The Rod and Greg Show: Why Are Dems Mad About White House Ballroom? Plus, Supreme Court Gun Cases

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You've made an interesting observation. Because we were flying back
Sunday night, I was watching the game on the plane.
There were as many Packer fans in that stadium as
there were Steeler fans.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
Yeah, because you know what, Steeler fans knew something I didn't. Okay,
they knew that game was going to be a terrible
game to watch in it they made good money off
those Green Bay Packer fans. That that crowd's kind of agent, say,
people around me, a little little vanced in the age
eight fifteen. It is a late start on a Sunday night,
and it's not the greatest product, as we well saw.
So they Steelers, they got some issues. And uh yeah,

(00:31):
but I don't blame I don't blame them for selling
those tickets going on you Oh yeah, but you know what,
if I have to hear, go peck. They just they
were taunting me, me, me, They were just everything, NonStop, NonStop.
My son, Junior, Gregory holding Hughes. Junior shushed me on
the way out and waved his hand at me to
shush me because I was ranting so much.

Speaker 1 (00:51):
Oh okay, well it's well, I'm happy to be back.
Was a beautiful Thanks for handling it all by yourself.
Last Wednesday, I took the rains yesterday.

Speaker 2 (01:00):
Sure people suffer through, but I may I tried to
imagine wing Man Wednesday. Yes, Solar forgot all about that. No,
not if you're the hey rate thinks he just found
a cheat code with me that he can just wave
his hands.

Speaker 1 (01:14):
Son can shush you with the wave of the hand.
We may try that.

Speaker 2 (01:17):
No, I'm just so mad he did it to me.
I went quiet.

Speaker 1 (01:20):
All right, we've got a lot to get to today.
We're going to talk about the shutdown. We're going to
talk about the Democrats are still mad at the ballroom.
I don't I don't get it. Great, we'll get any
of that.

Speaker 2 (01:29):
He walked on water, they say, man can't swim.

Speaker 3 (01:31):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:32):
Now you have information that our guest at the bottom
of the hour doesn't have. But we're gonna get into
this this I don't know what you would call it
urban legend. It's not urban legend. But you know that
that big companies like Blackrock are buying homes and then
not selling them. Yes, that's that's that's the rumor among
some real estate people.

Speaker 2 (01:51):
We're gonna dive into that a bit Hannah Cock's great reporter.
She's I think it's all this is out of the
Washington Examine and saying that this whole hedge funds, you know,
these investment firms buying homes, owning them to rent them
is a fairytale.

Speaker 1 (02:05):
It's not real fairy tale.

Speaker 2 (02:06):
I think I'm privy to some of that going on
in Utah that would make your rea.

Speaker 1 (02:11):
So you don't agree with it, no, Well, we'll talk
about that with her at the bottom of the hour.
So we've got a lot to get to today. We
always invite you to be a part of the program.
Eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero triple
eight five seven o eight zero one zero on your
cell phone dial pound two to fifty and say hey, Rod,
or leave us a message on our talk back line.
All right, thirteen an unlucky number. Again. Today, for the

(02:33):
thirteenth day, or thirteenth time, the Senate failed to pass
a continuing resolution to get the government back open today
from surprise.

Speaker 2 (02:42):
The word on the street was after the No Kings rally,
which was farcical, bad comedy, but it was they said
after that they would all come together and just get
that continued resolution. As you passed so they could reopen
the government. And therefore the Democrats are free to negotiate
anything they want, but the hold the whole thing hostage.
While they don't get what they want. It's they're still

(03:02):
trying to make that argument when they used to complain
about that that that effort or that exercise. So they
are losing. Whatever wherever we were this time last week,
they are not doing as well this week. I mean,
people are starting to get really frustrated with him, and
I think it's smart for them to hold this vote
every day. Well, the strategy let them keep doing it.

Speaker 1 (03:19):
And the strategy now is greg And you'll hear in
a couple of sound bites that will be playing. You know,
the Democrats are saying, well, if the President would show
up and meet with us, we could get a deal done.
So now I'll see they're blaming Trump because he's not
showing up, sitting down with them and hashing this all out.
But as you point out, this is a congressional issue.
Congress deal with this.

Speaker 2 (03:39):
Yeah, this is a legislative branch issue. They need Trump
because they need a foil, Okay, And they're losing with
the people because the people are looking and they're really
being consistent saying, look, we just need the government to
be open, and you guys got to do what you do,
but don't hold the whole federal government hostage while you're
doing it. And they want to bring in Trump, to
bring in one of the bad someone bad, a bad guy,
so they can just say it's his fault. No one's

(04:00):
falling for now.

Speaker 1 (04:01):
No one's falling for it. And you and I have
been very open in saying, Republicans stand your ground, yes,
don't give in to this at all. And apparently it's
working for them. Our good friend CNN's Harry Enton has
a new pull out shoin how the Republicans right now
are during this shutdowns to this, they're doing pretty well.

Speaker 4 (04:18):
Take a look here the shift in net popularity versus
pre shutdown among the g when we're looking at the
Republican Party overall, that brand actually up two points. That's
within the margin envera, but clearly it hasn't dropped.

Speaker 1 (04:28):
Come over this side of the screen. Look at the
net approval.

Speaker 4 (04:30):
Ratings for Republicans in Congress. It's actually up five points
since pre shutdown.

Speaker 1 (04:35):
So what we're seeing here is.

Speaker 4 (04:36):
The Republican brand in Congress has actually improved somewhat compared
to where we were pre shutdown, despite the fact the
Republicans control. And that's the mat that John Thune and
Mike Johnson are looking at, is Hey, why should we
give an electorally speaking when our brand has actually improved
a little bit now we say their position is getting
better with whom, yeah, okay, with whom? So I think

(04:57):
it's two groups that it's so important to keep an
eye out on it, all right, changing the Republican Congresses
and net approval rating versus pre shutdown. It's rallying the base,
for sure. Look at this, the net approval rating up
twelve points versus pre shutdown. But it's not just with
the base. It's also with the middle of the electorate.
Look at this among independents it's up eight points as well.
So we've got a situation here where Republicans with this

(05:18):
shutdown are actually.

Speaker 2 (05:19):
Rallying their base.

Speaker 4 (05:20):
But it's also something that's not hurting them with the
folks in the middle of anything.

Speaker 2 (05:23):
It's helping them with folks in the midle.

Speaker 4 (05:25):
And this is the type of math that if you're
Republicans you like to see, right, because something could rally
the base but alienate those in the middle, or something
could rally those in the middle but alienate the base.
But the truth is we're not seeing that. What we're
seeing is the Republican brand has actually gotten better among independents,
and it's also gotten better among Republicans as well, that
Republican brand when it comes to those in Congress. So again,

(05:46):
what's the electoral reason that Republicans were given.

Speaker 1 (05:48):
It this point? You know what, Greg and I am
so proud of John Thune and Mike Johnson really the
president at least to this point. They're standing their ground
and they're getting support from the Republican base. Republicans out
there are saying stick to it and that case.

Speaker 2 (06:02):
And you know what, the media has to reluctantly report
on some of this, like you just heard from Harry
Enton on CNN, but for the most part, you're not
hearing any of the stories of hardship and all of
the stories that when the Republicans were blamed for holding
up the budget to try and get something that was
more fiscally responsible, they had every sob story every minute
of every day. They're very much silent on this in

(06:22):
terms of its impact not really sharing any of those stories.
So when you see the public sentiment working against the Democrats,
that's inspite the regime media's every effort to try and
protect the Democrats and their tactics that well, we're doing right.

Speaker 1 (06:35):
Now and there are some very you're starting to see
some cracks, yes in the Democrats. Yesterday a big announcement yesterday,
the president of the largest federal employees union came out
and said, Democrats, stop this, reopen the government and get
it going. And you've got and there's some sound out
there with some Democrats that were saying, yeah, this could
be a problem.

Speaker 2 (06:54):
For Okay, So this is CNN putting Dick Durbin, senat
durban on the spot in terms of that large employer.
Let's have a listen.

Speaker 5 (07:02):
Hearing from this union. As you said, Everett Kelly, you
called him a good leader. Hearing them effectively side with
Republicans and the president. Does that have an impact on you?

Speaker 6 (07:14):
Of course it does. I felt strongly for the union,
everetts a friend and it's doing a good job. But
we also feel strongly for these families and the possibility
that other Republican actions are going to be closing hospitals
and clinics and nursing homes across this country. This is
a crisis situation. We should resolve it as quickly as possible.

Speaker 5 (07:34):
It does not change the strategy that Democrats have employed
so far when it comes to this shutdown stardown.

Speaker 6 (07:41):
No. As a matter of fact, I think we can
resolve this matter as soon as the President's willing to
sit down with Republican leaders and Democratic leaders.

Speaker 1 (07:49):
There we go again, the president.

Speaker 2 (07:52):
With us on his job. I don't have to do
a clear sear you just can't do your job. Here's
one of the things that he is saying to that
large employee union. Your jobs, your people on the job
mean nothing, because we need to put more money into
what into these hospitals, into SNAP, these programs. I'm looking
at us chart right here, if you saw the spike
of snaps. So what SNAP is is it's how you

(08:14):
have baby foodstamp program. As soon as you have an
anchor baby, your whole family qualifies. When you see the
number of the flood of illegal immigrants coming into this
country during the Biden administration, you see also the SNAP
program go up just as much, just as high. This
program is being collapsed and harmed because of the decisions
that the Biden administration made that they want this country

(08:36):
to print more money and put us at a more
fiscal risk to try and repair. And I'm going to
tell you it was all irresponsible from the beginning. It
all had consequences while they were doing it. And this
is it, and they are and the Democrats are choosing
this group right here, the ones that came over illegally
and all the benefits and the food stamps that come

(08:56):
with it, over the working Americans, working people of this
country in real time.

Speaker 1 (09:00):
It's exactly what they're doing, Greg. And that's the side
of the story that's not going to be told. The
spike in the use of Snap, the spike all caused
by illegal immigrants in this country. That is the story
the regime media won't be telling.

Speaker 2 (09:15):
No, you can't look at the spike on both of
the illegal immigration flow and then the spike and cost
a Snap and say they're wow, what a coincidence. They
happened at the same exact time. It's the same number.
Now it's you see what's happening?

Speaker 1 (09:28):
Yeah, you do, all right, We've got a lot to
get to more coming up, right, here on the Rod
and Greg Show with you on this Tuesday afternoon and
Talk Radio one oh five nine k NRS. Donald Trump
just needles the Democrats. He's constantly, he's picking. It's like
two siblings. You have children, I have children watching. It's
like two brothers picking on each other.

Speaker 2 (09:50):
Some of it is he knows how to press her buttons. Yeah,
some of it is that their buttons are so huge.
If he just says, what a beautiful day out here,
they'll say, could you believe? Yeah, he said it was
a beautiful day. We just checked the weather and it's
a little under the average. We can't believe not a
beautiful day.

