:46):
Well, actually they didn't mind the guy when he was
giving money to the Democratic Party. He was an early
support room.

Speaker 5 (25:51):
That's true.

Speaker 2 (25:52):
Yeah, I mean.

Speaker 8 (25:53):
It was fine then, you know. It's it's when he's
like it's like Musk. When you join the other side,
you become a public enemy for them, and that's why
that's why they hate Trump. I don't know if they
always viewed him as not one of the cool kids.
I don't know if they always objected to his his rhetoric,
but now that he's on the other side, they hate him.

Speaker 1 (26:13):
What happened to the is the media the same as
it's always been and I'm just noticing it more now,
or are they a greater collection of elitists or propagandists
for elitists than ever before. What's what's the status of
our what I call the regime media.

Speaker 8 (26:28):
Yeah, well, the regime or the legacy media have always
been on the left. I mean since you know, since
I was a kid. I mean, people like Walter Cronkite,
Edward Murrow, all these people were on the left. But
the left was not as radical then as it is now.

Speaker 2 (26:44):
Right, good point, good point, Yeah.

Speaker 8 (26:45):
Yeah, I mean they favored an extension of the welfare state.
They thought we were getting a little too tough on
the Soviets and so forth. But they weren't kookie. They
weren't advocating LGBT, having twenty five gens, transitioning people sexually,
beating up on the white race. I mean, all the

(27:06):
things that they're doing now probably would not have been
done by the left, by the leftist media, advocated by
the leftist media back then in the nineteen fifties, nineteen sixties,
even in the nineteen seventies. Also, although they supported the
Democratic Party, the Democratic Party was opposed to having illegals

(27:26):
come into this country. They were a stronger that position
until recently. I mean Chuck Schumer in fifteen years ago
was advocating border walls. Obama kicked out five million illegal
residents of the United States. Clinton kicked out about two million.

(27:49):
And you know they were not opposed by the media
because at that time, the Democratic Party lived off the
workers vote and workers did not want cheap legal labor
to compete against Indians.

Speaker 2 (28:02):
That's true. That's true.

Speaker 8 (28:05):
The entire left has shifted to the very far radical,
woe cultural left in the last twenty years, and the
media has only gone along with the media has has
strongly pushed the Democratic Party in that direction. It's not
that they're just handmaid and they pushed the Democrats.

Speaker 2 (28:25):
They did, they did, That's true. Paul as always great
chatting with you. Thanks for joining us, and enjoy the weekend.
Thank you.

Speaker 4 (28:32):
Paul.

Speaker 2 (28:33):
On a Newsmaker line, that's Paul Gottfried. He is an
American political philosopher talking about how Donald Trump is threatening
the ruling class. Greg, you and I have talked about
this for quite some time. I know we're short on time,
but apparently a bar owner up in Idaho is having
tremendous success with what he is calling Heterosexual Awareness Month

(28:59):
and offering discounts to heterosexual men who come in and
have a beer or a drink, if accompanied by their
wife or their girlfriend, they get discounts. He's having tremendous success.
Imagine that Sexual Awareness month. See we get a month finally,
you know, at least in this bar in Idaho somewhere.
I think it's something near in Eagle, Idaho, which is
near boys.

Speaker 3 (29:20):
Sign me up. Yeah, we're headed. D I get my
map app out?

Speaker 5 (29:23):
All right?

Speaker 2 (29:24):
The importance of engaged to fathers is coming up next
hour number two of the riding Great trips. Say, Father's Day,
of course, is coming up on Sunday. Saw this figure
the other day and estimated seventy two million greeting cards
will go through the mail according to Hallmark for Father's Day.

(29:45):
But that's fourth Mother's Day. Now, you know, doubles that
don't care about that.

Speaker 3 (29:51):
Moms are all the rage. That's fine.

Speaker 1 (29:52):
I've told my kids, you know, be spoil your mother.
She deserves it more than me. So that's fine, you know,
joining us on the program.

Speaker 4 (29:59):
Though.

Speaker 1 (29:59):
This is a fact fascinating article in research done by
Brad Wilcox. He's a sociology professor at the University of
Virginia a fascinating piece called Why Fathers Matter. Lots of
things that are intuitive, but a lot of data and
research behind it. Brad, Welcome to the show. Look, boys
are growing up in homes without a father. They missed

(30:20):
this rough housing, They missed the wrestling, they missed the
kind of I don't know, physical part of a dad
and a son. I'm thinking about a son that is
not done in hate, It's not done out of aggression.
Do you think the kids that just don't have that
kind of influence in their life, does it make them
more violent as a kid? What do they lose out
on when they don't have a father in the home

(30:41):
where they can maybe rough house with.

Speaker 6 (30:43):
Yeah, there's a lot of work done by a psychologist
named Ross Park at the Recity of California, and he
finds that basically, fathers are especially viable to their kids
when it comes to sort of play, physical play, rough
and tumble play, and that includes like you know, as
you were saying, wrestling on like the fand room floor.
And in fact, what he found was that kind of

(31:05):
kids who had more sort of rough and tumble play
with their fathers were more likely to be sort of
socially adept and popular in their elementary schools. He's just
going to book you wrote for Harvard Press called Fatherhood.
So yeah, what you're saying is completely consistent with the
research on this on this topic.

Speaker 2 (31:22):
Right does the does a father and a home bring
order and discipline to a home more so than maybe
a mom would, or they both do? They compliment each other.

Speaker 6 (31:32):
So the work and this is really kind of fascinating
because it says that kind of moms are more likely
kind of to do disciplines because they spend more time
with their kids, but that dad's discipline is distinctive. Dads
are more likely to elictit compliance from their kids. They
have obviously distinctive tone of voice, they're physically bigger, they
just kind of get their kids' attention more readily. And

(31:52):
we see in this new report that we have out
from Virginia is that there's a really strong relationship, particularly
for boys, between and kind of avoiding problems in school
and having a more engaged father. So we see is
that thirty five percent, for instance, of boys of less
engaged dads are getting in trouble at school, and that

(32:13):
compares to only twenty two percent of boys who have
more engaged fathers, and the sort of gap between the
engaged and less engaged boys when it comes to schools,
contacting their parents is bigger.

Speaker 5 (32:24):
For boys and is for girls. So does seem like a.

Speaker 6 (32:27):
Dads help, you know, kind of their kids do better
at school, both of them's behavior and performance. But also
that's particularly vuable for boys when it comes to their
school lives.

Speaker 2 (32:37):
Well, I remember that threat I heard from my mother
all the time, wait till your father gets them right,
right right.

Speaker 5 (32:47):
Well, it's important too.

Speaker 6 (32:48):
I mean, I think one of the things we see
in the research, and this is a challenging for all.

Speaker 5 (32:51):
His fathers, is just there's a there's a kind of
a there's a very.

Speaker 6 (32:54):
Important connection between kind of play and warmth and discipline.
And so it is true that dads are distinctively viable
for play and for discipline, but they're especially effective when
they're able to do all that with a spirit of
warmth to that sort of regularly sprinkled into their you know,
their kids' lives.

Speaker 1 (33:15):
So the statistics are astounding in your article, eighty five
percent of kids that have an engaged father, a mom
and dad in the home earn mostly a's and b's
in school without regard to race. The flip side of
that is, if you have a absent or disengaged father,
the grades plump plummet. Let's talk about the kids that
have to disengage your absent father. I think young men especially,

(33:37):
that's that's my perspective, gravitate to a male role model.
Is this why gangs tend to do well in inner
cities where gangs seem to find young people that there's
no lack of of a gang presence or of young
men that find themselves in that lifestyle. Is it the
lack of fathers that bring them to those adult role models,

(33:58):
albeit not very good role mode.