Speaker 7 (10:03):
You know.

Speaker 1 (10:03):
Well, I bring that up because of all the dust
that is being thrown around, literally and figuratively about the
change to the ballroom the east side of the White House,
where the President wants to build a brand new gigantic ballroom.

Speaker 2 (10:17):
Wow, this must be unprecedented, This must be something never
seen before in our great country. To explain it all,
we've asked authority to come be on the show with
us and maybe sort it out.

Speaker 1 (10:28):
Charles Lipson is a contributor. We've had Charles on the
show many a time to talk about this, Charles, how
are you welcome back to the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 8 (10:36):
Wait a minute, are you saying the weather is good?

Speaker 2 (10:39):
Exactly? I think he said it's a nice See see
how this goes. If he says it's a beautiful day,
someone's to say, my goodness, it's under the average. What
was he saying, Charles?

Speaker 1 (10:52):
Why are the Democrats throwing such a hissy fit over this?

Speaker 7 (10:57):
Well?

Speaker 8 (10:58):
I mean, obviously it begins with Trump derangement syndrome. But
I have some friends who are sincerely outraged. I mean
they're true Democrats and they're sincerely outraged. And I tried
to figure it out, and I think in the end,
what it is is that they think that the destruction

(11:20):
of the East Wing of the White House, the East
wing of the White House, which is some old offices,
they were decrepit, there was nothing to them. But they
think that the destruction of part of the White House
mirrors what they think Trump is doing to the United States,
to our system of government, to our constitution. So they

(11:42):
just see it as a metaphor.

Speaker 2 (11:44):
Now, Charles, is it because if you watch the imagery
of the White House getting torn down, it it isn't
something you're used to seeing, and I could see where
some if I was giving them the benefit of the
doubt and saying, look, if you had no context, this
might be something that looks alarming. But when you find
out that you you've had other presidents Truman, you've had
you know, you've had Obama when his indoor basketball court.

(12:04):
You've had all kinds of different things. But there the
White House has been under renovation, has been built and
rebuilt in different ways. So once you get the historical context,
it isn't out of the out of the norm. But
so did they do they not know the historical context
or is it just anyone can do it but him?

Speaker 8 (12:24):
I think it's the latter. Yeah, yeah, a lot of
people don't know the historical context. By the way, the
pictures of Truman. Truman was in many ways a very
fine president and a courageous one, and he knew that
the interior of the main part of the residence, what
you and I really think of is the White House,

(12:45):
not the East wing or the west wing where there
are offices, but the main part it was completely gutted
under Truman. There are pictures of bulldozers, wow, and there's
just nothing there and Truman himself and his family had
to live across the street in Blairhouse, which is where
senior visitors, you know, the Prime Minister of England or whatever,

(13:08):
will stay when they're on an official visit to the
White House, and he and his family moved in there
rather than let this be a problem for the next president.
So but I you know, I don't think either. First
of all, I think things are more hostile between the
parties now than they've been in my living memory, and

(13:31):
certainly more more hostile than at any time since the
depths of the Depression. I would say, but I think
that the issue really is and I think that the
Trump administration, which normally does a good job of selling
its policies, didn't do any made no attempt to sell this,
and they should have.

Speaker 1 (13:53):
Let me ask you this, Charles. First of all, I
find it embarrassing that if we have a major stake
figure from another country here, we hold the dinner in
a tent and they have to use a porter potty.
I mean that to me is very, very embarrassing. But
I want to get your reaction.

Speaker 8 (14:07):
We walk, they have to put a quarter in the
leader to get into the porta.

Speaker 1 (14:12):
Potty to get it seems wrong, that gets wrong change
thirty seven trillion dollars.

Speaker 8 (14:18):
But I don't think.

Speaker 1 (14:19):
They should have to go neither do I. What did
you make of both the New York Times and the
Washington Post over the weekend coming out and supporting what
the president is doing. I was shocked.

Speaker 8 (14:31):
I was shocked too, actually, uh. And it takes some
of the edge off of all the Democrats outright. But
I really think, and I just think that they're grasping
its straws. You notice, with the government shut down, they're
saying Trump shouldn't make a trip to Asia, as if
that's the problem somehow. By the way, I have been

(14:55):
saying for a while that I thought a big part
of the Trump's success in at least getting a ceasefire
and getting the hostages out in Gaza, though I didn't
think it would lead to anything like a warm piece,
and maybe not even a cold piece, but I did
think it would allow the United States to reorient our

(15:17):
defense structure to Asia to contain China, and that is
exactly what you now see happening. But the idea that
he would call off such an important trip for the
country in order to stay home to talk with Chuck
Schumer about things. He's already said, Look, this is a
clean continuing resolution. If you want the government to stay open,

(15:41):
stay But I think what I just think that this
is a tremendous mistake by the Democrats. And I'm struck
also by yet another federal court Democratic judge overreaching and
saying that the president can even fire people who are
no longer on the federal payroll on what grounds?

Speaker 6 (16:02):
Yeah?

Speaker 8 (16:03):
What grounds? Does she say that?

Speaker 1 (16:05):
Yeah? Kind of crazy. Charles is always love your insight,
Thanks for joining us. Thank you, thanks a lot on
our newsmaker line, Charles Lips And can you imagine going
to a state dinner and here's the president of China
or or Russia gotta go to the restaurom. They go
and they realize they need a quarter to use a quarter, puddy,
and they come back, anybody got a quarter?

Speaker 2 (16:28):
I got to use the john over here whatever they
call it. Yeah, yeah, no, it's it's it's overdue, and
it's fine. But I do think he's right. I think
that it's they would just hate it no matter what.
It doesn't matter the historical context. If you knew about it,
you'd still hate it. Because it's him. That's what they do.

Speaker 1 (16:42):
Yeah, that is all right. A lot more coming up
here on The Roden greg Show Tuesday afternoon and Talk
Radio one O five nine can us. We want to
bring on Hannah Cox. Hannah's president and co founder of
Based Politics. She's got a story out there today saying
that no Blackrock isn't buying up all the Hannah, thanks
for joining us this afternoon. What do you have found out, Hannah?

Speaker 9 (17:04):
Yeah, well I found out it's a boogeyman. I have
the same narrative that flies around me. I'm in Atlanta, Georgia,
and what's interesting is Atlanta is actually one of the
markets that sees the most of this kind of investment,
and even then, it turns out it's a pretty paltry number,
and per usual, the true culprit behind why housing is
so expensive has a lot more to do with the
government in both state and local governments and rules and

(17:26):
regulations that have been applied, and then additionally some of
the policy that the federal government has been involved with
when it comes to our supply chain and tariffs and
just the value of our dollar in general lately. But
as a whole, it's a pretty complicated system that has
created the problem, and I think that makes it a
lot harder to address and undo. And so it doesn't
really surprise me that people have picked out an easier scapegoat.

(17:49):
You know, when you blame big, bad companies, that's an
easy place to put blame. It removes the partisanship. It
feels very simplified when it comes to how you might
address you know, you hear people say this just be banned,
we should just ban these practices, but after coming through
the data, that really wouldn't make much of a difference
for folks.

Speaker 2 (18:08):
So again you're saying what we've all heard. Now, we
do have some examples here in the state of Utah
where subdivisions are being built by Homes USA and they
buy them with the intent to rent those homes, and
we're seeing some of that actually happening, but maybe not
with Blackrock. My question is, there was a recent article
that came out that said a third of the new
housing inventory that was out was actually already purchased or

(18:32):
being invested by these firms, not by individual homeowners that
would buy it. Any true. I mean I was looking
for this before the interview. I can't find the article itself,
but I did come across it. I guess my two
questions are is that true? And if it's not, who's
pushing this narrative?

Speaker 9 (18:49):
Yeah, well, I think first and foremost, I've seen some
means floating around quoting that same data. I have yet
to come across the actual numbers myself, So I'd be
really curious to come through it and see what methodology
they used, you know, what they're counting, because one thing
I have discovered is that there's a lack of understanding
of just basic financial terms. Oftentimes in this discussion, when

(19:10):
people say the black Rock can find up all the houses,
and you point to the fact that black Rock does
no such thing, They're not involved in that business at all,
then people say, oh, well it's Blackstone, and people are
just confused. But then you come in there and you know,
they do have a few investments into the market and
these kinds of areas, but as a whole, it still
equates to well beneath one percent of the entire market.
And so then people start pointing to things like Airbnb,

(19:31):
and so you really have to be precise with what
we're talking about. You know, are we talking about issue
where you have these large companies that are swooping in
that are buying up large segments of the market and
then renting them back at exorbitant rates or holding them
and preventing their being more supply on the market, thus
driving up the price of housing. That is unquestionably not happening.
We saw the American Enterprise Institute looked into this this

(19:52):
year and they found that across all institutional investors, so
not just Black Crock or Blackstone, all institutional investors, they
own just one percent of the total US single family
housing stock as of the summer. So that is definitely
not happening. And I think that means we need to
lay this conversation to rest. Now, if we're talking about
the fact that maybe you have a significant number of

(20:13):
Americans who own one home as their primary residence and
then they buy up two other homes, three other homes
and they rent those out, then certainly those numbers start
to look a little bit different. I do think you
have a higher percentage of people who are doing that,
But conflating that incident happening with institutional investments, I think
is really incorrect, and I don't know that it's necessarily

(20:34):
you know, a propaganda campaign or something that's orchestrated. I
think that it's just a lack of understanding for the
basic terms that we're using, and again people looking for
an easy scapegoat to blame for the problem. I think
big companies, you know, often in America, for whatever reason,
we've gotten to this place where big equals bad. Right,
if you're going to be a big company, must have

(20:54):
done really bad things to get there, when in reality,
most of the time, if you've become a really big,
successful company, usually you've done a lot right. You've made
a lot of customers, hath that you've provided a gooder
service a lot of people want. But that doesn't negate
the fact that increasingly the connotation and the perception around
big companies is that they're evil and they're sinister, and
they're constantly looking to screw people over. And so I
think this narrative just fits, and so people run with it.

(21:15):
It doesn't really require a lot of intellectualism. It doesn't
require you to do a lot of you know, research
or digging into data. You can you know, talk about
this in a way that feels intellectual and smart and
sounds like you have all the answers and I think
that's just something that people look to do increasingly on
social media. You know, there's no fact teckers, there's somebody
pushing back on people. There's nobody saying, hey, did you
actually like just pull that out of left field or

(21:38):
have you done any sort of concrete research into this?
And again, when you do actually do that research on
this subject matter, it's tough. You know, it's a really
tough issue for us to solve because it is such
a web of state and local and federal policies that
are actually anti capitalists that are really screwing over average
Americans right now. And it's both parties, and so I

(21:59):
think that's a lot harder for people in this day
and age to say, you know what, maybe my team's
bad too, all right, Hannah, If the big companies aren't
the big bad guys, obviously the government must have a
role in this.

Speaker 1 (22:08):
What is the government doing that is causing all kinds
of problems?

Speaker 9 (22:13):
Well, they're doing a lot. You know, this has been
going on for decades. It didn't start yesterday, and so
it tends to take a couple of shapes and forms.
We'll set the federal policy aside. When you look into
the supply chain and tariffs and just what they've done
to the value of the dollar, because that certainly is
a big factor. But when it comes to things that
people I think can have a bit more of a
say in, we're talking more about your state government, sometimes
your local government, and they tend to do things like

(22:35):
have really zealous zoning requirements, you know, and oftentimes when
you say that, people say, well, that zoning's good, I
don't want a strip club being built next to me,
And it's you know, yes, that would be a happy medium,
if that's all that zoning was doing, But that's not
the reality. Most of the time. When you really look
into what these regulations look like, they're going far above that.
You know, they're saying you can't put a tiny house

(22:56):
in your backyard for your mother in law to live
in ash they ages, or they're saying, you know, you
can't have a mixed youth subdivision that i'm restaurants and
some condos above them because there's a neighborhood around the
corner that's zone single family. You also get into a
lot of things like historical overlays. This is especially problematic
in a lot of urban areas. I'm in Atlanta, so

(23:17):
we see a lot of this, you know, where people decide.

Speaker 10 (23:19):
That just because this building's old.

Speaker 9 (23:20):
It needs to be preserved, and they put these overlays
in place, and they have to go through these really
you know, overly zealous approval processes to get anything built,
to even renovate something and make it, you know, where
it's up to what you would want it to be
like in modern times, much less to maybe tear it
down and make it more efficient, or you know, start
looking at building on top of things. And that's often

(23:43):
done because people want to preserve the character of how
things look. This feeds into sort of entire mindset that
we often call having a not in my backyard NIMBYism mindset,
where you know, people tend to care a lot more,
it seems, in practice, about what the neighborhood around them
looks like versus their neighbor being able to afford healthing.
And I think that's the tougher conversation that we have

(24:05):
to have, is that people love to wax poet about
this issue and you know, to talk about how horrible
it is that we don't have affordable healthing. But when
it comes to actually making the tough calls you're going
to have to make. That's when we see there starts
to be some pushback, and that just simply is the reality.

Speaker 11 (24:19):
You know.

Speaker 9 (24:19):
I don't think things have to be ugly or have
no character in order for things to be affordable, but
there does have to be a balance of that and
you have to be a little bit less rigid in
some of those requirements, and that's where we really have
to start digging into reforms. Fortunately, there's a lot of
states that are starting to do this. There's a really
great package that's coming down in Michigan right now that's
got five partisan support. That's sort of more in the

(24:41):
direction of what we would say is yimbism, you know,
yes in my backyard, and starting to recognize that these
have have really negative repercussions and there has to be
a better mix of how we approach regulating this and
how we how we impact the ways that people build
and the cost because when you are making it really
tough to build, you're making it where there's long approval

(25:01):
processes and lots of inspections, and then on top of
that it has to be built this much back from
the yard. You know, what ends up happening, and it
becomes really expensive to build, and those costs get passed
on to the consumer. And so if you talk to
anybody and the construction or the building industry, they'll tell
you like, we would love to build more affordable housing,
but we can't do it affordably. And so what ends
up happening is that when they do build, they build

(25:22):
more expensive housing because that's where they can make a profit.

Speaker 1 (25:25):
And thank you very much for joining us on our
news micro line. Greg One note I want to pass
along related to housing. US single family house prices increased
in August even as supply has improved significantly, suggesting affordability
is going to remain a problem for quite some time.

Speaker 2 (25:41):
Yeah, and look, and I asked a question about I know,
I know of large firms that are doing this, and
so this is what you need to know. In the
last quarter, so the last three months, seven and a
half percent of the homes that were available were owned
by large and big investors. Now big investors hedge funds,
private equity firms, real estate investment firms. But where you

(26:01):
might get where this definition might get a little blurred,
you're also it also includes this data also includes people
that buy ten homes a year a year, So you
could be a mom and Paul, that's not that's net
net ten homes a year. So you, I mean, you're
not a small dog, but you might not be a
billion dollar hedge fund either. But I do think you
got to fit in this category. You were you are
purchasing ten or more homes a year, and then you

(26:23):
are in the big investor and doing that. And I'm
telling you there it was it's what seven and it's
almost eight percent in Provo, six percent of the homes
in Ogden, and then Salt Lake says at seven and
a half percent. So it does exist here. But maybe
you're the definition of what a big investor is. You
could different parse the words, but that's a but I'm

(26:44):
telling you that none of that is I think positive
for an individual trying to buy a home in today's market.

Speaker 1 (26:50):
It is not all right, more, coming up on the
Rodden Gregg Show, how about the one eighty shit that
Bill Gates. No, these people have day on climate chain
if you aren't aware of it. He basically came out
and said we need to shift away from the doomsday
rhetoric and maybe use real life solutions you mean, so

(27:12):
the problems with climate change?

Speaker 2 (27:13):
Does he mean the rhetoric that he's been fueling for
how many years now, and the billions he's been spending,
Probably billions. I don't know how much he spends. He
probably spends other people's money. But this guy's been the
biggest chicken little we've seen about the sky falling on
climate as you've ever heard anyone say. Now he's saying, guys, uh,
what are you so worried about? We're fine. I just
looked at my business prospects and unless we get more

(27:35):
power and we start generating a lot more, I'm in trouble.
So it looks like this whole you know, climate change
thing just isn't as big of a deal as you thought.

Speaker 1 (27:42):
Yeah, no more doomsday stuff. Oh, you know, now that
you know he doesn't foresee any problems in the foreseeable future.
There maybe some parts of the world, like Africa that
will struggle a little bit because they don't have the
modern conveniences what we have to deal with climate change.
But he's calling it greg a strategic pivot like climate change,

(28:05):
because Gates is called.

Speaker 2 (28:06):
It's a strategic pivot of his bottom line because as
long as he thought that controlling power would control the
rest of us. He was fine with it as soon
as he found it was going to hit his bottom line.
Oh now he's saying we should be worried about the
impact on human welfare more than the impact on global temperatures.
Do you do you hear the words coming out of
your mouth, mister Kates. You have been saying the absolute opposite,

(28:27):
and you just pivoted for your own profit.

Speaker 1 (28:29):
Well, you know what happened. He's turning seventy. Anybody in
their seventies is very smart.

Speaker 2 (28:35):
He's finally getting around to that.

Speaker 1 (28:36):
Hu's getting around to that.

Speaker 2 (28:37):
I don't know. I think you're I think you're a
biased on that seventieh issue.

Speaker 1 (28:41):
Yes, shall we talk about food stampers. Let's talk about
it and the number of Americans were using Wow enough, Next.

Speaker 2 (28:50):
Show, Snap, I Got the Power? You ever hear that song?
I always wanted to use it for bumper music.

Speaker 1 (28:58):
Yeah, You've got the power?

Speaker 2 (28:59):
Ye that the power is by Snap? Yeah that's not
the Snap.

Speaker 1 (29:02):
No, the Snap we're talking about. You know the There
are so many things Greg that during this shutdown, we
have learned about the Democrats and what they're up to right. Yes,
we now know that. I think two members of Congress
have said this, Well, if there are some people who
go hungry, the end justifies the means. That's what it

(29:23):
really comes down it does. You know we've heard them
say that. Well, now, what many Americans maybe had a
little bit of an inkling of what was going on.
We now have proof of it. And we had a
caller on this yesterday, Greg, when you weren't here, we
were talking about the shutdown. What we have now learned
more than forty one million Americans or people who are

(29:47):
here and not Americans, are collecting food stamps. The number
is absolutely amazable.

Speaker 2 (29:54):
Yeah, so I'm looking at numbers one hundred and forty
five billion dollars spent a year. They are the people
that are receiving this are spending twice as much as
the average worker spends on groceries, you know, a week.
So they're spending a lot. So they're getting One could
say they're abusing the system. One could say they're caloric rich, Okay,

(30:14):
getting a ton of calories. But whatever it is. If
you're Biden and you're bringing in all these illegal immigrants
and you have an anchor baby, your whole family gets SNAPPED.
You get rent assistance, you get Medicaid, you get the
Probably the parents are working under the table, so they're
getting a cash job. They sell. There's occasions of fraud.
I can't believe it's rare, because if I know about it,

(30:35):
it must be pretty prevalent. You can sell your SNAP
benefits for cash, you know, and send back money belt.
It seems like a pretty good gig if you can
get it.

Speaker 1 (30:45):
Listen to this breakdown of where this money is going
and who are the recipients of the SNAP program in
this country. This is from News Nation tonight breaking down
the numbers.

Speaker 12 (30:55):
There are forty two million people in this country that
need food stamps on a weekly basis. And we're saying
people deliberately instead of Americans because most of the people
that are on food stamps aren't even from this country.

Speaker 1 (31:10):
Rob Finnerty, He's going to explain to us who in
America is getting these food stamps.

Speaker 12 (31:16):
Forty five percent of Afghanistan immigrants are on food stamps,
forty two percent of Somali immigrants, thirty four percent of
every immigrant from Iraq, twenty three percent of patients, fifty
nine percent of all illegal aliens are collecting food stamps,
meaning that food stamps from the US government and the

(31:39):
US taxpayer are not even Americans. And we didn't know
about any of this before the government shutdown started, but
thanks to Democrats, we can confirm tonight that millions of
Joe Biden illegal aliens, people who crossed the border when
Joe was president, are now collecting food stamps from a
program funded by hardworking American taxpayers.

Speaker 13 (31:59):
A problem, and we've heard I've seen I've seen many
videos making the rounds on the socials saying that even
if they don't get their their snap on any of
their food stamps, they will just go in and take it.

Speaker 1 (32:14):
Zack, I'm going to be stealing like it, ain't know
from Marbo.

Speaker 14 (32:18):
From where the stores I mean, and you're not going
to get prosecuted and plays with like California.

Speaker 1 (32:22):
Just go in and they're going to take it. They
are promoting just go in and take it.

Speaker 13 (32:25):
My gosh, oh wow, So well you want the Afghans
and the Iraqis to have their have their food every month,
don't you?

Speaker 1 (32:35):
Absolutely not amazing those numbers are throwing out. These are
people who are using food stamps as rob Fenny said
on News Nation, not Americans because many of them are
not even Americans.

Speaker 2 (32:47):
Well, at the beginning of the program, we played a
clip where the largest employee federal employee union is who's
a Democrat dye in the wool. He knows all the
Democrat players in the Senate and up in Congress and
in the swamp they know him by name. Is calling
for them all to pass the Senators to pass a
clean continuing resolution and get the government back open. And
they are saying, on the records of CNN and the

(33:09):
other regi media, we will not They are going they
are picking the wrong fight. They are going to at
the detriment of the working people of this country. They
are fighting for and on behalf of those people that
are getting these public benefits who are supposedly not voters
or I mean, I don't know how you can ignore
your constituents to the betterment of people that are not
here legally or that that I mean, what's the representative government?