Speaker 9 (34:02):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (34:02):
No, there's just a really extensive literature showing that when
you know young boys, especially don't have you know, a
father in the home, they're more likely to gravitate towards,
you know, male figures who are up to no good.
And so we see that in terms of both delinquency
and school performance showing up. One of the most striking

(34:23):
things from my book Get Married, which came out last
year with HarperCollins, is what I found is that young
men in any kind of non.

Speaker 5 (34:30):
Intact family, whether it's you.

Speaker 6 (34:32):
Know, step mom, single mom, you know, some other kind
of arrangement, are more likely to end up in jail
or in prison they or graduate from college. And by contrast,
young men who are growing up in an intact family
with both mom and dad at home are more likely
about four times more likely to graduate from college than
they spend any time in jail or prison. So there's

(34:54):
just no question that when it comes to especially boys,
educational and delinquency and verstration outcomes at having an engaged
present father is incredibly valuable for them.

Speaker 2 (35:05):
Rad another important facet I thought of your report looks
at depression among young girls and the percentage of young
girls who are depressed or facing depression, and how high
that number is when they have a disengaged father. How
do you connect those two bread.

Speaker 6 (35:21):
So we find in Virginia is that young girls who
have a disengaged dad are about ten times more likely
to be depressed and their female peers to have an
engaged father. And when you look at both boys and girls,
there's kind of no group who's more likely to be
depressed than girls with disengaged dads. And so I think
what's happening here basically is that you know, girls benefit

(35:43):
from having, you know, a father who tells them that
he loves them, who smiles at them, who tells them
that they're pretty, who compliments them, who is kind of.

Speaker 5 (35:53):
Engaged in their lives, and it's sort.

Speaker 6 (35:54):
Of giving them, you know, a sense of their value,
you know, in the world to extent. And if dad
is sort of absent, or if dad is you know,
not emotionally present, or if he's kind of indifferent or
needlessly critical, I think you know, girls in that context
are are more likely to be suffering one of the

(36:16):
kind of big, big fighting though in the research in general,
but also on our new report, is that when it
comes to kind of family dysfunction that's moram like to
be mansted for boys and acting out basically and for
we call it externalizing the research, whereas for girls, when
things are kind of not going well at home, they're
more likely to what they say in the research internalize

(36:36):
that means things like engaging in self harm, or being anxious,
or being depressed. And we certainly saw kind of our
findings in terms of both school contacts being more common
for boys with disengaged dads and depression being more common
for girls with disengaged Dad was kind of consistent with
that idea that girls respond to problems at home by

(36:56):
internalizing and boys respond with problems at home by acting out.

Speaker 2 (37:00):
Are externalizing Brad Wilcox doings on our Newspeker line, and
that has such an interesting angle, that boys externalize their
troubles and girls internalize them.

Speaker 1 (37:11):
Yeah, it's it runs my observations that that's that's been
the case. I think that divorce well young ladies. Maybe
up front the boys are mad, they might act out,
the girls they they take that different and it surfaces
later in their life. The different the difference in these

(37:33):
failed marriages are a lack of a parent in the home.
Men are women are different, built different. I externalize everything, Okay,
I don't even know how to internalize. I don't think
I've had an internal thought ever. I mean it's whatever
I'm I used to get so mad. I'd walk right
in the house and my mother say, what's wrong? Nothing's wrong?
Why you always got to ask who's wrong? Because something
was wrong? Because you could just see it written all

(37:54):
over my face. There was nothing internal all outside.

Speaker 2 (37:57):
Now I want to know if this is the same
with with your life, Queen Bee because the rodeo queen
has got to figure it out. She could come to
me when our kids were growing up, and she could
tell me something's wrong with one of our sons. No, no, no,
I said, no, they're fine. No, something's wrong with one
of the boys. Yeah, and I did. I ignored it.

(38:18):
But she somehow had this magic way to get them
to talk about it and came to me and said, yeah,
there's something wrong.

Speaker 1 (38:24):
Oh my queen Bee's always out of the curve when
it comes to my kids and whatever. I'm just dragging
knuckles around my life. I don't see it. I'm not
picking up any signs.

Speaker 5 (38:35):
I don't.

Speaker 3 (38:35):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (38:35):
You have to hit me over the head for me
to catch it. But like I think too, I you
know what. I don't know if it's in your household,
but I think that mothers and their sons have a
unique relationship. Fathers and their daughters do and they're different different. Really,
we love our kids equally, but there's just different relationship relationship.

Speaker 2 (38:53):
Yeah, there is all, right, Moore coming up. A warning
from a sheriff about the protest tomorrow. You wait till
you hear the love this This is all coming up
on the Rod and Greg Show. On this Thank Rod
and Greg is Friday. Friday, the thirteenth US Senator from California,
Alex Padilla and his decision to attack Christy Gnome during
the press conference, Well he didn't. He verbally attacked her.

(39:13):
I guess, and we played for you yesterday the CNN expert,
his analysis.

Speaker 3 (39:19):
Analysts said he was in the wrong. He was, he was.

Speaker 2 (39:22):
But the Democrats are still going crazy over this guy.

Speaker 1 (39:25):
Well they can keep trying to make that, make Hay
over that, but every every logical person knows it's just
not polite behavior.

Speaker 3 (39:31):
You don't act that way.

Speaker 1 (39:32):
It's just not And again I keep I don't understand
how Democrats, even if they don't mean what they say,
they don't want to get in front of the crowd
and lead them somewhere where they know they're already going.
There's nobody that watches that senator's behavior and things. Well
that's totally fine. Well, there might be some, but those
are sheeple. They're not actual, well hard working Americans. The
Americans watching this are going crazy.

Speaker 2 (39:52):
Gavin Newsom attacked it. N Bass attacked it. Corey Booker
attacked it. Chuck Schumer attacked it. I mean, they're all saying,
how dare they wrestle this US senator?

Speaker 3 (40:03):
Oh, because he's.

Speaker 1 (40:03):
So important, they could try us. They could, they could,
they could you know, they could quarantine us, they could,
you know, threaten us with everything under the sum But
how dare you touch a senator? Well, here's a Democrat.
Here's a guy that's not a Republican, Stephen A.

Speaker 3 (40:15):
Smith.

Speaker 1 (40:16):
He's known more for his sports commentary, but he is
not he's not a fan of Trump. He's not a Republican.
But he's calling this out the way I would think
other Democrats are. And I'm actually lucky or feel better
that the Democrats aren't this smart. Let's hear what Steven A.
Smith had to say about this senator.

Speaker 10 (40:31):
Here, you have this Senator Alex Medilla.

Speaker 3 (40:35):
Can Christy Nolan speak?

Speaker 10 (40:38):
Could you have waited til she finished to ask your questions?

Speaker 3 (40:43):
To shout your questions?

Speaker 10 (40:45):
You are a senator, right, you couldn't wait? So that
was just you out of control because you were just
losing it up. You, a United States senator, couldn't compose
yourself and let the head of Homeland Security finish her
thoughts before you.

Speaker 11 (40:59):
Ask a question could do that. Huh couldn't do it.
Huh here you have you couldn't do it. Huh, yeah,
I couldn't do it. He's exactly right.

Speaker 1 (41:10):
I was convinced, well, this show is going on that
when we get out of this show, he would be
issuing an apology somewhere and ashamed of his conduct. And no, no,
I'm hearing people say, oh, you know, if he could
do this, you know, even Gaven Newsom says, if they
can handcuff a senator, what will they do to you? Well,
we actually figured out what they could do us in
twenty twenty. They can quarantine us. Democrats were polled saying

(41:33):
take their kids away from them. If they don't get
the shot, they don't get vaccinated, and they're all in
on the heavy handedness. But this senator, there was no
heavy handedness. This is something that you would remove from
a press conference without regard to political party.