(33:33):
They should be fighting for their peeps, right, these are
the working people of America. You should be It shouldn't
even be a choice. But they have chosen others other
than those that they represent to defend, and I think
that the I okay, all right, well I get their way.

Speaker 1 (33:49):
Let me keep doing the story breaking tonight, Greg. More
than two dozen states are now suing the Trump administration
over as a recent refusal the fun food stamps during
the government shutdown.

Speaker 2 (33:59):
You know why, you can get a liberal judge, judge
to be a good legislator and just you know, keep
printing the money and doing what you want to do,
just like they stopped indefinitely the president being able to
fire those that are unemployed and aren't working well.

Speaker 1 (34:13):
The states, including people from or states including Arizona Surprise,
California Surprise, Massachusetts Surprise, have now asked a judge to
force Washington to tap into emergency reserve money so that
families would not see the interruption to their benefits under
the SNAP program starting November first. Now, so these states, Greg,

(34:37):
are suing the administration to get money to the SNAP program.
Are any of them suing the administration to get money
to our military?

Speaker 2 (34:47):
No? No, no, or for the people that are paying
for this through the nose that they have to pay
for this at their own detriment. Are they suing that
people that shouldn't be eligible for this because they're not
even here legal. There are people receiving public benefits that
have no right to it. I mean, I'm looking at
some statistics about in New York City. I think this
city if these numbers are true, and I don't have

(35:07):
any reason to not believe him. The source I have
as a as well, John will Fever's he's you know,
he's got what he's got, you know, one hundred and
two hundred thousand followers on X. You know he's saying that,
he's saying that these Let me just tell you to
show these demographics on on on New York City, you

(35:28):
won't believe it. So in our ine, they the second
largest city, forty percent of adults are not employed. Forty
percent of adults.

Speaker 1 (35:35):
In that city and probably getting food stamps now, yes,
probably getting three SEPs.

Speaker 2 (35:39):
Of the ones that are employed, thirteen percent of all
the jobs in New York City they work for the government,
a government, federal states, they work for government. The number
one private sector job in New York City is a
nonprofit job. Okay, so there's no there's no benefit to
that's a community organizer on steroids job. Okay. Fifty three

(35:59):
percent of adults received forty one at least one fifty
three percent of New Yorkers receive at least one form
of public assistance. Thirty eight percent of residents are foreign born.
Twenty five percent of residents are not proficient in English.
Fifty percent do not use English as their primary language.
So you wonder why man, Danny, Ma, Mam, donnie is popular?

(36:23):
And do you know why a larger, you know, welfare
state is what's being demanded out of that city when
you see numbers like that, if you have most people
not working or for I don't know, I just think,
you know, I don't think it's a model for the country.

Speaker 1 (36:36):
No, Well, you know what, Greg, where is the public
outcry over this? Forty two million people, okay are getting
food stamps. Fifty nine percent of that forty two million
they aren't even citizens of the United States of America. Yeah,
we're paying for this.

Speaker 2 (36:53):
And if you think we're just making we're there's a
there's a fault, faulty logic here. You can see the
spike in illegal entries and the spike in snap payments.
They ride, they just track each other, they track it
the same. And that's not a wild coincidence that that
is the process that the Biden administration and the NGOs
put forward so you could always return them quickly. If

(37:15):
they were in a border county of a border state,
you could return once you get them into the embed
them into the United States. It's much much harder to
remove or deport people. And that was by design, that
wasn't by accident. They spent enormous amounts of government money.
We've now found out NGOs don't really work on donations.
They get a ton of federal funds, unaccounted for, not transparent,

(37:37):
but they use that to fly to bus, to send
throughout this country and then turn around and begin to
drain the public the public assistance programs. And you see
the numbers that are just absolutely showing what's happened during
the Biden administration. And we're and now they want to
keep the government shut down until we pay for what
they allowed to happen.

Speaker 1 (37:56):
Is this too mean? The presidents in Asia right now,
He'll be back in a couple of days. I would
you know, I'd throw this idea out. Should the President
sign an executive order saying if you cannot prove you're
an American citizen, you do not you are not eligible
for the SNAP program.

Speaker 2 (38:13):
They get it. Yeah, well they have that law. Now
they get around it with these anchor babies. The banker
baby is the way they get around everything, because as
soon as they have the anchor baby, they have a nut,
they have a citizen, and then everybody in the house they.

Speaker 1 (38:24):
Get food stamps.

Speaker 2 (38:24):
They all get yeah, yeah, yeah. And the part that
I didn't know till today was they spend twice as
much as the average family that works has to put
food on the table. They're spending twice as much, Yeah,
on a public assistance program.

Speaker 1 (38:37):
I get an email over night, because we talked about
the shutdown a little bit yesterday on the show, an
email from a good listener to the show and saying, Rod,
I am furious. There's all this talk about saving the
SNAP program, funding the SNAP program, but what are they
doing for the military right now in this country today?
She was fuming.

Speaker 2 (38:57):
In fact, the man that was supposed to stay anonymous,
the billionaire that that funded at David Mellon. He's a
Pittsburgh you know Mellon family. Of course, The New York
Times is a hit piece on the guy, tries to
besmirch his reputation and everything else, he doesn't care. He's us.
He's well within his right. But yeah, no, you you,
no one cares about the military. There's some essential We

(39:18):
have callers that listen to the show who work in
the High R. S Building in Ogden. Their work and
they're good employees, and if they listen to this show,
they're clearly the shining stars of federal government and they
can't get it. They're they're not working.

Speaker 1 (39:31):
Yeah, but we can give people who aren't even Americans food. Yeah, right,
all I want to get your reaction to this eight
eight eight five seven eight zero one zero, because I
think this shutdown has exposed a lot of things, including
what's going on with a Snap program. And you know
there is abuse in this program taking place. Matter of fact,
we have that that audio a moment ago saying, Hey,

(39:52):
if I can't get my you know, if I don't
get my Snap money, I'm just going to go steal
my food. That's the attitude that they have, and I
don't think America and should put up with it. Your
calls and your comments eight eight eight five seven eight
zero one zero triple eight five seven o eight zero
one zero on your cell phone dial pound two fifty
and say hey Rod or leave us a talk back coming.
We'll get to all those comments coming up right here

(40:13):
on the Rod and Gregg Show handed out? Is that right?
How does it work? You were in the legit?

Speaker 7 (40:17):
Yeah?

Speaker 15 (40:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (40:17):
So a lot of times those federal programs have state agencies, which,
if you're Utah, you like to have your your people
staring out seeing all these bureaucrats from DC doing it.
And so our Department of Workforce Services administers that program, okay,
And and you know, I think they do a good job.
I think we've we've been real careful on how that
money gets put out there. We've had we've actually had

(40:39):
state laws that require you have to have a drug test.
You can't be on drugs if you're going to qualify,
and you're not supposed to be undocumented or an illegal alien.
But it's that anchor baby, uh, you know, that that
little loophole that allows a lot of people to because
how do you know, how would you even know? I
mean a baby, you can have it after you're here,

(41:01):
you could have it, you could I just don't even
know how you declare a child, any child. If you
have a child, how is it not an anchor? Baby
just by virtue it's a child. You could just say no,
it was born here, and you could just say it.
How do we know different? You don't know. You don't
have a documented date when they entered because they didn't
enter leally.

Speaker 1 (41:18):
How many restrictions are states allowed to put on the
distribution of food stamps? Are there are I mean separately
separate from what the federal government requires. Are states allowed
to add more stipulations?

Speaker 5 (41:30):
You know?

Speaker 2 (41:31):
So I don't know the exact I do know that
we passed legislation that I remember was former Speaker Brad
Wilson when he was a lawmaker, he ran the bill
that required the drug tests for the benefits, which I agree.
So that shows that the states have some ability to
shape that program. But I want to say that even
when Wisconsin back in the nineties introduced welfare reform that

(41:52):
put it on a set timeline and you wouldn't get
it after a certain amount of time. That I want
to say that Wisconsin received some waivers to be a
to do that. I'm not sure from the federal government
to be able to be more flexible. But I don't
know the answer that, But I do know states have
looked at how they administer it, and they have some latitude,
but I don't know how much that is.

Speaker 1 (42:12):
You know, there are community groups here in the state
right now, knowing what's coming up on Saturday, that's when
the funding ends, who are now encouraging people to donate
money to their not money, but food to their organizations
to hand out to people who will go hungry if
they don't have the SNAP money available to them. I
kind of, you know, I understand this is great. We

(42:33):
don't want anybody to go hungry in this country. But
after I'm learning that fifty nine percent of that forty
two million are not even Americans living off the goodness
of the American people, it stirs me up a little bit.

Speaker 2 (42:46):
Well, let let's not be too silent about this. I
know for fact that the homeless services, the meals that
are provided paid for by private, you know, charitable sources,
the programs that are out there for people experien and
see homelessness. And yet I see people out on the
streets with their signs and they don't have to have
a sign. They can have every all the meals paid,

(43:07):
and they can have a place to stay if they
want to enter into that that there's providers that do that,
so when so, but yet they still ask for money,
they still sit in those intersections. And we even have
a law now that if it's a state road, it
wasn't designed to pull over and pay or give people money.
It's actually it's it's dangerous to do that, and so
you're not supposed to be yet you still see see

(43:29):
that going on. I think it's if you think the
federal government is going to be charitable for and on
your behalf, you're not that that would be an incorrect assumption.
I would not I would not charitably give to replace
a government program because I don't know that that was
charitable to start with. And I think these numbers we
see of who's receiving it, or how much they're spending

(43:51):
in and above and beyond what normal families pay for
their groceries shows us that there's abuse in that system.
That you don't want to throw good money after bad.
And I'm positive that we have existing social safety nets
with our churches and with our existing volunteer base, that
no one's going to go hungry in America.

Speaker 1 (44:08):
No they aren't.

Speaker 2 (44:09):
They aren't, So I don't don't try to pony up
for the government on snap because I if some of
these people who've gotten this sweet deal go back because
they are here illegally and they were introduced to a
public public assistance that was too good to be true.
It is too good to be true. It shouldn't have
happened that way. It was wrong to have happened that way,
and we need to continue forward. So I think it

(44:32):
should I think it'll self adjust, and I'm confident there
are existing social safety nets to help people that are
truly in need. There are What they don't want is
a scrutiny. They are the people that don't want They
don't want to be scrutinized us. They just want to
just give us the stuff.

Speaker 1 (44:44):
Just give us some stuff, give us. Would you would
you give food right now to like the Utah Food
Bank to help people who are hungry. I would wrestle
with it.

Speaker 2 (44:52):
I wouldn't write not at first blush. I would have
to understand how that food's being distributed in what's going
on at the moment.

Speaker 1 (44:58):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (44:59):
Look, I've had friends that even volunteer at those places,
and some of the people that pull up they look
at and go, wow, I'm not going to be judgy here.
But that's a that's a nice suv you to and
that's a nice car.

Speaker 1 (45:09):
Family looks well dressed.

Speaker 2 (45:11):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (45:13):
The thing, this is such a big, big program and
it's been around, well, it was around when FDR was president,
but LBG picked it up in sixty four. And I
think I can't I can't even imagine the abuse that
takes place within this program because now they get cards, right.

Speaker 12 (45:31):
Yeah, two or a million people in this country that
need food stamps on a weekly based.

Speaker 1 (45:37):
Whoops, wrong button, Sorry about that. Folks might fault on
that one, but.

Speaker 2 (45:41):
They made are point all those given on a weekly basis.
I I think if you're a member of a church,
I'm pretty sure that church has some kind of humanitarians
they're trying to help.

Speaker 1 (45:52):
Just give to your church, Yeah, give to you. They're
going to look at it. Eight five seven eight. There
were one zero, triple eight five seven oags or one
zero on your cell phone dial pound two, fire two,
dial pound two fifty. Thank you and say hey, Rod,
or you leave a message with us on our talk
backline here.

Speaker 2 (46:11):
That red little microphone button. Give us a thirty second take.

Speaker 1 (46:13):
Yep, your calls to your comments coming up on the
Rod and Gregg Show, we.

Speaker 2 (46:16):
Have the uber smart listeners that listen to our show
message into the program and said, you know federal laws
that you got to have a sponsor, and that sponsor
is supposed to take the liability for two years of
the person that comes in. And if that's the case,
then all of the assistants for people that come right
across the border and have an anchor baby and all
the public assistance being given is not adhering to federal law.

(46:37):
They're not enforcing the federal law. What's that sound like?
I mean, Biden said you had to have a whole
new laws for him to be able to secure that border.
Turned out you didn't need any of it. Trump was
able with existing laws to secure the border right away.
So look, if you need a sponsor for two years,
and that's not real, you're not hearing anything. I mean,
you look at the food stamp benefits being paid out

(46:59):
with the surge of people being allowed across the border illegally.
They just they track each Yeah, yeah, it's unbelievable.

Speaker 1 (47:05):
It is amazing. Well, well, you want to get your
reaction to this as you learn more and more about
what the SNAP program in this country is all about
eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero cell
phone dial Pound two fifty and say hey Rod or
leave us a message on our talkback line. Let's go
to the phones as we go to David in Clearfield
tonight here on the Rod In Greg Show. David, how
are you? Thanks so much for joining us?

Speaker 15 (47:27):
Hello?

Speaker 11 (47:28):
Yeah, I remember years ago the government had warehouses with
like government cheese and stuff like that, and I just
want those things are still around it. They could open
those things up or in certain crisis situations, so you know,
a crisis.

Speaker 2 (47:43):
Yeah, David, I'm not sure. I don't know that the
government has it. Does stockpilo itself. I think they provide
that card and they allow them to get groceries at
you know, Communia stores and things like that, but I
don't know that they have it now. The food bank
has stored things before, and items and things, but perishables,
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (48:02):
Yeah, that's what they asked for the food bank. I
know here in Utah, I asked for non perishable items,
you know, cans of food, mac and cheese, you name it.
That's what they asked for. And I wonder, Greg, when
I was growing up, my father owned a grocery store.
I think I've shared that with people before. And you
would have a book where you'd tear out the food stamps.

(48:23):
It wasn't like a credit card, but you'd have a
little book and you know, it'd be five, ten, twenty,
twenty dollars on each one. And there were restrictions back then.
You could not buy soda, you could not buy cigarettes,
you could not buy beer, you couldn't buy candy. And
I don't even know if those restrictions are in place anymore.
For people who are part of the staff program.

Speaker 2 (48:44):
I think some of them are, but not not like
they used to be. I mean they get made a
big day. You are allowed to buy soda now, I
mean Coca Cola lobbyists are telling them to let them
buy the cola. Yeah, you know. So it's been, of course,
like everything it's been, you know, it's been changed and
not for the better. I also like the stamps themselves,
I think I don't think. I don't think you should

(49:05):
make it easy and make it like a debit card
or a credit card so that nobody has to see
that you're on public assistance. I think that everybody in
line ought to be I think if you're taking public assistance,
then it should be a temporary situation in your life.
And and if you have to be an outlier and
look like one in the line, it emphasizes that this

(49:27):
is not a permanent status. This is something you need
to work yourself out of. Yeah, that's very true. Yeah,
so it is all right.

Speaker 1 (49:34):
Let's go to our talk back line get a comment
from one of our listeners. He has questions about this
as well.

Speaker 3 (49:40):
Hey guys, just jumping in here. Greg, Sorry about pittsburghs hashtag. Sorry,
I'm sorry. Well, let's talk about SNAP real quick.

Speaker 2 (49:48):
Cool.

Speaker 3 (49:49):
Why can't we as a country utilize the whole real
ID aspect when it comes to eligibility for SNAP and
then that way there's proper documentation and then proper distribution
of step.

Speaker 2 (50:06):
What is the real idea, It's it's a The real
idea is that it's a national database. Some people are
worried that it gives a power the government too much
knowledge of who you are. But it actually is a
pre thorough idea. Although we've seen the name not given
commercial driver's license with the real ID stamp on it,
so even that's not as thorough as we were once
told but here I love the idea because remember, you

(50:28):
couldn't go to a grocery store if you didn't have
the vaccination card. You couldn't have Remember all the scrutiny
that magically Democrats overnight expected, demanded and required of every
citizen of the country or nonsen isn't to have their
vaccination cards to enter a supermarket, to go anywhere. And
that was not unreasonable, that wasn't seen as racist or
anything else. Why not have on who's getting this getting

(50:52):
the US right? Let's just tell democrats it's another vaccine.
You know, that's what it is. Give it as a
vac proof.

Speaker 1 (51:00):
Back to the phones as we go. Let's go to
West Jordan and hear from Jim tonight. Jim, how are
you welcome to the Rod and Greg show.

Speaker 9 (51:07):
Hey, I'm good.

Speaker 16 (51:09):
I just had to call and make a comment about this.
Back in late seventies, I had eight children at home
and we when we had our last baby, went on
of that program where you could buy things for a newborn,
but we also applied for food stamps and we had

(51:34):
to mail in a check for one hundred and forty
dollars to the state and they would send me back
a check for one hundred and fifty dollars. I was
getting ten dollars a month, but I had to pay
everything up to that ten dollars to even get them
back in the seventies.

Speaker 1 (51:54):
Wow, yeah, I never heard of that. I've never heard
of that, Jim, that's interesting. Take on. Thanks. So you
pay one hundred and forty to get one hundred and fifty,
that's a real benefit.

Speaker 2 (52:04):
Yeah. Yeah, Well let's go. Let's keep going to the phones.
We've got time. Yeah, let's go. Let's go to Skip
in Cottonwood Heights. Skip. Welcome to the Rod and Gregg Show.

Speaker 7 (52:14):
Yeah.

Speaker 14 (52:14):
Well, you know, part of part of this is is
that EBS system has been around for a long time. Basically,
you walk and use your debit card and can charge
pretty much everything until the last uh this this this
president basically said, you know, no fast food, no soda,
no beer. So that's been a change, and that's a

(52:35):
that's a real benefit.

Speaker 1 (52:36):
Yeah, that's good.

Speaker 14 (52:37):
But this all, this all started.

Speaker 15 (52:39):
With Orange Hatch and the change in the programing, and
he buddied up and and and made some some friends
amongst Democrats when they increased and changed CBS. But I
think I think part of the problem is is that
we we don't I D people very well. They are

(53:02):
able to sell their EBS credits their value of the cards,
and you know, there's some office stories out there. But
I think part of the problem that we face is
that we just don't monitor it very well, and there's
no really real good way to do it with having
a debit card system in place.

Speaker 1 (53:23):
Yeah, I'm with you, skip on this. I mean, I
think there's a lot of abuse in the system, and
I don't think we monitor its greg to be wrong.

Speaker 2 (53:30):
Well, let me tell you another one of our incredible
listeners sending from Amazon dot com. You can get uh it,
what is this? An opresso capsules of Virturo medium roast
coffee ten count. I put a little those little things
in the thing. That's a SNAP EBT eligible item that
you can buy. You can get your red Bull with

(53:52):
your EBED.

Speaker 1 (53:53):
Well, see there you go. E b T cards give
that an exemption.

Speaker 2 (53:57):
You can go if you want that core. If you're
a work if you work out, okay, you don't want
to interrupt the workout with the with the SNAP program.
Thank goodness, your your core power twenty six grams of
protein drinks. They are a Snap eligible as well. I
know a lot of people that would like those, but
they think they're a little pricey.

Speaker 1 (54:13):
Yeah, if you're if.

Speaker 2 (54:15):
You're on Snap, you can get that. You can get water,
you can get like eat bottle water. Yeah, Snap, Snap's
got your back. You can get bottled water.

Speaker 1 (54:24):
Would get.

Speaker 2 (54:26):
One would think that's the one that really shocked me. Anyway,
The list here is pretty egregious.

Speaker 1 (54:32):
All right, boy comings coming up here on the Rod
and Greg Show and Talk Radio one O five nine.

Speaker 2 (54:37):
Okay, all right, is it being abused? Should we do
about it? Let's go to the phone real quick and
let's go to Craig and Orum. Craig, Welcome to the
Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 11 (54:46):
Look, thanks you, Greg.

Speaker 7 (54:47):
I appreciate it. A long time listener and appreciate everything
that you guys do.

Speaker 2 (54:53):
Thank you sir.

Speaker 7 (54:54):
On the on the food stamp deal, I remember back
when the food stamps were paper and you had to
tear them out of the book and all the other stuff.

Speaker 11 (55:04):
I remember that.

Speaker 7 (55:06):
My thing is I was involved in a traffic accident
over three years ago, and I'm still in court litigation
trying to get all this thing resolved, and in the
meantime because of it, I'm disabled, I can't work, I
have no income, you know, so it makes it kind
of hard for a person to be able to buy food,

(55:27):
especially nowadays. I heard a comment on there that you
think that they should be able to go back to
the old thing of tearing the stamps out of the book.
Why is it a need? Why is it a need
to embarrass somebody. I'm not dignitant. I don't feel good
about being on food stamps.

Speaker 2 (55:44):
Sure, well, if you're listening to the show, I already
know you're the real deal. My comment on that because
look I lived through that too. I mean, even if
you're on the free and reduced lunch, the tickets used
to lunch tickets used to be a different color than
the other kids, So I remember that. How I felt
about that. I would argue that you're you're, you are
the exception to the rule. You're you are the social
safety net that we should have, and that is appropriate.