Speaker 2 (41:47):
That was not the only lunacy that took place yesterday
in Los Angeles. This story is amazing. The police chief there,
his name is Jim McDonald, was taken back when a
LA City Council member asked him if he would commit
to notifying city officials about knowledge of upcoming raids, so they,
in turn can inform the immigrant community. Listen to this

(42:11):
exchange during an LA City Council meeting yesterday.

Speaker 12 (42:14):
Can we use technology like AI technology to create a
situation where your department can identify, Hey, there's agents non
City of LA in a neighboring town. Everyone go on
alert in a way where you can support our business

(42:35):
community and our immigrant community to know that it's time.
That's something related to the lack of due process, the
lack of warrants is about to hit our town. I'm
asking a creativity question here. What can your department do
to do more to warn us, to warn the business

(42:57):
community that outside of our LA border, coming in from Englewood,
coming in from I don't know, Valley, I don't know.
You can warn us so that we can warn our
folks in the spirit of your loyalty to the City
of Los Angeles.

Speaker 4 (43:13):
Good, well, you're asking me to warn you about an
enforcement action being taken by another agency before it happens.

Speaker 3 (43:20):
Yeah, yeah, we can't do that.

Speaker 13 (43:22):
Why not?

Speaker 4 (43:22):
That would be obstruction of justice.

Speaker 12 (43:24):
You may want to.

Speaker 1 (43:25):
Talk to the city attorney about that.

Speaker 2 (43:29):
So she's asking the police chief, could you somehow set
up a system that would warn business owners that ice
is coming so they can go high them or get
you know, they can disappear for a little while. And
the chief comes back and says, I think that's obstruction
of justice.

Speaker 1 (43:45):
I don't know you, yes me if to warn you
before a federal action, yes, So that's that's substruction of justice,
can't You might want to talk to the city tourney
about that.

Speaker 3 (43:55):
Unreal?

Speaker 2 (43:56):
All right now, this is my favorite story of the day.
There is a griff is in Florida, Brevard County, Florida.
He delivered a very stern warning to potentially destructive demonstrators
or protesters demonstrating against the ongoing national immigration cracked out.
This is Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivy with this warning

(44:17):
to people out there who want to break the law.

Speaker 14 (44:20):
If you resist lawf lorders, you're going to jail. Let
me be very clear about that. If you block an
intersection or a roadway in Brevard County, you are going
to jail. If you flee arrest, you're going to go
to jail tired, because we are going to run you
down and put you in jail. If you try to
mob rule a car in Brevard County, gathering around it

(44:42):
refusing to let the driver leave. In our county, you're
most likely going to get run over and dragged across
the street. If you spit on us, you're going to
the hospital and in jail. If you hit one of us,
you're going to the hospital and jail and most likely
get bitten by one of our big, beautiful dogs that
we have here. If throw a brick, a fire bomb,

(45:05):
or point a gun at one of our deputies, we
will be notifying your family where to collect your remains
at because we will kill you graveyard dead. We're not
going to play. If you don't want to have any
of those things happen to you, obey the law, go
protest all you want, do it peacefully, stand on the
mountaintops and yell your opinion, your views. We invite that,

(45:29):
but don't you dare break the law.

Speaker 2 (45:33):
That is sure of Wayne Ivy in Berever County, Florida.
If I tell you what, greg my idea you should
take how long? That's about one minute and eleven seconds long.
Every law enforcement agency in this country should get a
copy of that, and before those protests start tomorrow or
during the protest. Put that into a loudspeaker and explain
it to the protesters out there. You can protest peacefully,

(45:55):
but you get out of hand like the sheriff just outlined,
and you are in trouble. I love it.

Speaker 1 (46:00):
Yeah, yeah, and look, it's just human nature. I mean
some people might think, well, that was really harsh.

Speaker 7 (46:04):
No.

Speaker 1 (46:05):
Actually, everything he talked about were things, especially when he's
talking about if you shoot or if you throw a brick,
if they're in and if you're there being threatened that way,
they are able to defend themselves. Everything he said is
within the law and telling you what happens if you
break the law. It was like when I would share
a committee hearing. We would if it was one that
we knew was particularly contentious, we'd have the highway patrol

(46:26):
there and I would just say at the beginning of
the hearing, you know what, we can't have outbursts. We
can't have applause, we can't have booze. We got to
have a we have to have an orderly process. If
you can't help it, we've got these nice troopers in
the back to ask you to leave. You'll be leaving
the committee hearing. We don't want that to happen. We
know it's a passionate issue, but we've got to be
able to deliberate it, and deliberate in a in a

(46:47):
in a good way, in a substantive way. But the
presence of those those troopers there the committee and just
laying out the rules ahead of time seemed to work
like a child to.

Speaker 2 (46:56):
Kind of hell, didn't they? I love this warning from
this year, if all right? More coming up it is
the Rod and Gregg Show right here on Utah's Talk
Radio one O five nine knrs. We had Nick on yesterday,
but he just somehow he just gets in there and
wrangles that doesn't do anything. He just shows up the
camera and the microphone.

Speaker 1 (47:15):
He has such a unique way of going about it.
I mean they when we asked him yesterday about it,
he said, he said, you know, you don't wear anything
that would say that you disagree with him. Why do
they get so adversarial? He says, I think because I
look normal and they're not normal, So that's what makes
them mad.

Speaker 2 (47:31):
Yeah, there are a lot of stories in Los Angeles
about what Ice has done to families, tearing family of parts,
doing this, you know, shutting down businesses, during this crackdown
and immigration. Don't believe everything this story today. There is
a social media account it's being slapped down today greg
for spreading fake news about immigration and customs. It came

(47:51):
from an unlikely source, The La Times. An account called
Hi mister Howie posted a heroin tale of an ice
raid that occurred at an elementary school graduation. All right, Uh,
it's it's fodder that would be outright believed and disgusted
by the left, no doubt some did. But guess what,

(48:13):
it's all fake. The La Times looked into it and
they found that this this current raid on the city
and this and they had this father just crying on
this video. My child is Ice came in and scared her.
There's you know, their elementary school graduation all fake. Yeah,
the La Times actually did some real journalism and DEUCA

(48:36):
into this story him found out there's no truth to
it whatsoever.

Speaker 1 (48:40):
Because I got to tell you that that k t
LA was reporting that they had targeted a pregnant mother.
Y Ice had uh and Bill milusion from Fox News,
he reported, and Homeland Security has confirmed they were not
targeting a pregnant mother. It was they were targeting the
illegal Mexican husband who'd been convicted of drug trafficking and

(49:03):
attempted murder and had fled down to assault charge. Ice
had a criminal judicial warrant for his arrest signed off
by a federal judge because he illegally re entered the
United States after he was removed, which is a felony.
So there's the rest of the story didn't get covered
that way on KTLA. I'm glad at least in New York,
the La Times is clarifying some of the fake stories

(49:26):
that are emerging right now.

Speaker 2 (49:27):
Yeah, I mean, they actually did some real journalism, but
this whole video that got that are now you're also
aware what happened? How did this all start?

Speaker 5 (49:35):
Greig?

Speaker 2 (49:36):
The story is that there was a home depot in
paramunt California, which is next to Compton right a heavily
Latino community there and across the street were ICE agents
not doing anything.

Speaker 3 (49:51):
It was a staging area.

Speaker 2 (49:52):
Well they know it wasn't a staging area. They had
just there. They were across the street in a business park,
and all of a sudden, the rumors started elating that
Ice was coming into there and going after him. That
was not the intent, but the rumor. The rumors spun
out of control. All of a sudden. You had these
guys going up to the ICE agents telling them to
get out of here. And you know how it is,
greg they spin out of control. Sooner or later, someone

(50:15):
says something, they start throwing things at each other. And
that's how all of this started. A week ago tomorrow.