(56:06):
I am frustrated with those that abuse it, those that
spend twice as much as the working family for that food.
I'm I'm upset with when I see the Amazon for
your Way Protein and your in your expresso coffee that
the SNAP program will pay for. You're not the one
that I'm talking about. So I if we get the

(56:26):
program back to its core values and what it was
meant to be, I wouldn't have that opinion. But it's
the people that abuse it that I think it makes
it easier and uh more available for them to abuse.

Speaker 1 (56:38):
And you're kidding yourself if you don't think abuse takes
place in this program, because it's sadly all right, back
to our talk back line. Here's what one of our
talkback listeners had to say.

Speaker 17 (56:49):
Gentlemen, good evening. Le's prioritize it when we have coming in.
How about food first? You have to eat. Then we
do our utilities, our housing, our basic transportation, Get out
the restaurants, get out the other stuff that you do
not need to spend money on. Get rid of your

(57:11):
consumer debt.

Speaker 1 (57:14):
Food first.

Speaker 17 (57:15):
This is not rocket science.

Speaker 1 (57:17):
Yeah, he's absolutely right. Great food first, take your you know,
do you need a cell phone nowadays?

Speaker 7 (57:24):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (57:25):
You know some people say yeah you do, But really,
how about man, how about you know cable television? Do
you need? Cable television is expensive, by the way anymore,
so why don't families look at the expenses they do
not need before you know, and then see the money
coming in for food.

Speaker 2 (57:45):
The help up needs to not be a state of life.
It needs to be a time There needs to be
a time period on this and need. You need to
have have a social safety Now, that's what a civilized
society has. But if you get to the point where
that safety net is just a way of life, you're
going to drain that system and use it for those
that are genuinely in need. Yeah, because it's unrecognizable.

Speaker 1 (58:04):
Another hour coming your way, including a discussion about what
the Supreme Court will do with a number of gun
laws and gun cases they are taking a look at that's
coming up on the Rodin and Greg shows. Stayed with us.
Hey be a cowboy fan. Yeah, we can score eighty points,
but the opponents can score ninety.

Speaker 2 (58:23):
Yeah, you know what I'm telling you. Jerry Jones figured
out that if he makes it entertaining, he didn't have
to win. He just has to make you think he's
gonna win, and then you like the experience when you go,
and then he just keeps making money hand over fist.

Speaker 1 (58:33):
This guy has such an ego. As long as you're
talking about the Cowboys win or lose, he doesn't care.

Speaker 2 (58:38):
Yeah, well, I didn't want that for the Rooneyes on
my team, and I thought they actually liked winning. I
thought that was kind of their thing.

Speaker 1 (58:45):
Speaking of sport, that was a heck of a ballgame
last night. And you had you found something really interesting
about Brad Paigeley, who performed the national anthem last night
at the game. But apparently every time he shows up
something happens.

Speaker 2 (58:59):
Yes, folks, yours, yes I do. This is a trend now.
I got to tell you this is this is this
has happened so much. I don't know that it's coincidence.
But when Brad Paisley officially, when he sings the national
anthem to start a World Series.

Speaker 1 (59:14):
Game, and he did so last night, yep, wings.

Speaker 2 (59:17):
And the first gig when he was asked to do
this was Game two and twenty seventeen. That game went
eleven innings. They said, hey, why don't you come back
the next season. So in twenty eighteen, in Game three
of the World Series, he sang the national anthem. That
game went to eighteen innings. So then they gave him
a break because I think they were tired of the
extra innings. But then they must have forgot because in

(59:38):
twenty four last year they asked him to come back
sing national anthem for game one, it went ten innings,
and then last night singing the national anthem, it goes
eighteen innings. So every time you see Brad Paisley get
ready for the extra innings.

Speaker 1 (59:52):
Yeah, interesting, interesting, I'd never heard that. It looks like
it looks like a pattern. There's a pattern here, right, Yeah,
And that game last night was amazing.

Speaker 2 (01:00:04):
I'm so glad neither of my teams were in there,
because I don't know if I could watch nine innings
of sudden death baseball where you know it's not sudden
death because the last team I gets. But that's so stressful.
That is so stressful.

Speaker 1 (01:00:15):
Yeah, well you don't have for you because your pirates
are not could have no world.

Speaker 2 (01:00:20):
No, I actually had I sent you a stats about
how that game is totally broken. They those those lower,
those small market teams make so much money on the
luxury tax. They don't need people to come watch, and
we want one here. Yeah, no, this would be a
stick to beat ourselves with. That is not You do
not want to be a small market team in Major League.

Speaker 1 (01:00:35):
Baseball, not today with all that two teams.

Speaker 2 (01:00:38):
Are at the revenue they're getting off their own deals
and and everything else. You know, Dodgers are over seven
hundred million in revenue. Yeah, you know, and they're paying
out luxury taxes.

Speaker 1 (01:00:47):
But I just saw it. You don't know how much
it is to park tonight at Dodger Stadium. Eighty five
dollars for one vehicle if you have a large vehicle,
it's one hundred and twenty five.

Speaker 2 (01:00:56):
And it's at the top of all there's no walk
into that stadium. It's on the top of a hill.
You can't get there. But if you've been to Ravine,
you know what that is like. All right, let's talk
about the US Supreme Court. A lot of interesting cases
coming up this year. As a matter of fact, they're
going to hear oral arguments in a few weeks on
a couple of gun cases. But there are many coming

(01:01:17):
before the Supreme Court. Let's check it out. Joining us
on our Newsmaker line right now is Jack Burley. Jack
is a Supreme Court reporter at the Washington Examiner. Jack,
thanks for joining us tonight. Why so many cases? What's
the Supreme Court up to? When it comes to gun cases.

Speaker 10 (01:01:32):
So they've already taken up two gun cases, and there
are a couple issues that have been circulating and the
petitions of the Court has to review that could be
right issues for the Court to look at. So that's
why I think maybe this could be an issue to
watch for this upcoming term. Of course, they've taken up
already three dozen cases, but they could take up to

(01:01:52):
another three court dozen or more cases for the rest
of the turn.

Speaker 2 (01:01:57):
So most even the most uninformed observer of the Supreme
Court would probably think this is a conservative court. Sixty three.
Do you see these cases being ruled consistently and by
that I mean protecting our Second Amendment rights? Or do
you think there's some wild cards out there?

Speaker 10 (01:02:17):
I definitely think the Court, at least in recent decisions.
Of course, kind of unwise to predict future results from
the Court, but the general trend has been that they
have been upholding the Second Amendment and pretty widely holding
that right. Only in very select instances have they restricted
it or issued restrictions. One of those cases came in

(01:02:38):
twenty twenty four where they said a domestic abuser could
have his Second Amendment rights taken away on a temporary
basis just while they're seeing that out. But the Bruined
decision in twenty twenty two was a pretty massive Second
Amendment win for advocates.

Speaker 1 (01:02:54):
Jack. In your story, you highlight two interesting cases, the
Hawaii handgun restrictions case and the illegal drug user's gun
possession law. Talk about those two cases and why they're
so significant.

Speaker 15 (01:03:07):
Yees.

Speaker 10 (01:03:07):
So, the first of the Hawaii handgun restriction cases is
Wolford b. Lopez, and this is over a Hawaii law
which they actually the state passed in twenty twenty three
after the Brewined decision, which was, as I mentioned, a
big win for Second Amendment advocates, and the essentially bans
a concealed handgun owner from bringing from being armed in

(01:03:32):
any private property in the state of Hawaii unless the
private property owner explicitly gives them permission to be able
to carry that gun. So you go into a Walmart,
or you go into some sort of restaurant, automatically, under
the state law, you're not allowed to be carrying your gun,
even if you have a concealed carry And so this

(01:03:52):
lawsuit is basically that you're effectively getting rid of the
Second Amendment right with this overly broad law, and the
state has said, no, these are just common sense restrictions
under the bruant that follow the Brown decision. But the
DOJ the Trump administration has given their back into these
Hawaii gun owners who are suing over this law and saying, yeah,

(01:04:14):
this seems overly broad, and it seems likely that at
least under the Brown decision that the court would probably
side with the gun owners and say this law is
overly brought. Of course, we've got to wait until arguments
to even see where the court is thinking on this,
but this seems like it'll be a win for second

(01:04:35):
amendent advocates.

Speaker 2 (01:04:38):
So here's here's the nightmare one. You got a Utah
included and I'm recovering public servant, so I was in
the legislature when we did this. We have medicinal cannabis
here in the state of Utah. It's against the law
so Schedule one narcotics. So you have laws, federal laws
that will touch people who have drugs in their system,
like marijuana. Even if you have a state that has

(01:04:58):
medical cannabis, it does get into a gray area or
may prohibit someone using medical cannabis from owning a gun.
Or at possessing a gun because they have drugs in
their system. How does this Supreme Court weighe through this?
Because it looks like the federal government really didn't enforce
federal law in the states like Colorado. When when state
starts saying, well, we're going to we know it's against

(01:05:19):
federal law, but we're going as a state going to
say medical cannabis and now recreational that's legal. What do
you do? Where do you go from there?

Speaker 10 (01:05:28):
Yeah, So, this this second case that they've taken up,
it's certainly a hot button statued even though that doesn't
sound like the most attractive thing in gun law. With
this this law saying any unlawful user of or addicted
to any control substance is not allowed to possess a firearm.

Speaker 14 (01:05:50):
Let's see violation of federal law.

Speaker 10 (01:05:53):
This is actually a statue that came up and if
you remember a couple of years ago when Hunter Biden
was charged on a gun charge, is one of the
this is one of the statues they were able to
have him found guilty of before he was pardoned by
President Biden last December. And it's it's gonna be tough
for the court to weigh this. I think the Justice

(01:06:14):
Department has said this is definitely this is a narrow
part where we're allowed to restrict a second amend the
Second Amendment right, But the petitioner or excuse me that
the other side has said, no, under state law, you're
allowed to use cannabis, but under federal law it becomes
a penalty to be able to. So that's kind of

(01:06:41):
the split.

Speaker 2 (01:06:42):
I'm laughing because and it's not actually funny, but if
if it's an unlawful use federally but statewide they said,
go right ahead. It really is, isn't it. It's a
it's a cross message, you know, it's it's it's hard
to sort out from there, but I guess it sounds
like it is it a coin flip? Do you think
you I think there's a way that they're going to
lean in terms of that issue.

Speaker 10 (01:07:05):
I mean, I think the provision in the law of
the statute where it just says it has to be
a drug someone who's addicted to a substance, it might
not even be someone who has a substance actively that
could be seen potentially as overly broad, and so you
could see the Supreme Court potentially side with Himani, the

(01:07:26):
person who the Justice Department sued or brought the case against.
But it will definitely be an interesting case, and that's
one to watch for sure when arguments are scheduled, to
see how the hort's thinking in their questioning.

Speaker 1 (01:07:41):
There are so many interesting cases before the Supreme Court
this year, Gregan, just a couple more cases involving guns. Yeah, interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:07:48):
Don't want to thank Jack for those heads up on
those two. The other one they're going to hear is
that there's a lawsuit where Florida does not allow eighteen,
nineteen and twenty or us to have a concealed carry permit.
In the lawsuit from the NRA is adults. Why not?
And this goes back to my broader uh pet peete
that we as a society don't know what an adult is.
We want to call them eighteen and call you adults

(01:08:09):
in some circumstances in cases and other times it's not
till you're twenty one. I'm just saying, pick whatever number
that is and make everything that's an adult an adult.

Speaker 1 (01:08:17):
Well, my argument has been on the eighteen. If you
can enlist in the military and you're trained how to
shoot a gun and how to kill people if you
have to, yeah, and you can't have.

Speaker 2 (01:08:26):
A drink yeah, or anything? Are you you can carry permit?
You can have a carry in the military. But if
you don't like that for eighteen year olds, and make
the age of adulthood nineteen or twenty. But all everything
that comes with being an adult should be at the
age of being an adult.

Speaker 1 (01:08:42):
Imagine, make it nineteen, make it twenty twent.

Speaker 2 (01:08:44):
Diagnostic on the age. Just pick an age, just one.
I want one number?

Speaker 1 (01:08:48):
Yeah, more coming up? It is the Roden greg Show
right here on Utah's Talk Radio one O five nine. Okay,
n rs, Now, would you agree that we all tend
to say stupid things at times?

Speaker 8 (01:08:59):
No?

Speaker 2 (01:08:59):
I will not.

Speaker 1 (01:09:00):
I will know such a thing everything you say on
this show. Yes, it's perfect.

Speaker 2 (01:09:07):
I've told you. I don't have the luxury of opinion.
I just know you just I just know. It's it's
the cross eyebar, it's it's heavy as the crown. I'll
just say that.

Speaker 1 (01:09:15):
Yeah. Okay, Well, there are people in the media who
do say stupid things. Yet how about this one Nicole Wallace,
who used to work for the the Bush administration at one.

Speaker 2 (01:09:28):
Time that I can't believe such a clown.

Speaker 1 (01:09:32):
But she's now host on MSNBC. The woman, by the way,
never smiles. Have you ever known. I've watched a.

Speaker 2 (01:09:40):
Lot of her leftists too, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:09:43):
She simply does not smile.

Speaker 2 (01:09:45):
Oh, they don't look. A leftist by definition, has to
be miserable and yelling and scolding you and wagging their
finger at you, and you are just a terrible person,
just inherently.

Speaker 8 (01:09:56):
Well.

Speaker 1 (01:09:56):
She is being chewed up today the media. I mean
for making this comment yesterday. I haven't suggested that this Illinois.

Speaker 18 (01:10:06):
I don't think any Democrat has. I actually and I
and I think it's a it's a smear that they
project back on to critics.

Speaker 2 (01:10:16):
But I jd.

Speaker 18 (01:10:18):
Vance called Donald Trump cultural heroin. He called him America's hitler.
I mean the attacks on Donald Trump as a fascist
came from three generals who worked for him. I mean,
the most brutal critiques have come from people that have
seen him far more closely than you or I combine.

Speaker 1 (01:10:34):
Now, I was going to put a list together, an
audio list together, a montage of Democrats who have called
the hit of called Trump hitler, right.

Speaker 2 (01:10:41):
I would have taken the whole show.

Speaker 1 (01:10:42):
Yeah, it would have. That's why I didn't do it.
I'm going, here's just too many. There must have been
fifty minimally comments from Democrats calling him Hitler or comparing
him to.

Speaker 2 (01:10:52):
You remember that, you know that I don't know if
he's eating the gummy marijuana gummies or if he's taken mushrooms,
but you got two of them out there. You get
that the Monson guy, that's the sports columnist. I can't
remember his first in Gordon Monts. He said that the
America make America America first field, but the real salt
like play. They needed to change the name, and the

(01:11:13):
Credit Union needed to change his name from America first
because that was all Nazism. Then you have that that
loon cartoonist, which is an Antifa cartoonist, Pat Bagley, who's
used Nazi references for Republicans and for hit or for
Nazi and Hitler references for Republicans and for Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:11:32):
Forever.

Speaker 2 (01:11:33):
Would it be news to those two that that Nicole
Wallace thinks that none of the Democrats have ever used
that reference. I guess they're the only ones. They would
be the only ones, the only ones crazy enough to
do it, because according to her. Nobody on the left
has ever said such a thing, but those two have
in this local market. So would they own that were
the only ones that have ever compared Republicans or Trump

(01:11:55):
to Nazi or to Hitler. Of course they wouldn't. They've
all been saying. It's why there's a comfort level in
comparing something that's not comparable, and it's really disgusting to
even try and compare.

Speaker 1 (01:12:04):
Yeah, well, I have a theory as to why she
said that. You ready for my theory? Yes, okay, we
know that the audience of MSNBC is next to nothing. Yeah, okay,
so she knows if she says something stupid like no
Democrats has ever called trumpet Hitler right, that people like
us will play that and give that show a little

(01:12:25):
free publicity, which they badly need. So see, I think
there's my theory is she does this just to get attention,
so someone in fact may watch her show for a
minute if they your stand, And.

Speaker 2 (01:12:37):
The few that do watch it, they're aging out so
fast they don't remember what she said by the time
they get through a commercial break, so they can't hold her.

Speaker 1 (01:12:43):
To When does MSNBC go away and become ms now.

Speaker 2 (01:12:47):
The moment that the revenue stream for any programming actually
depends on the people that advertise. They won't and people
don't advertise on programs no one watches. So as soon
as this, you know, you got a cable dealer. You
have some deal that automatically gives you money if you're
on their package and nobody has to watch. But you
get money when that that little game ends, and you

(01:13:09):
get money based on radios watching advertising.

Speaker 17 (01:13:12):
We do.

Speaker 1 (01:13:13):
We get money based on ratings.

Speaker 2 (01:13:15):
We exist because you listen, folks, I'm telling you, the
ratings are the only reason this show exists. When that
refiners fire happens, you will that place will disappear, or
they'll actually get normal. But I like, what's your name
is trying to do with CBS.

Speaker 1 (01:13:27):
Remember they've been sold NBC and they become MS now.

Speaker 2 (01:13:32):
Yeah, yeah, now whatever that is.

Speaker 1 (01:13:34):
But whatever now?

Speaker 2 (01:13:35):
But yeah, they I think that they're not going to
last long if it's a ratings driven industry.

Speaker 1 (01:13:41):
True, I don't so well I should see well, I
should see all right, more coming up. I'll talk about that.
The auto pen controversy. This is amazing, but the question
is what do they do about it?

Speaker 2 (01:13:54):
They got to do something they can't lead. Now that
we know what we know, you got to you got
to make some laws that you actually have to sign.
What you're at the president says he's signing, there has
to be some legitimacy.

Speaker 1 (01:14:03):
Yeah, we'll bring that up next here on the Rod
and Greg Show and Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine,
kay n Ars nearly one hundred page reports deeming invalid
all these executive orders that were given or these executive
actions impardons that were issued by Joe Biden maybe using
the auto pen. Yeah, maybe they weren't. Maybe it wasn't

(01:14:25):
Joe Biden using the auto pen.

Speaker 2 (01:14:27):
Yeah, it's it's a disturbing story. It's one that you know,
all of us sensed for a long time. Now, we've
all wondered. You know, we saw how he was as president,
and I know during his presidency we discussed this together
on the show. It is pretty scary to think of
a president. You know, when your president, you know history
is watching, you know there's going to be you know,
your time in office will be reflected upon, books written

(01:14:48):
and everything else. It makes someone circumspect and they're very
careful with the decisions they make and the worry was
if this guy doesn't know if it's nap time or
if it's you know, go time, who's making those decisions
can do? Those decisions get scarier because history will not
remember the authors of those decisions. So they're there, their
willingness to take risks, their willingness to betray the people

(01:15:11):
would be higher because they're anonymous. Well, guess what we
found out that that wasn't just a concern, that's a
legitimate fact.

Speaker 15 (01:15:19):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:15:19):
Joining us on our Newsmaker line to dig into this
a little bit deeper is Joseph McKennon. He is a
staff writer at The Blaze. Joseph, thanks for joining us
on the Rod and Greg Show tonight.

Speaker 19 (01:15:30):
Good evening, gentlemen.

Speaker 1 (01:15:32):
You know, Joseph, if you as you dig into this
report and read through it and take a look at things,
what shocks you the most?

Speaker 19 (01:15:40):
Well, taking a step back, it's been painstakingly clear since
Oversight Project, which is what used to be part of
the Heritage Foundation, first revealed the autopen usage and the
extens of autopen usage during the Biden administration in March
that this was not only abuse, a prolific abuse, not

(01:16:03):
just of the office but of what an elderly gentleman. Biden,
as he indicated in that intro, was clearly not all there.
The mental deterioration was there for all the sea, confusing
his sister with his wife, confusing country names, falling down,
relying on cue cards. And yet there's a spate of

(01:16:26):
transformative presidential actions, commutations, pardons, executive orders. And we know
from his own admission, his own alleged admission to Speaker Johnson,
that he wasn't aware of one of the most transformative
eos back in January twenty twenty four. So this report
today from the House Oversight Committee basically ties up all

(01:16:51):
of the learning so far and adds some insights gleaned
from the depositions and interviews with some of the Biden
cabalist those who would speak, because as we know, a
couple pled the fifth and comer has asked the DOJ
to press those individuals for additional answers or some answers.

(01:17:13):
And so this report today, you know, again ties it
all up. Biden wasn't ald there individuals hoping that he
might get reelected or at the very least staving off
the twenty fifth Amendment and its invocation. They pretended he
was wealth competent or had some semblance of competence. We

(01:17:40):
know that they were very involved, if not fully executing
these executive orders. As we know from the White House
Council's probe and some documents disclosed by the National Archives,
Biden was virtually absent from some critical block commutations involving felons,

(01:18:03):
some really insidious characters, and so he's not really involved
in the process. And Comer calls that out, and he says,
unless there's some preponderance of evidence showing that he was
involved in these very impactful decisions, all these connotations and
pardons are null and void. And so he then kicks

(01:18:26):
it to the Justice Department, saying, PAMBONDI, you know this
is uh, the Congress can't avoid these commutations. Let the
Justice Department take a look. And I'm not sure if
he caught it, but earlier today reports are out that
Ed Martin, who's the DOOJ partner attorney, he sent a
letter to Comer indicating that he too does not recognize

(01:18:50):
the vialidity of these without some additional examination. Yeah. No,
that's a major piece here, and he reference it going
to the courts. Now we're kind of an uncharted territory here.
Some people refer to a pre constitutional case in Virginia,
but it's possible that ag Some critics suggest that it's

(01:19:13):
possible that Bondie could sue to get declaration that they
are invalid only to some impropriet impreprieties in signing, which
would be seismic. And forgive me for going on here,
but this is going to be glamitous. Should go forward

(01:19:34):
for some of the pardonies, including Fauci, whose tenure unconditional
party goes back to the twenty fourteen where gain of
function was halted. So there was some curious timing there.
General Millie, who President Trump accused the treason, and of
course the wonderful people on the Jan six Select Committee,

(01:19:54):
who Trump has well harbor some ill will towards. It's
an interesting time, but things are proceeding.