Speaker 1 (50:21):
Yeah, yeah, and again they want they want these they
want and they want to pull heartstrings. They want to
they want to look sympathetic.

Speaker 3 (50:29):
They're just not.

Speaker 1 (50:30):
I think the reason they can't find the story like
that is because I think ICE is being very surgical
and it's it's it's removals. I mean, there's so many
to remove. There's so many people that were allowed in
with criminal records and and are violent people. That's where
they're targeting. But I'll tell you if you obstruct them,
if you're with someone like that and you're here illegally,

(50:51):
I believe they're getting deported as well. And I think
the American people will understand even I think the most
powerful poll I have seen is there are legal migrants
who in twenty twenty, by a percentage of plus twenty
three percent were okay with illegal immigrants and entering the

(51:12):
country and now by a minus six like majority against
the illegal entry. And I think it's just because their
communities have been so negatively impacted. I think it's because
their lives have been impacted. It was a theory before,
a concept that they had a sympathy for the reality
of what it means to have an open border, and
these illegal immigrants coming into your community, cartels controlling it,

(51:37):
the violence, everything else, they're not for it. And that
demographic right there tells the whole story. Because the Democrats
the leftists will tell us we're just racist, We're just
it's just all racism. That's why we care about this.
When the illegal immigrants are opposed to illegal immigration that,
how can they?

Speaker 3 (51:57):
Are they racist?

Speaker 5 (51:58):
Now?

Speaker 2 (51:58):
Yeah, you know, in all of this, Greig, I think
one of the missteps that and it's not that big,
but it's an important part of this argument is from
the Republicans saying, you know whose fault this is. This
isn't Donald Trump's fault. No, this is Joe Biden's fault.
This is Alejandro Mayorcus's fault. This is people who did

(52:21):
not enforce the law and in a four year period
of time, let ten and a half million people in
this country illegally. You want to point a finger, Democrats,
point it at yourself and the leadership of your party,
because that's who's to blame for this mess we're in now.

Speaker 1 (52:37):
When Secretary of my orchis is out there telling Congress,
telling the public, telling the press, we are enforcing the law.
There is not a problem to be And while you
have the camera showing these open borders. He was impeached
by the US House of Representatives. It is the only case,
only time in American history where the Senate does not
take up that impeachment and start a hearing. The only

(52:59):
time they had not was is if the person being
in peach had died, it was no longer alive.

Speaker 3 (53:04):
They why haven't we talked about that?

Speaker 1 (53:06):
Why didn't we talk about a Chuck Schumer run Senate
absolutely broke you president, a two hundred and fifty year
president of If you have articles of impeachment and you've
had them received, you hold the hearing and decide whether
to convict and remove them from office. They refused to
do it, and we are it's like, well, if you
thought that that was a drummed up impeachment charge, which

(53:28):
it wasn't. We certainly know now that it wasn't drummed
up because of how much we're feeling it, how much
it's hurting this country.

Speaker 2 (53:35):
This is the democratic approach to everything in this country today.
Think of Obama. We're going to provide health care for everybody.
We know it's going to cause problems, but we're gonna
do it anyways. And then once the problems start surfacing,
either you fix it or we're gonna start calling your names.
And that's what they did with Obama Care. You're getting
the same thing with illegal immigration. Let them all come in,

(53:57):
ten and a half million of them. You want to
get rid of them, You fix the problem. They won't
let you fix it, and they don't offer solutions.

Speaker 1 (54:05):
When when all that illegal entry is going on, did
we know that they were going to fight tooth and
nail for the most dangerous and most criminally minded of
those coming across They would fight to keep them here.
They would have never said, they would never have confessed
to that kind of motivation. And here we are in
twenty five and that's who they're fighting for, these criminals.

Speaker 2 (54:23):
Yeah, and did you see who was Kathy Hokel The
Governor of New York before that committee yesterday in the
House where you had hocal the Governor of Illinois, Tim Walls,
and she was asked about one person who was allowed
to go free. And this guy had a rap sheet
as long as you are, she goes.

Speaker 5 (54:39):
I didn't know that.

Speaker 1 (54:40):
I know, they don't know about any no idea. It's yeah,
they're not. So I think America is paying attention closer
now than ever before. I think that the legal immigrants
having such strong opinions about this, against what the Democrats
are doing, against illegal immigrants being here and supporting their
removal deportation tells the whole story.

Speaker 2 (55:01):
Yeah, it does. All right, more coming up the Rodin
Greg Show with you. You're on Utah's talk radio one oh
five nine. Okay NRS. Hopefully we won't have any fighting
jump down Salt Lake City tomorrow night.

Speaker 1 (55:12):
Well we'll see, yeah. I you know, I just I
just watch it and I think, Oh, you're so sad.

Speaker 8 (55:16):
I'm not.

Speaker 3 (55:17):
No, you're so mad. You're looking at you, You're raising place.

Speaker 12 (55:19):
I'm not.

Speaker 2 (55:20):
Did you get near the demonstration at all? I know
you had to be downtown. What were your thoughts?

Speaker 1 (55:24):
You know what they they Salt Lake City let them
march down a lot of streets. It does interrupt traffic
because you have to the parade is moving, and so
it's it's it's taking the north to South street like
State Street, and you can't cross that if you're trying
to get across. But look, they gave them the time,
they gave them the space to do it, and they're
they're very angsty, they're very upset, which make amuse I.

(55:46):
For some reason, it's an involuntary reaction, but it just
makes me smile.

Speaker 4 (55:49):
I love it.

Speaker 1 (55:50):
I'm just like, Yeah, my guys in charge, I'm totally happy.
I can see you're really upset. Boy, Yeah, you're beside yourselves.
I don't care. I'm not offended by it.

Speaker 3 (55:58):
I don't care.

Speaker 1 (55:58):
As long as it's not violent crime. You want to dream,
throw your tantrum, wave flags, do whatever you want.

Speaker 3 (56:06):
I'm not worried about it.

Speaker 5 (56:07):
You know not.

Speaker 2 (56:08):
You know one thing I think we've learned, Greg and
we've learned a lot of things this past week, especially
with the riots in LA, that the Democrat media complex
their narrative as to what's going on. No one believes
it anymore. You know, what are they saying, well, it's
isolated to a small area of Los Angeles, which is true,

(56:28):
it's not throughout the city. We understand that, right, You
don't have to give us a geography lesson every day.
But the thing, well, these are mostly peaceful protests. Now,
if you recall back in twenty twenty with George Floyd,
they tried to do the same thing, that famous story
that MSNBC reporter standing in front of a burning building
saying it's mostly peaceful. Right now the American people realize, no,

(56:52):
this is not peaceful protests.

Speaker 3 (56:53):
The cars burning is not in the peaceful category.

Speaker 5 (56:56):
You know.

Speaker 2 (56:56):
So all these narratives that the media has tried to
on the American people again about what's going on in
Los Angeles, and we'll see it over the weekend, the
American public are going, oh, we don't believe it, because now,
thanks to social media, thanks to like Fox News, thanks
to conservative talk radio like this radio station, we're giving
the American people the real story, and they've become so

(57:18):
much more educated.

Speaker 1 (57:19):
So I made this point last night. I have this
discussion with the liberal that I know, and I was saying,
but we're talking about the delay and why it was
necessary for President Trump to call in the National Guard
to protect the ice facilities, federal agents what they were
trying to do, because it had been twenty four to
thirty six hours of delay.

Speaker 3 (57:39):
Depending on when you want to count.

Speaker 1 (57:42):
And I was pointing to the six hour delay of
action and just Salt Lake City back in May of
twenty twenty, where they waited five to six hours and
it was out of control just five or six hours.
This is a riot that was left alone for twenty
four to thirty six hours, and it required somebody to
step forward and try to protect people. And the answer

(58:03):
back I got was, oh, it was I was completely
peaceful before they came in. And I said, well, that
would be nice for you to That would be nice
if when this started on Friday and the first National
Guard troops that President Trump called and didn't arrive till
Sunday night, what you're saying would be true if there
wasn't violent, there wasn't destroyed properties, shop owners with their stuff,

(58:23):
taking cars on fire. And she and she said, oh,
that's you get that from the social media. Now they're
trying to stigmatize what we see with our eyes on
social media. That's not to be trusted anymore. You can't
just the regime media.

Speaker 2 (58:37):
You cannot unsee what you've seen.

Speaker 3 (58:39):
That's right.

Speaker 2 (58:39):
Our number three, the Rod and Greg Show, is on
his way to stay with us. Yeah, guy, according story
I saw today, Krispy Krean order a dozen donuts. You
can get for thirteen cents.

Speaker 3 (58:53):
If they look at you, folks like they don't know
what you're talking, you tell them.

Speaker 1 (58:55):
Rodarkat said, I get this for thirteen cents, and he's
coming in here. If you don't give it to me, don't,
maybe call them okay, and you get our talkback line
and we'll spring into action.

Speaker 2 (59:04):
We'll get after him for sure.

Speaker 5 (59:05):
All right.

Speaker 2 (59:06):
Well, we certainly have focused a lot this week on
what's going on in California, trying to get ready for
what could take place tomorrow. Well, we know it's going
to take place. All these protests around the country. We
hope they stay peaceful. You were downtown last night. They
stayed peaceful.

Speaker 3 (59:19):
They marched.

Speaker 1 (59:20):
They're upset, but I'm for some reason, as long as
they're not destroying things. I'm like, well you BEU. I'm
not upset at all. I love who's in charge. I
know you're upset, but that's not me.

Speaker 5 (59:28):
You know.

Speaker 2 (59:29):
One of the interesting things about this starting in Los Angeles, Greg,
is now people's eyes have been opened and they're now saying, Okay,
where are they getting the money to do this? Who
is behind these organizations?

Speaker 3 (59:40):
Right?

Speaker 2 (59:40):
And we're learning there's a lot of money from the
outside pouring into these various demonstrations.

Speaker 1 (59:45):
Yeah, it's and it's happened for a long time. But
I don't think as Americans we've really understood the magnitude
of the dollars, where they come from, and how coordinated
it is. We've always been told this is organic. This
is just so many people that just had enough so
they just anger gate together.

Speaker 3 (01:00:01):
Not the case, Yeah, not the case anymore.

Speaker 2 (01:00:03):
Well, joining us on our Newsmaker line right now to
talk more about this is Amber totorof she's with Open
the Books deputy editor. They've been looking into this. Amber,
thank you very much for joining us tonight. Talk about
the money and the money California taxpayers are spending to
support this rioting.

Speaker 13 (01:00:19):
So we found at least seventy three point six million
dollars in Californian state taxpayer dollars going to radical nonprofits
that have been agitating on behalf of open orders policies,
even going so far as defending criminal migrants from being
deported and also caught agitating during the La riots. It's

(01:00:45):
a serious problem and it's crazy that the state of
California itself is funding these sorts of activities.

Speaker 1 (01:00:52):
It sounds very familiar from the types of things DOGE
has discovered of federal funds. Is this are these organizations
receiving federal funds on top of seventy three point six
million of California taxpayer dollars.

Speaker 13 (01:01:05):
So actually, yes, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, which
is one of the biggest of these nonprofits, it's got
thirty five million dollars from California over the past two years,
and they are very active right now in the La
riot scene, and they have programs encouraging activism. They got

(01:01:32):
a four hundred and fifty thousand dollars grant from the
Department of Homeland Security, if you can believe it, in
twenty twenty three for citizenship instruction and naturalization services. So
we have these radicals getting federal money to teach god
knows what to migrants. But after this was brought to

(01:01:57):
the attention of the Trump administration, it was hanseled back
in February. But another one of these nonprofits, the Immigration
Institute of the Bay Area, which got seven million dollars
from the state of California, got three hundred thousand dollars
also from the Department of Homeland Security in twenty twenty four,

(01:02:19):
also for citizenship instruction. And they're not as radical as
the first one that I talked about, but they still
are advocating against deportations. For example, they launched an Immigration
Defense Fund, which provides services to those facing deportations. And yeah,

(01:02:44):
that's sign as far as I know from the federal government,
has not been canceled.

Speaker 5 (01:02:49):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (01:02:49):
Wow, Well this group we're talking about, the Coalition for
Humane Immigrant Riots of Los Angeles, otherwise known as TRILA.
What blew me away on all of this amber was
that they had a program called wise Up. And the
wise Up program apparently teaches high schoolers how to become
activists and the organization's policy platform and California taxpayers are

(01:03:12):
paying for that. That's amazing number.

Speaker 13 (01:03:14):
Yeah, it's incredible. They are recruiting people from a very
young age to become activists to advocate for policy at
both the local, state and federal level their entire lives,
basically start starting them young, and it is disconcerting. I

(01:03:35):
would say that the state of California is paying nonprofits
to advocate for policies that impact the federal government in
this way, so it really raises questions about national sovereignty
and the sovereignty of other states when California is attempting

(01:03:56):
to change federal law through advocacy.

Speaker 1 (01:03:58):
You're exactly right. You've got the money just completely canceling
each other out. You have tax payer money from California
working to prohibit or to make harder federal law enforcement
and what they're charged to do, which is used with
tax payer money as well. Is there anything that these
groups are doing with the kind of boatload of dollars
they're receiving. Is there anything that would be in harmony
with what we would hope would be a civil society

(01:04:20):
and in public safety? Is there anything good that these
people do in addition to the riots they like the
fund so.

Speaker 13 (01:04:27):
Some of them do have normal legal services that they
provide migrants in this case, maybe it's like a little
bit more normal, right, They're not like trying to prevent
criminals from being deported. Maybe they're just helping people like

(01:04:48):
fill out their DAKA applicant or application. So some people
might still disagree with that, and that's totally fine, but
it's not like that radical. But some of the are
extremely radical, and they what they do is that they
will look for cases that can set a legal precedent
to loosen border restrictions. So they'll find specific people that

(01:05:15):
they can represent and in court so that the law
will change after their lawsuit is finished. And that's quite scary.
I would say that the motivation behind that and that
they're not really trying to help individual migrants. They're trying
to change federal legal president or state legal president.

Speaker 2 (01:05:39):
On our Newsmaker line, Ambert totorof she's with Open the
Books Deputy Editor talking about you know, if you're a
taxpayer money going into funding this stuff. They fund these
organizations which they claim are there to improve the community,
yet they're funneled into these groups to protest.

Speaker 3 (01:05:54):
It's probably a data point.

Speaker 1 (01:05:55):
We have to spend so much more time clarifying because
you have taxpayer money going to enforce federal law and
the taxpayer money being used to stop them and swart them.
I mean, whether it's state or federal it's it's the
people's taxes that are being used on both sides of
that of that riote or that conflict, and it's wrong.

Speaker 3 (01:06:12):
It's absolutely wrong.

Speaker 2 (01:06:13):
All right, Mary, coming up on this, Thank Rod and
Greg gets Friday and Utah's Talk Radio one oh five
nine k NRS.

Speaker 3 (01:06:19):
A lot happening in Washington too.

Speaker 1 (01:06:20):
The recision bill President asks for and says, hey, cut
cut nine billion. I don't need it, okay, and then
they passed it.

Speaker 2 (01:06:27):
Now, well, I suffered this week. I think you will
know a very painful moment Greg, this week when I
had to admit that you were right.

Speaker 3 (01:06:36):
You have handled it well, yeah, handled it way.

Speaker 2 (01:06:38):
I'm still dealing with I'm having withdrawals, but I'm still
going through this. We were records talking about the split
between the President and Elon Musk. My contention was Elon
and him would never get back together again. You said, oh, yeah,
they will. And guess what this week they kissed and
made up.

Speaker 1 (01:06:53):
Apparently it's the cross eyeber its heavy as the crown.
I don't have the luxury of opinion. I just sadly
know well, you know, it's it's tough.

Speaker 3 (01:06:59):
Some it's a trow Yeah, he.

Speaker 2 (01:07:01):
May be out of the picture, maybe not completely, but
not as strong a role as he's had. But certainly
what about DOZE and will that effort continue? How could
then lead the US to energy dominance? Well, joining us
on our Newsmaker line to talk about that right now,
as Devin Hartman, he's director of Energy and Environmental Policy
at the R. Street Institute, You're right about this. How
important in your opinion, Devin, are these DOZE cuts when

(01:07:24):
it comes to America's energy independence?

Speaker 15 (01:07:27):
Well, the nuts and bolts of it are that the
President has made his energy agenda very clear. He wants
to dominate and he wants to do that by unleashing
American energy. In order to achieve that outcome, we're going
to need a series of reforms in federal government that

(01:07:47):
lead to agencies performing at a higher level than they
did before. In other words, we need government to be
more functional to execute the roles that either it has
to do by law or we need it to do
to unleash American energy. And the concern is that most

(01:08:07):
of the way DOGE has been implemented at the agency
level is to make those agencies less functional. And so
we have a great strategic opportunity right now with sort
of the Elon Musk departure and the Doge reboot upon
us to think about getting back to the core of

(01:08:28):
what drives government efficiency, because the thesis behind DOGE is
on point, but the way it was executed previously was
often working across purposes with the president's energy agenda, and
we need to get back to aligning those two so
we're driving true government efficiency and unlocking the private sector's

(01:08:48):
ability to tap America's energy potential.

Speaker 1 (01:08:51):
I think part of what you're spotting is that maybe
when you're reducing workforce, if you're not the understaffing, something
might not get you the efficiencies of government that you're
looking for. The savings might be a false economy if
Dose two point zero is to really excel and get
the biggest return on investment in terms of cast taxpayer

(01:09:12):
dollars to the Department of Energy to dominate in the
energy sector. What's three things you'd say that we have
to do differently than what maybe DOGE did.

Speaker 3 (01:09:20):
From the start.

Speaker 15 (01:09:22):
So first off, I'd say going after shrinking blow to
bureaucracies the right way. It's been pretty obvious for twenty
plus years that these bureaucracies have been growing, both in
terms of excessive overreach of the functions that they should
be doing as well as just from a head count perspective.

(01:09:43):
So a good way to do this and actually does
started off on the right track. Number one was working
with general personnel management departments like the Office of Personnel
Management and the Office of Management Budget to do guidance
to agencies to say, hey, here's some general practices and
expect in performance expectations for your agency. We're going to

(01:10:05):
let you, as the head of that agency, figure out
how to improve your performance. That's really important because the
first principle for addressing blow of bureaucracies is to cut fat,
not muscle, and DOGE unfortunately got hands on, looked at
org charts really quick, and largely frankly someone that wasn't

(01:10:26):
familiar with the agencies said, we're just going to start
axing out divisions here or offices, and you're cutting fat
and muscle when you do that. Whereas if you tell
the agencies, hey, you need a trim headcount by x percent,
then they go back to things like performance reviews and
they get rid of that sort of the accumulation of
underperformers that public bureaucracy is notorious for. So that's the

(01:10:49):
biggest thing right there. Number two, I'd really go back
to making sure agencies execute their core statutory functions. There's
been a lot of administrative creep over the years, and
sometimes new sort of sub bureaucracies build out within an agency.
And there's the old saying that every public manager's objective

(01:11:13):
is to grow their management kingdom, and you really have
to go back holistically, and it takes time. You can't
do it in a matter of a few days or
a few weeks of judgment. You really have to look
realistically and say, what did Congress require these agencies to do?
And let's reformulate these agencies to make sure that they're

(01:11:34):
zeroing in on what they have to do by law
and get rid of some of the superfluous focus. So
that's a huge emphasis I think going forward. And then finally,
I'd also emphasize that there are things that government does
that we all generally agree are good things. I think

(01:11:55):
most people agree government should be helping with basic research
and defense and some of these core provision of services.
But we have to recognize that the things that we
do see government doing that's overreached oftentimes is the result
of an Act of Congress, and permitting is a great example.

(01:12:16):
We have so much permitting overreach, but those are the
result of the applications of decades of statutory accumulation, administrative
law application. A lot of these things take Acts of
Congress to fix, and so it's frustrating, especially when your
mantra is to totally overhaul the administrative state. But so

(01:12:38):
much of this cannot be done by the executive alone.
There are things that we just sometimes have to admit
that unless the President needs to work with Congress to
fundamentally go after and implement surgical strikes on some legacy
statutes to make sure that government is right sized back
to its a role rather than and if we can't

(01:13:03):
get that, we have to recognize that we at least
need these agencies to implement the law, like it or not,
as efficiently, transparently, as accountably as possible.

Speaker 2 (01:13:14):
Devin, I've always you know, we've heard for a very
very long time Republicans talk about two things, lower taxes
and smaller government. I'm not so you know, I think
smaller government should be smarter government is smarter government and
efficient government one and the same.

Speaker 15 (01:13:31):
I think by and large it is I think sometimes
when we talk about smarter government, it's sort of smarter
to what to What end? Is government working towards the
end that we want it to be working towards. That's
always the important thing, and so that's that's a big piece.
The efficient piece is definitely, I think, kind of interrelated

(01:13:53):
with this idea of being smarter to and really fundamentally,
there's when you think about what efficiency means, it's about
largely reducing the inputs and getting greater outputs. Right, and
we know that the federal government is not getting the
most bang for the taxpayer buck, and we can actually

(01:14:16):
reduce inputs while increasing outputs. And one thing we noted
in this article was, for example, was the Department of
Energy could be reformulated in a variety of ways to
get taxpayer dollars back and focused on good innovative research
and less on politically preferred or kind of safe projects

(01:14:38):
and really focused on the type of true innovative breakthroughs,
get back to things, good performance metrics, right that smarter
government making sure that taxpayer dollars are then phased out
when either technology is successful in the private sector is
willing to invest in it, or if it looks like
it's a failure and guess what. That's the nature of
upstream research and development, right. Sometimes you have failure, and

(01:15:01):
you have to build a political space that tolerates smart failure.
And we have to recognize when a particular technology is
not going to have commercial success, then we've got to
phase out taxpayer support for that and put it to
a more productive use. So it's really about driving the

(01:15:21):
smart and efficient lens throughout all aspects of what government does,
whether that's research permitting, smarter rulemaking overhouls that are actually
legally compliant. And this is something that administrations have not
done for decades. The courts are just consistently overturning so
many things under the past several administrations. We need smarter

(01:15:44):
government to give the private sector certainty of what the
rules of the road are. Otherwise the investment thesis of
global of America's deep capital markets is really choppy, and
that's not good for the long term health of the country.

Speaker 2 (01:15:58):
On our any our News Bigger line, our conversation with
Devin Hartman talking about DOGE and energy dominance, and we
need it.

Speaker 3 (01:16:04):
I got to tell you.

Speaker 1 (01:16:05):
The two things takeaway from that interview we just had
is the mission creep of the bureaucracy. They just creep
into things they never did before and it just grows.
It's just a leviathan. And the second is the a
cumulative effect of congressional regulatory action over decades and decades,
it just gets suffocating. And so those are two that
are really if you could, if you could look at
two culprits, boy, go after those two.

Speaker 2 (01:16:26):
Our listen Back Friday segments coming up next on the
Rod and Greg Show in Utah's Talk. Ridy oh one
O five nine knrs. Well, it's time now for our
Listen Back Friday segments. We do this every Friday. We
look at some of the interesting interviews we've done this
week and you may have missed him. We understand that,
and we like to play him back and let you
enjoy him. And one that was just purely entertainment was
earlier this week. Now, Gavin Newsom took to the airwaves

(01:16:49):
in California and explain to people why he thinks he's
in the right when it comes to what's going on
with the National Guard and the LA Riots. Well, our
good friend Kurt Schlickter.

Speaker 3 (01:17:00):
Of Los Angeles.

Speaker 2 (01:17:01):
He's an attorney, he's a former, he's a vet, and
he decided to weigh in on this and it was
a very entertaining conversation.

Speaker 3 (01:17:07):
It is I love it.

Speaker 1 (01:17:08):
I love Kirk, and I'm telling you he's he's in
the ground zero belly of the beast. So this man
knows he's been around a while. So his take is
a is funny, but it's actually searingly accurate.

Speaker 5 (01:17:18):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:17:19):
Well, as we began the conversation, I remember asking, there
is a new name now for California. They call it Mexicornia.
And I asked him what he thought about the name change.

Speaker 4 (01:17:28):
Well, look, we were owned by Mexico for like fifteen minutes.
So I got yeah, yeah, you know, I here's some
Spaniards gonna come back and say, hey, what about us?
But I mean, the whole thing is stupid. You got
a bunch of idiots out here waving the flag of

(01:17:49):
the country of countries that they are like screaming and
yelling and clawing the floor to avoid being sent back
to It's pretty amazing, But you gotta understand the trouble
is all downtown and downtown is. You know, there's a
couple of hipsters, a bunch of bums, and US lawyers
had to go down there to the courthouses. There's nothing

(01:18:11):
else there. It's a theater. Okay, normal cal Like I
live in the South. I lived by the beach with
the rich people. Everybody around here as a hate has
no home here. Signed But but man, the second, you know,
the second some of the you know, some of these
activists coming to our neighborhood, they're gonna call the freaking
swat case. They're not having that here. They're going to

(01:18:33):
vote for these communists, but they're not playing that game here.
That's for the four people. So it's really what what
this military guy's calling information operation. They are trying to
make a big deal, uh and get the regime media's
cooperation of showing la and chaos. And the idea was
to show well, Trump is powerless, He's got to back down.

(01:18:55):
And Trump's like, nah, I'll see and Raisia the seventy
nine to FI Trubrigate Combat Team which I was deputy commander.

Speaker 1 (01:19:03):
Zed that's what I want to get into because I
think you have I mean, it's one thing to be
the senior columnist at town Hall. You're how you contribute there.
You're a best selling novelist and fiction as well as nonfiction.
You do a lot of things. You're an attorney, but
you you're a soldier or you were a soldier, and
so I think you have some personal experience protecting California

(01:19:24):
being deployed. Maybe you could share with our listeners for
those that would say that what Trump did was wrong
from your perspective, from that leadership position of being in
the National Guard and being a leader there, share with
our listeners if this was appropriate for the National Guard
to be deployed by the president.

Speaker 4 (01:19:42):
Well, of course it was. They were attacking federal installations,
so Trump brought them in. They're now doing point security
at federal installations. They're not out there breaking heads. Trump's
not going to take responsibility for policing the streets of
this misbegotten city. That's Karen Bass and we have a
nuisance problem. He's just going to to make sure that
they can't uh, you know, attack federal officers to story

(01:20:04):
federal buildings, and he's going to free up federal officers,
uh to go out and do federal officer things like
arrest illegal aliens, which they're still doing. Uh, they haven't stopped.
So yeah, it's perfect. In an information operation, what you're
trying to do is shape public opinion to get your effect. Now,

(01:20:27):
when I went out for the LA riots, we went
out to kick tail. Okay, we had you know, we
we we suppressed the riot, Okay, and not gently. That's
the connect operation. This is information operation. They're trying to
achieve an information dominance that will make normal people go, oh,

(01:20:48):
I have no choice to give into these communists or
they'll they'll burn our city down. I'd better submit. Well.
Donald Trump, the greatest communicator of all our presidents, and
I was around when Ronald Reagan was, understands this. And
he knows that if you provide normal people with the
alternative of resistance, where somebody strong says no, you communist scumsuckers,

(01:21:12):
you're not going to make us do anything, people will
go to the legitimate government resisting. So he provides an
alternative completely blows their information operation out of the water.
You've got Karen Bass who's borderline clinical moral. Okay, you know,
if she's got an IQ of eighty, it's a good day.

(01:21:35):
She doesn't know what the hell to do Newsom's useless
and I write about I'm going to write about him
in town hall tomorrow and it's just going to be
brutal to check out my town hall on Gavin Newsom
and how he's a torpedoed is presidential ambitions. But look,
if you look at the footage, it's all l A P,
d LA, Sheriff's CHP, Californa Iiway Patrol. It's not Trump's

(01:21:59):
troops or a fight these guys and losing. It's it's
Gavin Newsom's He's the guy getting humiliated. So this is
a total victory for the Republicans.

Speaker 3 (01:22:11):
But wait, there's more detail.

Speaker 4 (01:22:15):
Because all these these networks of communists funded by rich donors,
probably connected to the Red Chinese. You know how these
things all pop up wherever there's trouble. Suddenly you get
a rental riot anywhere, and all the riots look the same, right,
because they're all all organized, coordinated, and logistically and administratively

(01:22:38):
supported by the same bunch of people. Well, those people
have now exposed themselves here in California. You've got online
people researching them, and you've got a Department of Justice
that has stopped being concerned about moms going to school
boards and complaining that, you know, some dude in address
is scheving on their fifth graders. Now they're actually looking

(01:23:01):
for criminals. They're going to map out these networks. And
if you remember, we spent about twenty five years in
the War on Terror learning to map enemy networks. That's
how we did intelligence. Okay, so we're going to map
these networks and you're going to start seeing indictments for
all the little activities that involve crossing state lines, making

(01:23:23):
federal beasts to commit crimes. So this is not only
going to defeat them in the short term tactical battle,
it's going to undermine their strategic asset of this network.
Keep in mind, the Democrat Party and these rioters are
not totally connected. They leave enough deniability, but there is

(01:23:46):
not a shred of difference between the ultimate objection of
the Democrat Party and the ultimate objective of these rioters.
They both want the same things, which is why Yamvin
Newsom and Karen Bath kind of let them happen.

Speaker 3 (01:24:00):
Yeah, because they're on the same.

Speaker 2 (01:24:02):
Kurt Schlickter joining us on our Best of Friday segment
of You're on the Rotting Greg Show, he is always entertaining.

Speaker 3 (01:24:09):
You know, he's a prolific writer for town Hall.

Speaker 2 (01:24:12):
He's a couple of novels.

Speaker 1 (01:24:14):
Novels, he's done non fiction political books, but he's also
done some fiction that I find entertaining to read. And
again an entertainment attorney, but also the National Guard.

Speaker 3 (01:24:23):
He spent time.

Speaker 1 (01:24:24):
He was actually on the ground with National Guard during
the ninety two riots. Knows a little bit about this issue.
So it's always good to check in with Kurt. He
can give us a real deal.

Speaker 2 (01:24:32):
All right, more coming up on the Rotten Greg Show
in Utah's talk radio one oh five nine can arrest.
So you get Friday the thirteenth, what about every seven
years or so?

Speaker 1 (01:24:40):
Yeah, no one, No one has ever convinced me that
that was born on the thirteenth.

Speaker 2 (01:24:43):
Yeah, you're really born on the thirteenth. So he knows
how to deal with that.

Speaker 1 (01:24:46):
When your birthday's on the thirteenth, there's no one, there's
no scary movie gonna tell me.

Speaker 3 (01:24:49):
That my birthday's a bad day.

Speaker 1 (01:24:52):
Jason can hit the road, he can take his hockey
mask and you know, lay in the lake.

Speaker 2 (01:24:56):
I say, all right, let's continue. Now they're listening a
back Friday segment. So another conversation that we had this
week was with John Daniel Davidson. John, of course his
senior correspondent with a federalist. He wrote an article about
Mexico being complicit with these LA riots. So what is
Mexico up to? And I asked John what he's hearing
about Mexico when it comes to what's happening in Los Angeles.

Speaker 9 (01:25:19):
Well, the Mexican President was out there yesterday calling the
protesters heroes, and the Mexican Foreign Ministry put out a
statement calling for the ICE agents and the Trump administration
to stand down and not enforce US immigration law. Why
the Mexican Foreign Ministry and the Mexican President have anything

(01:25:40):
at all to say about riots in Los Angeles and
attacks on federal officers, I think is a pretty good
question that Mexico should.

Speaker 3 (01:25:49):
Be forced to answer.

Speaker 9 (01:25:51):
This is a part of a long pattern of Mexican
interference in US domestic politics goes back decades, but this
is a particularly egregious form of it. As we see
the violence erupting in Los Angeles right now.

Speaker 3 (01:26:07):
She seems to be on a roll.

Speaker 1 (01:26:08):
She was before saying that they were going to mobilize
people against this remittance tax that that's been being considered
in the big Beautiful bill. Does this actually really make
the case and cross the threshold into a foreign country
threatening US and mobilizing potential threats on American soil?

Speaker 3 (01:26:29):
I mean, is it that serious.

Speaker 9 (01:26:30):
It's one hundred percent of foreign country threatening us, That's
what it is. Last month, President Shinbaum of Mexico said
that they were going to mobilize protests inside the United
States if we passed a tax on remittances to Mexico.
That's a threat. And people have to understand. Morena, the

(01:26:51):
Mexican political party that is in control of the Mexican
state and has been totally infiltrated by cartels. That was
the party of the former Mexican president Lopez Obrador or
am Low as he's called, and his successor, Claudia Sinbaum.
Also the Morena party, the Marina Party, is closely tied

(01:27:13):
to the Cineloa cartel. You have to understand the Morena
party has and has boasted about having active cells of
resistance inside the United States and has boasted about being
willing to activate those for its own political reasons whenever
they see fit, and they did this last year, when

(01:27:34):
The New York Times ran a big story about how
Amlow had long standing connections to the Cineloa cartel. Two
days later, a big group of protesters showed up outside
the New York Times headquarters in New York, chanting in
support of Amlow. Those were Morena operatives inside the United States.
So people have to kind of get serious about what's
happening here.

Speaker 2 (01:27:56):
John, we're talking with John Davidson. He's with a federalist.
John shine Baum has never been a big fan of
Donald Trump's hash I mean, is there any surprise at
all that she's kind of taken after him for this?

Speaker 9 (01:28:07):
No, I mean it's not a surprise. On the one hand,
I mean, Morena and Shinbaum are just standard left wing
Latin American demagogues. The important thing for Americans to understand
is that the Mexican government isn't a government like other countries.
It's a narco state. The Sineloa cartel controls Claudia Shinbaum,

(01:28:31):
they controlled Amlo. These are not drug gangs. These are multinational,
major criminal enterprises, and they have infiltrated and taken over
vast swaths of the Mexican state and also vast swavs
of the Mexican territory. The last Trump administration in twenty nineteen,

(01:28:53):
the US Ambassador to Mexico said that cartel's control between
thirty to forty percent of Mexican territory. They've totally infiltrated
the Mexican National Guard and the IM which is Mexico's
immigration authority. Those organizations are essentially migrant trafficking organizations that
work for the cartels. And what the precipitating incident in

(01:29:15):
Los Angeles was was an ICE raid on a money
laundering operation connected to cartel activities in Los Angeles. So
I think it's very interesting that the Mexican government was
protesting this, of all things.

Speaker 1 (01:29:30):
So we have we have the Aliens, the Alien Enemies Act,
which was where President Trump was saying, look, you got
this trende Aragua gang. They are working in coordination with
a hostile state, and they were invoking this Act to
use irregular warfare or counter warfare against this gang. It

(01:29:52):
seems like Mexico has walked right into this very Alien
Enemies Act. Even more so, I mean, we have the
president of Mexico making the very case. I mean, you
don't have to wonder what the what the motives of
a gang are or who's directing them.

Speaker 3 (01:30:06):
She's pretty much told us.

Speaker 1 (01:30:08):
Does that help President Trump in this administration and their
attempts to deport and remove these dangerous criminals that are
Mexican descent back to Mexico.

Speaker 9 (01:30:18):
It absolutely does. I mean, you know, these cartel controlled
politicians in Mexico are are not doing themselves any favor,
and I think, you know there's an element of sappho
here that they might find out about in the coming
weeks and months. Look, the Mexican government is not a

(01:30:40):
partner or an ally of the United States. They're a
hostile foreign government and they should be treated as such.
We're not going to solve our illegal immigration problem, or
the cartel problem with the border, or the drug running
problem by working with the Mexican state. And I think
that the Trump administration needs to be really clear about

(01:31:00):
communicating that to Mexico City, and they need to use
the levers of control that we do have over the
Mexican State, which are considerable to change their behavior and
extract concessions of them. Chief among them is the renegotiation
of the USMCA trade deal, which is going to start
this fall. We can basically crush the Mexican economy if

(01:31:22):
we want to, and we need to have that threat
on the table.

Speaker 2 (01:31:24):
Part of our Listen Back Friday segment. Our conversation earlier
this week with John Daniel Davidson. I want to remind folks,
I'll be on vacation next week. Don't you dare say again?
I don't go on vacation now.

Speaker 1 (01:31:35):
Man's living a life of Riley. Let me tell you something.
He's a globe trot with this guy.

Speaker 2 (01:31:40):
So you'll be yeah, hell no said it, Joey. Okay,
let's do this.

Speaker 3 (01:31:45):
Yes, this is said folks.

Speaker 1 (01:31:48):
Our friend Rod has no ability to be in a
plane or even a movie theater and not get whatever's
flying around that place. He gets sick every time he's
in a crowd or if he's traveling. He's supposed to
come back from this trip on a certain date. I
have predicted that he will come home sick, because that's
it's like clockwork.

Speaker 2 (01:32:06):
So we shall we have a lunch on that.

Speaker 3 (01:32:08):
Yes, so much.

Speaker 2 (01:32:09):
I'll come back healthy as a horse.

Speaker 1 (01:32:10):
If you hear the very white itis, you'll know I'm right.
Even if he comes because he doesn't want to lose
to lunch. If he sounds like Verry White, you know
I'm right.

Speaker 2 (01:32:17):
It's all yours next week, So take care of him,
don't ruin this show it the audience that we have,
small as it may be.

Speaker 1 (01:32:24):
It might be that they'll hang with me, they'll wait
for you, they're very patient.

Speaker 5 (01:32:28):
All right.

Speaker 2 (01:32:29):
Well, that does it for us this week. As we
say each and every week, head off, shoulders back. May
God bless you and your family, this great country of
ours be safe this weekend. Happy Father's Day to you.

Speaker 3 (01:32:39):
Greg.

Speaker 2 (01:32:39):
We'll join you Monday at four. Have a great weekend, everyone,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

.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: Why Fathers Matter; Trump is Threat to Ruling Class, Not Democracy

Episode Transcript

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

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

All Episodes