Speaker 2 (01:20:04):
So let me bottom line it, because it doesn't seem
to be complicated to me. If Biden didn't sign the documents,
which we know, if there's an autopen involved, he didn't.
If he didn't, if he wasn't aware of and didn't
actually himself approve the pardons, the executive orders, all of
the things that a president's signature is required for isn't
it just a isn't it just forgery? Aren't we just

(01:20:25):
talking a bottom line forgery case here? They forged the
man's signature, But.

Speaker 19 (01:20:32):
The forgery and the usurpation of the presidential authority, which
I think.

Speaker 2 (01:20:36):
Is the greater I don't even know what the heart,
I don't even know it's hard about it. I just
think if if there's technology here that could circumvent a
president actually doing the job that he's supposed to do,
they have forged the man's signature, and that should be illegal.

Speaker 19 (01:20:50):
I would guess, well, and we know well Missouri ag
Bailey said at the outset that any and all of
these Tufts comments are void if it's shown that the
persons signing lacks mental capacity. So let's put that aside.
Per second, then former idahost Solicitor General Wold, he testified
to the Senate back in June. I believe it was

(01:21:12):
that even if not mentally compromise, the president can't delegate
this authority. And so all the what appears to be
evidence that, well, we don't even know if he was
company enough to delegate it. The fact that other people
are doing this and Oversight Project indicated that seventy five percent,
seventy five percent of the partners they reviewed were auto penned.

(01:21:33):
And going back to the troph they have of executive orders, pardons, commutations,
and proclamations, they analyzed nineaging fifty eight and eighty eight
point three percent eight hundred and forty six were autopent.
So even if it's for being charitable here, even if
there was a handful, that's that's a travesty. That's that's

(01:21:53):
a huge deal. But by all indications, and Ed Martin
suggested as much his letter, the bulk of them may
well have been improper and therefore invalid.

Speaker 1 (01:22:06):
Yeah, and I guess the challenge is going to be
you can see a constitutional challenge coming our way, can't
don't you, Joseph. I mean, we're trying to put the
genie back in the bottle on a few of these things,
and we may not be able to do so depending
on what the courts say, because we all know this
is going to end up in court sooner or later.

Speaker 19 (01:22:25):
And that's exactly my thought here is, well, the courts
haven't exactly been from me to trump. The Supreme Court,
on the other hand, it can go either way. So
at the very least, this is a permanent black eye
on the Biden administration and the people involved. And when

(01:22:48):
I list these off, I'm not saying necessarily one is
more guilty than other or all are guilty, but Anthony,
Bernald ron Klain and it had done and the like.
If there's not some accountability, perhaps at least some social pressure.

Speaker 1 (01:23:04):
Joseph, thank you, fascinating story. We appreciate a few minutes
of your time.

Speaker 19 (01:23:09):
Hey, thanks for having me.

Speaker 2 (01:23:10):
Hey, thank you so much.

Speaker 1 (01:23:11):
All Right, that's Joseph mt ckennon. He is a staff
writer with The Blaze. A House committee today declares unauthorized
Biden auto pen pardons void in a damning new report.
I tell you what, if this guy, Greg does not
and I'm talking about Joe Biden, does not go down
as the worst president that this country has ever had,

(01:23:32):
something's wrong. Yeah, Because the more we learn about what
is what went on in that zoo of a White House,
the more we were in trouble.

Speaker 2 (01:23:41):
The thought that people had the kind of power bestowed
upon a president duly elected president that they took themselves
forged his signature to do whatever they wanted. Yeah, it's
it's it's your nightmare. Yeah, I mean, it's it's a
nightmare scenario. They made movies like this, they aren't believable
because they're so outlandish. And here we are, And who
did these people work for before Barack Obama? Barack Obama, Yep,

(01:24:04):
he was probably still running things out there, and he.

Speaker 1 (01:24:06):
Was he knows, the real president at that time was.

Speaker 2 (01:24:09):
Again, even he gets to be more cavalier when his
name's not on the you know, he was against illegal immigration.
When he's running for president. He gets to be different
when he doesn't have to. No one's scrutinizing the only
president who stayed in Washington after he left off with
all the with all the secretary members of his branch
going out there, is havinget going out there to see
Biden's branch going out to see Obama.

Speaker 1 (01:24:31):
Yeah, crazy? All right, Mary, coming up, final segment of
the Rod and Greg Show right here on Utah's Talk
Radio one O five nine k n R S. Shall
we look inside as to what's going on in the
media today, regime media regime media.

Speaker 7 (01:24:45):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:24:45):
Well, Barry Weiss, who's now been put in charge of
CBS News, the editor in chief, starting to shake things up.
We shared that story last week where she met with
the team from sixty Minutes and she she after all
of them, why does the nation feel we're so biased?

Speaker 2 (01:25:03):
And they were shocked.

Speaker 1 (01:25:03):
They were stunned, flabbergasted. They did not know how to
answer that question.

Speaker 2 (01:25:08):
Yeah, what why they were biased?

Speaker 1 (01:25:12):
Sixty Minutes biased in our country.

Speaker 2 (01:25:14):
I've been to a lot of wine and cheese parties
knowing thinks I'm biased. Everyone says, I'm just in a
name end corner. What are you talking about?

Speaker 1 (01:25:21):
Well, there are a couple of names that are being
mentioned about possibly going to CBS News. One of them
is Scott Jennings, that's right from CNN.

Speaker 2 (01:25:29):
CNN doesn't want to leave because nobody plays anything they
say unless it's Scott Jennings saying it.

Speaker 1 (01:25:34):
So they don't want to leave, so what would they do.
The other name that was brought up is Brett Behar.
That is another name because John Dickerson, you know, is
stepping down as anchor of the CBS Evening News, a
seat that Walter Cronkite held for years and then came
along good old Dan. Rather, let's fake some documents, see
if we can get rid of George Bush Dan rather

(01:25:55):
biased and rather biased. Yep, so they've been looking. And
Brett Bear, you know, his name is being mentioned, the
reports out there that he is being pursued. Well, he
was on the Meghan McCain podcast yesterday and she he
was asked directly about possibility of him leaving Fox News.
What he said, I would.

Speaker 20 (01:26:15):
Be not surprised if you didn't answer asked this question,
because I know I'm flattered by all the press and
everything like that, but I'm in a multi year contract
with Fox, so i.

Speaker 15 (01:26:27):
Don't know where everything's going.

Speaker 20 (01:26:29):
I'm signed on to Fox, very happy at Fox, and
you know, we'll see what happens at the end of that.

Speaker 1 (01:26:36):
It's Fox stupid enough to let this guy go.

Speaker 2 (01:26:39):
Now, you know. You know he just said, I have
a contract and I'm legally obligated to fulfill that contract.
And when that contract expires, game on. Let the bidding
war start. You know, let's just just embarrass me with riches, everybody.

Speaker 1 (01:26:54):
Let's go, let's see how much money I can get. Yep,
he deserves it. He'll be all like him. We all
like his work. And what would he do for CBS News.
I think a lot.

Speaker 2 (01:27:05):
I think he would have to maintain that kind of
I mean, he has you listen to his follow up questions.
This isn't a guy that's playing a role. He actually
likes to call it balls and strikes. He does challenge
all of his guests. He does report the news. I
think in a fair way. It is a version that
CBS lost if they ever had. But even when they
tried to do it, I think Brett Bair would bring

(01:27:27):
a I think.

Speaker 1 (01:27:28):
A lot of credibility.

Speaker 2 (01:27:29):
Just if you could just watch two sides go at
it and you just gave him both a good shot
at each other, just to make the case battle of ideas,
and you just had that. People would watch that, people
would like it.

Speaker 1 (01:27:40):
I would have you read any of his books. He's
got a new one out on and Teddy Roosevelt. I
have not, and you know, someday when I get back
to reading for fun.

Speaker 2 (01:27:51):
Kill Who's it kill Meat? I've read two of his.

Speaker 1 (01:27:54):
Brett Bair's books are I mean, he wrote one on Reykievic,
remember that between Ray and Gorbachev at the time, And
he wrote one I hear that's fascinating inside. Look, he
wrote one on Eisenhower and his concern about the military
industrial complex, interesting which you're dealing with. Yeah, he's got
a book out on that. The new one is Teddy Roosevelt.

(01:28:15):
There were a couple of others. I haven't read them,
but if I have some time someday, I'm going to
sit down and read those books.

Speaker 11 (01:28:21):
I like.

Speaker 2 (01:28:22):
I think he's very fair and he's a very good journalist. Yeah,
I agree with you.

Speaker 8 (01:28:26):
I do.

Speaker 2 (01:28:26):
I agree with you, and I think he's He's a
presence and I think he'll stay a presence and Fox
would be crazy to lose him. But I think he'll
His next contract is going to be a big one,
I think, Yeah, I think he's going to be good.
Good for him.

Speaker 1 (01:28:40):
You know when you know for guns, right, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:28:44):
You're you're the big boss man here. Everybody knows that
in this building.

Speaker 1 (01:28:49):
You'll get the big one.

Speaker 2 (01:28:49):
Baby. Yeah, well increase it by a dollar. What's one
hundred percent of nothing?

Speaker 11 (01:28:56):
Nothing?

Speaker 2 (01:28:56):
Nothing, that's one hundred percent raising.

Speaker 1 (01:28:58):
All you need?

Speaker 19 (01:28:59):
Yea?

Speaker 1 (01:28:59):
All right, Jesse Kelly is coming your way next here
on the Rod and Greg Show, of course tomorrow. Wingman Wednesday.
We always have a lot of fun to gear things
up on Wingman Wednesday. Wednesday Wednesday, you finally decided to
come back back to work after morning the steeler's wall.

Speaker 3 (01:29:15):
That's right.

Speaker 1 (01:29:15):
That does it for us to night, head up the
shouldern's back. May God blake you and your family in
this great country if our thanks for joining us. We're
back tomorrow at four. Enjoy the rest of your evening.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

The Joe Rogan Experience

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Rod and Greg Show: Why Are Dems Mad About White House Ballroom? Plus, Supreme Court Gun Cases

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

The Joe Rogan Experience

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes