The Rod and Greg Show: Bell to Bell Cell Phone Ban in Utah Classrooms; Trans-Violence Worse Than Reported

Hey everybody, Lady Luck here, and we're celebrating America's 250th birthday. Now, all summer long, I'm going to be celebrating by playing on SpinQuest.com, which is an American-owned social casino. It obviously features over a thousand slot games and live blackjack, live craps, live bubble craps. Head on over to SpinQuest.com. Get yourself a $30 coin pack for just $10.00. SpenQuest is a free-to-play social casino. Avoid where prohibited. Visit SpenQuest.com for more details. So we've got a lot going on. Just great to be with you, Greg. A beautiful day on the outside. Legislature down to its, what, final five days? Six days. Six days. Yeah, today. And then tomorrow is what day? Friday. And then five more days. They'll end up at midnight on next Friday. Friday. And they've been trying to get out there early. I remember it was right up to the last minute for years. Oh, they'll go to midnight. Oh, will they? Oh, they'll go right to midnight. Really? In fact, there'll be bills on the boards. There'll be bills on the board. They'll be trying to hurry. As soon as it strikes midnight, it doesn't matter if you were in the middle of a vote. If that vote's not final, that bill doesn't exist. Well, one bill that apparently has passed, some amendments may need to add to it for the governor's indicate he'll sign it, is this bell-to-bell ban on cell phones. Yes. And we'll talk about that. Get your reaction to it. An interesting article today, Greg, on profanity in politics. Yes. I think it's the, I think it's the, so podcasts and the way that that medium is going, they get there a lot more blue in their speech and humor. And I think they're a bit more of a potty mouth, a little more, you know, swear bears on. And so I just think it kind of crosses over into. where it's not supposed to yeah yeah yeah i i think it's the profanage is just increased over the years and you know everybody you know the one word everybody is concerned about is the fbomb The F bomb is the one. There are others, but the F bomb seems to be the one. But you see, I mean, you see flags flying around the country. When Biden was in there, F Biden, and then Trump, F. Trump, I mean, it's just everywhere. And, you know, you can't do anything about it. It is a free country, and we can speak freely, you know, showing if we have any integrity whatsoever. But, you know, we'll get into that as well. Yes, we should talk about it because I certainly will not be speaking from a... pious place of having the most perfect language and uh i'll just say now i saw the musical jersey boys and had no idea they swore in it i don't i didn't recall any swear words and that's i guess that's i think every third word wasn't that bum in that and i am recommending that to my my dear friends and many who would not appreciate that kind of language and i'm like this jersey boys great move get right musical you should see it Didn't know, didn't even register. Right over you. But you've become dissensit. I'm not proud of that. I'm not proud of them. I'm just saying. That's how bad I am. So I'm not one to, I'm not judgey. I'm not judgey on that topic. Yeah, you've become desensit. But you don't hear me saying it here. I know, I know, I know time and place. I don't. I don't have a problem saying. Don't say it near a microphone. No, we get fine. You get in trouble for that. But I don't even have a, I don't have a problem with it. Yeah, near do I. All right. Now, speaking of trouble. Uh-oh.

Dieterah Henderson, our lieutenant governor in a little bit of trouble this afternoon with Mr. Trump. Yeah, Pam Bondi, Attorney General, the Department of Justice of, I believe they've informed our lieutenant governor that they, in fact, are suing herself and the elections office for what are voter records. Yeah. They've declined, like many blue states have, to provide those voter records. And it looks like that is... Going to go to court. Yeah, yeah. This was a note today opposed from the Justice Department. Today, the Justice Department Civil Rights Division has filed federal lawsuits against five states, Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, and New Jersey, along with Utah for failure to produce their full... voter registration list upon a request that brings the Justice Department's nationwide effort to 29 states and the District of Columbia where they're suing him because they want to ensure voter integrity. They're going after them. Are we all clear why the federal government would want those? No, I don't think people are. I think some people would say, hey, look, the beauty of American elections is that they are. They're really done by county clerks. You count how many counties we have in the country. And really, when we talk Georgia, we talk Fulton County. That's the Atlanta, the county that the city of Atlanta is in. And so really, that's how elections are administered. And there's something good about that in that if you nationalized our elections, I think the propensity for or vulnerability to fraud would be greater if it was a nationalized election. When you have every county that's administering the election themselves. I think that's harder to rig, at least on a national scale. Yeah. But where I think the federal government, Department of Justice, has every right to understand what the roles look like are those federal offices that are elected because there's an assumption that when members of Congress or the U.S. Senate or even president with the Electoral College are elected, every state is playing by the same rules to elect those people, be it members of Congress, Senate, or... electoral colleges to elect the president of the United States. It would be wholly unfair for states to require ID to go through a very detailed process over here and have a blue state or some states. It's just letting anyone with a pulse vote. And the pulse vote state overcomes those of us that are voting legally in our state. So I do think there is an equal protection. I do think there is in federal elections. There has got to be the foundational premise that all states are playing by the same rules in terms of how they are counting votes. And it should be that way. I mean, let's be real honest. Now, we mentioned the lieutenant governor. Well, apparently, we have good news today, Greg. Apparently, the effort to put the controversial proposition for on the ballot this November is almost to its goal. It's almost. It's getting very close. It's passed the overall number goal. They needed 140. They're indicating today they've got 149,000. So they pass that. There's another part of this, though. So we have 29 Senate seats. That's because we used to count them by counties. So there are 29 counties in Utah, 29 Senate seats. But now they're divided differently by equal population. But you have to have, in order to get a bill to pass or to get a proposition on the ballot for the voters statewide, there's two thresholds. You have to have the 140,000 votes. That's the big one. That's the big number. Statewide signatures. And then there is a percentage.

votes from the last presidential election for each county. So it's proportionate to their population, but how many people voted in that county. And you have to hit that threshold of signatures for 26 out of 29 Senate districts. So you have to have, and so what we're looking at right now is we are not at, we have not surpassed the 26 Senate districts right now. We're close. 20. 20. We're very close. There are six Senate districts left. And some of those folks are just 100 votes or a signature shy, maybe 200 shy. If that. Yesterday when I looked at that, that number was like 900 and 500. So the margin is shrinking, but you have to get, you have to get 26. of the 29 now what i don't know for sure is there is a period i even right now where you can have your name removed as a signature i don't know once they certify it if they can have their name removed afterwards but there's there is that effort from the left going on right now where they're trying to and sadly being promoted by our local media where you can get your signature removed removed yeah because they're trying to thin the herd or thin the eligible number of signatures that could qualify this for the ballot. Well, once they qualify for the ballot, I understand, the opposition has 45 days. So better boundaries will have 45 days, Greg, to get your name off that list. And I don't know. You know, do they have to be contacted? I'm not sure how it works. Oh, I think they can be contacted. And let me tell you, so let's say you have a county that passed it by 50 votes, 50 signatures. They just need 50 to pull you under that threshold and you're out. If all you have is 26. You've lived here a long time. I've lived here a long time. Have you ever seen an effort like this underway to get your name off a ballot? I don't recall one. There's been one. So when we did count, when count my vote. Oh, that's right. Count my vote. What happened was they went, they went for a second bite at the apple. They wanted to make, they just wanted to buy a ballot just eliminate caucuses and conventions entirely. Yes. When they got the signatures and the counties that qualified, there was a strong grassroots effort that was led. that got them below the threshold of 26 Senate districts. And that negated the statewide ballot. And interestingly enough, you've not seen that same well-heeled, moneyed crew that was doing that quite a bit. Do it again after that had happened. Yeah, kind of interesting. But good work on the part of the Republican Party. I mean, they're over the big number we need. Now they need to get those districts, and that could happen in the next. A few days, we would hope. All right, more coming up. We'll talk about Mike Lee and his efforts on the Save America Act. We've got the latest for you. That's coming up on the Thursday edition of the Rod and Greg show and Utah's Talk Radio 105-9, KNRS. The Prop 4 effort to repeal Prop 4, and it is, I mean, they've got the total number of signatures they need. Now they need a few more Senate districts here in the state to come through for that to get on the ballot this year. But I mentioned Greg as well that after this, apparently they reach. and are certified, opponents have 45 days to convince people to take their names often. Yeah. So, hypothetically, let's say out of the 29 Senate districts, they are only able to achieve the 26 that are required. So no margin of error. We don't have any extra ones. Just 26.

The opposition will look at which ones pass that threshold by the smallest number, and they will put all their resources in trying to spend 45 days removing the signatures to get below that threshold because they just need one of those Senate districts to go below the threshold. If they only have 25, it's off. It's off the ballot. So you have to keep counting after you hit your threshold. To give yourself that pad, you see some of those Senate districts that are at 134% of what's needed. Those would be hard to push underneath the required amount. But the ones that are very close, it's going to be tough. All right, let's go to the phones. We've got some people listening in today. Have a comment on this. We go to Casey in North Ogden tonight here on the Rod and Greg Show. Casey, how are you? Thanks so much for joining us. Hi, Rod. I heard your comment earlier, and it doesn't make sense to me. It seems like people are always trying to subvert the process. And I understand I guess they have 45 days to have your name removed from the ballot. Yes. Well, if they're going to allow people to do that and they say, oh, if you didn't know what you were signing or you weren't aware of it and you got 45 days to remove it, then why don't we have 45 days to continue to add names to it? It only seems fair if you're going to allow people to remove their name. You allow people to add their names to the list. You know, that makes a lot of sense to me, Casey. I imagine, Greg, you would know probably better than I on this. It's just part of the way the law is written, right? The rules are the rules there. But I agree with Casey. If they've got 45 days to get them off, give us another 45 days to get them on. The other, but some will argue that you had, I can't remember how many, it was 180 days. It had whatever, however many days. It wasn't very long, I thought. Yeah, it was a short time. It was a short time. You and I were talking about, you know, at the beginning of this thing, good luck, guys. You got a big hill decline. Yeah, so they're going to, I think some will argue that the side was collecting signatures had far more days to collect signatures than those that have time to remove them. And that's a two-edged sword. I mean, I think it played in Republicans' favor when we had a leftist, count my vote ballot measure that was going to go in and there was time to at least explain to people what they signed. And it actually failed to achieve that threshold. They were able to target some of those Senate districts that had just barely made the margin. But it certainly will work against us if some of those Senate districts are just barely qualifying. 45 days is a long time. And we've already seen, they've already been pulling people, encouraging people to take their names off. And they lie. They say, if you put your name, if you signed that, you're signing up for gerrymandering. Yeah, that's what they're saying. Now, if it was such a, if it was such a high-minded and pure process to let the people decide, just continue to let the people decide. What are you afraid of? Why would you not? want people to revisit what we passed in 2018 and let the people speak once again. Why are you afraid to let the people speak? They speak out of both sides of their mouth. They want to say it's so important the people spoke in 18, but we don't want to hear a peep out of you come 2026. Well, you know what happened in 2018. They'd squeak by.

Yeah, but 50.34. I mean, it was a tight race and it only won because of a turnout in Salt Lake City. And it had zero dollars trying to explain to voters why that thing was so bad. Nobody had, nobody raised any money as an organized campaign. So you had $1.5 million for it, zero dollars to tell the truth about it. It barely, barely passes. But now people are awake. They see that this better boundaries means better Democrat boundaries. And why not let the people revisit that decision? Well, speaking of voting, the Republican establishment, Greg, which we all know in love, apparently is at it again. John Thune today said it is going to be tough to get the Save America Act. on the ballot or get it in front of lawmakers and do a talking filibuster. This is what he said in the Senate today. The talking filibuster issue is one on which there is not certainly a unified Republican conference, and there would have to be. If you go down that path, you're talking about the need to table what are going to be. numerous amendments and an ability to keep 50 Republicans unified pretty much on every single vote. And there's just not, there isn't support for doing that at this point. As I said, and we will, we will get on it and we will have a vote on the Save Act. The context of that, you know, the process in which we consider it is still an open question, but one that we're having conversations about, but clearly not a unified position at least about. on Republicans in the Senate. Not a unified position, as a matter of fact, Utah Senator John Curtis says he will not support it. So disappointing and embarrassing. Poor Senator Mike Lee, who is the sponsor of that bill to have within our own state of our two U.S. senators, one of those, one senator canceling out the vote of the very sponsor of the bill. Yeah. I mean, these guys ride on the plane together back and forth. You don't think you can. I don't understand how on an 85% support issue of this country without regard to party, if you just look at Republicans, it's like 95%. How? Senator Curtis is on the wrong side of this. I just, and if he thinks that doing this somehow preserves the filibuster as he knows it, the nanosecond the Democrats take control, he will watch that filibuster, not a talking, a voice filibuster, he will watch the entire filibuster process go away. Just like Harry Reid did on Supreme Court justices, you'll see them get rid of it. Oh, in a minute. As soon as they get control, get ready for it. And then you'll get, you'll get Puerto Rico as a state, Washington, D.C. as a state, that's four more senators. Yep. You'll see the games. 13 Supreme Court justices. You'll see things that you wish you'd never see. And it will be when they get rid of that filibuster. So it's naive to think that the Democrats aren't ready to do it. Look how radical they've become. It's not even a question. All right. More coming up. It is the Rod and Greg show with you on this Thursday afternoon right here on Utah's Talk Radio 105.9, KNRS.

Forget whatever plans you have this weekend because you're staying at home and playing on SpinQuest. And there's never been a better time to sign up than right now. New users get $30 coin packs for just $10. All the table games you love with hundreds of slot games and real cash prizes. That's at SpinQuest.com. SpinQuest.com. SpinQuest is a free-to-play social casino. Avoid where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. Nobody does it better than Regent's Seven Seas cruises. Enjoy all-inclusive unrivaled luxury with unlimited shore excursions, indulgent cuisine, personalized service and more aboard spacious all-sweet ships. Visit rssc.com to experience the unrivaled. The Prop 4 initiative is getting closer and closer. The overall number is there. We need to pick up a few more Senate districts for it to get on the ballot come November. But also we mentioned that the opponents, the better boundaries people, have 45 days after it's certified to convince people, Greg, to get their names off the ballot and to take them off. And it's a real organized effort. It certainly is. And that's... We want to talk about that because, again, once, and they don't, they don't, they're not held to the truth. You don't have to tell someone the truth as to, to try and compel someone to take their name off the ballot. We have a caller. Let's, let's go to one of our great listeners who has maybe some inside baseball or some perspective on this. Sean from Perry, thank you for holding. Welcome to the Rod and Greg show. Tell us about your experience with maybe this campaign that's underway to convince those that signed the, the, the ballot or signed the signatures as sheets to take their name off well about a about a week ago i already got a letter from about a better boundaries saying that uh i need to take my name off the ballot otherwise i'm promoting jared mandering and my question my type of question is they've already started

Yeah, so I think that there's an official timeline. Maybe they can start early, but I think there's an official timeline where it begins. But I'm not 100% clear on that, Sean. So I don't know if they're 45-day actually started or if they were just getting an early start and allowed to do so. I'm not 100% clear, but I'll look it up. Sean, what did that letter look like? Did they basically do everything for you other than putting your signature on it? Is that what it looked like? Yeah, it was a letter to me and my wife. And all I had to do is sign it and send it in and my name is off. Wow. It's a lot easier to get it off than it is to get it on. It sure isn't it certainly shouldn't be that way. There you go, Greg. I mean, this, like you said, this is a well-organized, well-funded group that's trying to keep this off the ballot. And they are. And I am telling you, that's why when you get to the threshold, if you get the 26 Senate seats out of 29, and you get that the threshold needed, you've got to get north of that number because you've got to imagine that day. better boundaries are going to lie their way and convince a lot of people to pull their signature off, unbeknownst to the signer that they're not given accurate information, like the one that he just shared. It's not supporting gerrymandering to say that the 70% plus Republican district, as they, as Judge Dirty Diana drew it, or her leftist group drew it, and the plus 24% Kamala Harris district in Utah isn't gerrymandering. That's about the most gerrymandered districts you're going to find. No legislative bodies ever come up with such wild swings and percentages like they have. Just take a look at the map, folks. This is as plain as the nose on your face. All right, let's go to the legislature. Lawmakers have now passed a bill. They're calling it the bell-to-bell cell phone bill. Basically what it says is once the bell sounds in school until the bell rings to let you out, you cannot access. Your cell phone. Joining us on our newsmaker line to talk about that is Lindsay Bertram. She is the policy implementation manager for the policy project behind this effort. Lindsay, thanks for joining us. Why were you so much in favor of this? I think. What FBE 69 was about is really improving learning environments. And a lot of people see this as a, you know, focus on the restriction or, you know, thinking it as a ban. But really, it's not about taking phones away from students. It's about giving students back the opportunity to focus, to connect with each other and to learn. You know, this issue about... statewide policy that would impact all school districts versus school districts deciding to make these policies. It depends on the issue where there's a popular sentiment. Where were the school districts on Senator Fillmore's bill, this bill here? Did they say we would like a uniform statewide statute or were they looking for more autonomy on how to put something like this together?

I think what we were hearing from districts is that in some cases, they didn't want to be, and particularly school administrators, they didn't want to be, you know, the quote unquote bad guys, right? Like that this does give them a way to say, listen, this is the standard. This is what all schools are doing. This isn't just us. And this is what we've heard from all levels. We're hearing teachers say, we don't want to be the police. We don't want to be the only one enforcing this. And so when there isn't a school-wide policy. That's often what happens. If it's classroom to classroom, students feel that that's unfair. And teachers don't like being the ones that have to do, you know, make the rule and enforce it and maybe be only partially, you know, students or teachers that are only. the only ones doing that in the school. And so they like a school-wide policy. And schools are saying we actually see the benefit of this, but we don't want to be the only one. So we don't be the only school that's doing this. And so it keeps kind of going up. So this is a chance for us to set that precedent. And the thing that I love and that our organization was really behind in this bill is that it still preserves local control. So school districts and even schools, if it's up to the district, can still decide. to create a policy that is different than the statewide default. But there is so much strong evidence showing that phones and devices can be distracting to learning environments. And so. What's going on, everyone? It's Bluff here, and you know what's more American than America's 250th birthday? Supporting American-owned companies like SpinQuest. America's number one social casino with over 1,000 games like Live Dealer Blackjack and Craps. They're offering new users a $30 coin package for just $10. Go to SpinQuest.com and sign up today. SpinQuest is a free-to-play social casino. Avoid where prohibited. Visit spendquest.com for more details. It makes sense to have something in place to limit phone use, but schools and districts can still decide what that looks like at a local level. And I think that's why so many districts have been behind this because they understand that there is a precedent set, there is a default, but that they can still really create those nuances at a local level. Lindsay, I don't quite understand this. The teachers and school administrators don't want to be the bad guys in this. Haven't they always been the bad guys? I mean, whenever I was in school, you know, they were always the bad guys. There are rules we have to live on. Why are they so afraid of being the bad guys if, in fact, this rule could help students learn better and make for a better classroom and environment? I don't get it, Lindsay. I think what we're hearing, what we're finding is that inconsistency is the challenge. And so when it's up to an individual teacher, for example, it's really difficult to enforce because students say, hey, it's not fair. In this math class, I could use it. But then my fellow math students in this class, they, you know, they're not able to use it. And students see that as unfair. They understand that there needs to be some consistency in enforcement.

And it just makes it easier for the environment. If the default is that phones are not being used regularly in classrooms, that... students know to expect that and then they're not as tempted. They understand and they're able to comply. They're able to follow the rule. It just makes enforcement so much easier when everyone is doing the same thing. And, you know, anyone who's worked with the students and young people can say, yes, right? Consistency is such a huge part of this. And so I think that's kind of what that was stemming from, this idea of like, I don't want to be the only teacher or one of a handful. You know, I would like us all to get on board and support this. And we see schools that are, the schools are seeing good success for this. They have a system in place and they have, they have feedback loops between administrators and educators and parents and students where, where they're able to work together to say, okay, this policy is working in this way or maybe we need to consider refining this and they can work that out. And then that's, again, leading up to the district level and then that's. statewide default is just going to support them in that. You know, I heard it said that, you know, I would be included in this category. Many of us are that we didn't have these types of devices when we were in school and we survived. We made it through the other side and we're okay and maybe even better because we can have some interpersonal skills. But what do you say to the parents who rely or think they rely on students' access to their phone maybe in a time of an emergency or? to catch something on video that they would want to be able to share that they think is wrong, that would translate better on a video than maybe their first-hand account, or if they need picked up from school, something like that. Because those are the kind of things you hear in response from some concerned parents about not having access to phones inside the school. What's the answer to that? Yeah, and I think that you're right. I grew up in a world with no mobile devices either. And I was fine. I like to think that I made it through okay, right? But it does come down to this is not the same world. And on students, I have two high schoolers. And they have had phones now for a while. They are a part of their lives and they will continue to be. These devices are tools they will continue to use. And it is important for them to understand, you know, how to manage them. And there are times where it's just not appropriate for them to be in use. And I think it's okay to set those boundaries. I understand the parent concerns and have some of those myself, actually. I'm not sure if you, if you, you know, followed that there was an amendment to this bill that actually responds directly to those parent concerns about having opportunity for communicating with their students using those devices. So there is, there is something in that built in. in response to parent concerns about access. And the idea, again, is to keep it so that it's not disruptive to the learning environment, but that there is an option that schools can allow for use in certain circumstances. And that's going to be up to the school to determine and the LEAs to determine what that exactly looks like, but that there is an opportunity for students to have that in case of, you know, change of plans or you need to get a ride with somebody else.

But again, just like you and I grew up with all schools and actually now all classrooms mostly have access, have a phone. So those messages can get transmitted. And this is where schools just need to be very good and clear about their communication expectations, setting up a good policy that includes how parents and students can connect with each other if needed throughout the school day. And I think we're seeing that this is part of a comprehensive. package of communication and also emergency communication that's a that's a big concern for parents what happens in an emergency i want to reach my kid and um and so schools need to be very clear about what their policy is and how families can communicate in those circumstances. And the bill allows for that. Lindsay, thank you for joining us. More coming up. It is the Rod and Greg show with you right here on Utah's talk radio, 1059, KNRS. John Curtis, Republican Senator here from the state of Utah. I'm not sure what he did because I don't know Senate procedure. I don't know if you do, Greg. Certainly Mike Lee does. He says it's worth taking the risk, but John Curtis has basically come out and said, No on the Talking Filibuster when it comes to the Save America Act. I think it's, I think it's, there's good reasons and real reasons. The good reason is we have so much to do that the talking filibuster will just take, could take weeks. Yeah. And we would not be able to do all the productive, important things that the Senate must do. That's the good reason. You know what the real reason? You know what the real reason is? What? They like this crony system they've got in place right now, and they just do not want to take an 85% in favor of American issue without regard to party and not pass it. And that stinks. I'm telling you to say that there's just too much for the Senate. There's no work product that I've seen come out of that United States Senate to tell me that the Save Act, it just needs to be put on the back burner. From what I'm reading today. Curtis is basically saying procedure. He's worried that if they do the talking filibuster, I may read this wrong, but it'd do away with the filibuster completely. Now, we're all fearful. That's what the Democrats are going to do if they can control the House next year. Yeah, they will do it. I'm not sure about this. It would not do that. It might reintroduce the talking filibuster, but have that. Do it. Which is fine. Hour number two coming up. Stay with us. Great to be with you this afternoon. I'm Rod Arquette. I'm citizen Greg Hughes. John Curtis, taking some heat this afternoon from conservatives out there. Deservedly so. Yeah, deservedly so. I would agree with you on that one, great, because, you know, the margins are very thin in the Senate. Mike Lee, the... Forget whatever plans you have this weekend because you're staying at home and playing on SpinQuest. And there's never been a better time to sign up than right now. New users get $30 coin packs for just $10. All the table games you love with hundreds of slot games and real cash prizes. That's at SpinQuest.com. SpinQuest.com. SpinQuest is a free-to-play social casino. Avoid where prohibited. Visit spendquest.com for more details.

By the way, the president during his State of the Union address gave a full-throated support for the Save America Act. Yes. The tip of the spear, of course, is Mike Lee. And all it does is say, you have to prove you're an American citizen to be able to vote in federal elections. What is it? 82% of the American people like this idea. 72% of Democrats like this idea. 90-something percent of Republicans. On the Republican side. So this is an issue that the American people say, yeah, it just makes sense. But apparently, you know, there are some senators, one from this state, who are afraid to move in that direction. I don't know what they want voters to weigh in the midterms. We're what? We're eight months away from him. About eight months, yeah. What would you like America, if not an 85% 82% issue? that people think is important. What do you, why would people vote for that Republican Senate again if they can't get something this fundamental accomplished? And it's hard, it's admittedly hard, but we need them to start doing some hard stuff because we're in hard times. Yeah. And it is naive, and I don't believe they're this naive. There's other reasons going on where they are, they are not voting for this or not being willing to use the talking filibuster. If it's because they say that, well. If we do that, the Democrats will just get rid of filibuster anyway. It was Joe Manchin from West Virginia and Kristen Sinema from Arizona. Those two Democrat senators that kept it from already happening. And the party kicked both of them out, ran them out of their Senate seats in those respective states because they stopped it. It is a 100% guarantee that they are getting rid of that filibuster full blown. Forget the voice filibuster. There will be no filibuster if the Democrats to ever take control. what are they waiting for? And I think Senator Lee is pretty clear that one does not equal the other. If you do a voice filibuster, you don't lose the filibuster in the Senate. Well, John Curtis came out today, and he's going to vote against the Save America Act if, in fact, it leads to getting rid of the filibuster. But as Mike Lee argues, we don't use the talking filibuster anymore. And what that means is, if you're in favor of Bill, you've got to stand up and keep talking. That's right. Until you run out of gas, right? List what he had to say, the argument that if we get rid of this or we use the talking filibuster, it's going to open the door on completely eliminating the filibuster. I'm going to make a prediction right now. Over the next few days, you're going to hear a lot of people going on TV saying that the... Senate Republicans can't possibly enforce the talking filibuster on the Save America Act without hastening the moment when the Democrats will get the majority again and then nuked the filibuster. This is absurd. First of all, they're going to nuke the filibuster anyway whenever they get the majority again.

if they perceive it to be at the inner interest to do so. Secondly, if we use the talking filibuster now, if anything, if it has any effect on whether the Democrats nuke when they get the chance, it makes it marginally less likely, not more. Don't fall for this ridiculous argument. At the end of the day, the American people want to say the America act passed. We as Republicans who have the majority. have the opportunity to get this done. If we do, great. If we don't, that's on us. Let's get it done. Stop dragging our heels. Let's move this thing to the floor, invoke the talking filibuster, and pass the Save America Act. Why not? Why not? Why not? Why not on this? Let me turn that off. I'm sorry. That repeated itself. But why not. I mean, Mike is saying, let's just do this. Let's get it to the floor. Let's have, you know, a vote on this through the talking filibuster and let's see what we know what the American people want. Are politicians, I guess they don't listen to voters? Wow. That's a surprise. Not this great. Not this is why it's a swamp in the first place. And I'll tell you this. Contrast the Senate that just cannot move. They have a glacial pace about them. They don't want to do anything. They don't want to circle it and talk about it. They want to campaign on it. They want to tell you what they will do if elected. When a push comes to shove, you don't see the move. You don't see the needle move. Now contrast that with a president, like President Trump, with this bias towards action where he is, I mean, he's acting. He'll be messy until he cleans it up. But he's moving and he's learning in. progress if he has to but he is going to get things done and he knows he's on the clock and he does not let time get in his way he is going to act and i just think one is it one is an example of just overly comfortable bureaucrats who just live in this bubble that has nothing to do with this country and the other one having connected with this country for so many decades beyond even before he was president has that sense of urgency. Anne knows there are things you can do and has already proven that if you just lean in and do it, you can do things like shut down the border completely. You can get things accomplished. What a contrast between the president, his administration, and that U.S. Senate. Yeah, and some rhinos in that U.S. Senate. Poor Mike Lee. I feel bad as one of his own Utah senators is canceling out his own vote on his own bill. I tell you what, there have been so many wild accusations against this bill, Greg. Let's see. Jim Crow 2.0. Yeah. Okay. Minorities won't be able to vote. Women that are married. Won't be able to vote. They can't do it. We've heard another outlandish one. You're ready for this one? Kamala Harris, talking about the SAVE Act. But else have they done? The SAVE Act. You know what the SAVE Act would do? Require that people show a birth certificate or a passport to register to vote. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but it's something like 40% of Americans don't have those documents. Married women?

If you changed your name when you got married, it's going to be different than what's on your birth certificate. Right? And what that's going to do in terms of complicating the ability of women to register to vote. And so this is happening in real time to suppress and obstruct the ability of people to vote. 40% of the American people do not have that type of identity. How do they have ID? 50 states have real ID, which means you have to, if you're not a legal... If you haven't come immigrated here and have some kind of status, legal status, and you're a more American. You don't get a driver's license with the real ID star on it unless you've shown birth certificate or passport. Or a passport. So she's suggesting that 40% of America are walking into walls unable to use a bank, unable to fly on a plane, unable to go into a nightclub, unable to go to a liquor store, unable to go shovel snow for Zohran Mamdani in New York City. What in the world is she talking about? Oh, I didn't know that when I... I hold women in a higher regard to imagine that if they get married, their voting days are not over. I don't think that's a thing. I don't think when you get married and you take on the name of your spouse that you now no longer can qualify to vote nor understand how to get a legal ID that can allow you to vote once you get married. I just think it's contrived. I dare you to go home tonight and I'll do the same thing. You tell the rodeo, I'll tell the rodeo queen, you tell Queen that they no longer can vote. Yeah. Because they're married and they haven't changed their identification properly. Did she get that vote? Does she have that real ID star? Does Queen Bee have that on her driver's license? I think she does. I don't know how she navigated. You better check. She did. You better check. She had to product buy something. This is what just it just angers me so much. Kamala Harris could make an outlandish statement. Like 40% of the people in this country won't be allowed to vote. No one calls around the carpet and say. Explain that to it. Where are you getting that number? They just let her throw it out there. The Democrats can lie, lie, lie, and nobody challenges them. How about this? When it was COVID and you had to have a vaccine in these blue states, you had to have a medical procedure. You had to have a card that says that you received it. Then you had to have the legal ID that matched the medical card that said you received the vaccine to be able to go to a grocery store, to be able to go anywhere, to go anywhere. How was it that Americans? By and large, we're expected to have a card that showed that they had received a shot from a doctor and that they had to have legal ID that matched that card, you know, generated by a doctor to show they had it. How was it that every single American was supposed to comply with that to go anywhere? Yeah. Stores, grocery stores to eat, you name it. But when it comes to voting, well, this is just, this can't be done.

Okay. This is where Utahans need to wake up and not be nice all the time. They need to see who they're voting in. That guy was a rat from day one. Okay? He was a Democrat before he was a Republican. And then he became mayor. And then he went on to, you know, U.S. Congress. And now I come back and he's the senator. And look at what we're looking at. Yes. People need to really dig in. They need to also elect their delegates for the caucuses better. You know, it's like whoever volunteers. But anyway, this just really angers me just tremendously. And the other thing is, if we had impeachment, an impeachment process in the state of Utah, we would be using it on this guy. Thank you, Cynthia, for your call. You can hear the frustration in her voice. And I think it's shared by so many. Certainly, I'm frustrated. He never signaled this earlier. I don't know if he thought this thing was going to go way quietly and he wouldn't have to come out publicly, John Curtis, Senator Curtis, and make this declaration. But it's not like this whole filibuster conversation is brand new. Where has he been? Why hasn't he been signaling this concern all along? He waits until the very, very last second. to come and join the other three. And by the way, those three, Mitch McConnell. Who cares. That guy, first, he spaces out half the time. He's so old and he's so, you know, he's so. old and elderly, he doesn't, he shouldn't be there. But he, when he was a majority leader, did everything he could to try to counter Trump's agenda. And I think he's behind soon. I think he's a shadow majority leader. I really do. Yeah. Well, and the thing with John Curtis, I'd like to ask John, first of all, do you agree what Mike Lee is trying to do? Okay. First of all, on the Save Act. Yes. I think he's using to get around it. He's saying, well, this is a procedural issue. You know, if we do this, we may open up the filibuster to begin with. Well, I think a lot of us look at that and say, it's going to happen probably sooner or later, so why not get into it now? What sanity do you see coming from the Democrats? What desperation aren't they willing to, what bridge too far are they not willing to travel to do to this country what they've done so far? This filibuster is no longer a, that's a nuclear option. Man, they've been, they've gone nuclear option. Already, they will do anything and everything to tear down this country. That filibuster is the first day on the job if they ever see the majority of our U.S. Senate. And if you don't think they will, Greg, listen to what Susan Rice, former chief of staff for Barack Obama said last week, we're coming to get you. Yeah, that's right. We are not the old Democrats. If you wanted to play nice with Donald Trump, if you're a corporation, if you're an individual, if you're an organization that played nice with Donald Trump. We are coming to get you. She said, we're not playing by the old rules. The old rules would have been law and order, everything else. They're going to use lawfare to go after anyone that was cooperative with. And by the way, cooperative with the Trump administration just means following the law. Yeah. That's all it means. This is following the law. But if you aren't fighting him, if you're not joining them to obstruct this president and this administration from it's what it's trying to do, then you're now the new enemy.

And Susan Rice, she was National Security Advisor. Yeah, that's right. And I think she was even at the U.N. as a representative for the Obama administration. But this is a powerful woman who is promising. And she sits on the board of Netflix, but she is promising retribution if and when they get back into power. With that understood, when you have Senator Manchin from West Virginia and Senator Kristen Sinema from Arizona, two Democrat senators that refused to get rid of the filibuster. chased out of those seats by their own party. Both had challengers. Both decide not to run again. Both chased out by their party. Why on earth would you ever think that Democrats aren't going to get rid of that filibuster in a second if given the chance? Your calls, your comments. We'll get some of our talkback line comments coming up. It is The Rod and Greg Show on Talk Radio 105.9, KNRS. The John Curtis realizes the wrath he is about to face. Not only here in the state, but around the country, to his efforts on possibly derailing the Save America Act. Do you think he even realizes what is about to hit him? I don't know. I really don't. I'm watching X, and it is not kind, and it is coming from far and wide. Yeah. And he's just entered the ranks of the Mitch McConnell's and the Susan Collins and Thom Tillis and all those guys. The people that there's just been so much disappointment amongst Republicans nationally, he gets to be one of those poster children now. He gets to be one of four out of 100. 100 members of Congress, four Republicans that are just, you know, that we will lay at the feet. the defeat of our party in our country because of whatever reason they have swimming around in their head. But I'm on tilt as you can tell, but let's go to our listeners. I think our listeners are the smartest listening audience in all the land. Maybe they have more insight and commentary that will make me feel a little better. So let's go to Brian, who's been waiting. He's in Provo. Brian, thank you for holding. Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show. Thanks for having me. I would like your help, Greg. We need to not just talk about it on your show. We need to do something about it. As a constituent that voted, which I didn't vote him in, but I certainly want to figure out what we can do to vote him out, to get him out of office, to flood his office with phone calls, emails, social media post. Let's make a movement here in Utah to voice our strong opinion of the craziness that he is representing not the constituents, not the people of Utah and get him out of office if this is how he's going to act. It's ridiculous. I'm mad, you're mad, we're all mad, but being mad doesn't do any good. You need to give us some ideas to start a movement to figure out how we can flood his office with our views that make him maybe, hopefully, stop and realize how ridiculous.

not voting for this Save America Act is. Brian, thank you. I love your thoughts. Thank you. Thank you. We can't share them. Yeah, so let me just say this. The Mitt Romney's six-year Senate term was the longest six years of my life. I don't remember a term ever taking as long as the one that Mitt Romney served. But what he proved is there's nothing you're going to do, at least by there's no recall election, there's no impeachment. There's no way you can remove him from office. He will. He will face re-election. Unless he resigns. In 2030. Yeah. 2030 is when you can do it. Is that when he's up? Yeah. Really? 24 is when he got elected. Mike Lee will be up for reelection before John Curtis in 28. So, but this is, but you're not wrong, Brian, because let me just tell you this. There is a reason why I do, I think that Mitt Romney did not seek re-election. And that is, I think he saw how wildly. unpopular he was and how nobody in Utah felt that he after he campaigned in 18 as someone who supported Trump and he was, you know, he changed his ways from the 16 race and he was going to be Utah's guy. He was going to be a budget hawk. Nothing that that man said when he ran matched what he did as a U.S. Senator. And I think it's one of the reasons why you saw that he was a one-termer. That's what it's going to take if we don't want to see John Curtis canceling out Senator Mike Lee's vote. like this on such a critical issue like the Save America Save America Act. It's going to take the people remembering this. It's going to take people talking about this. And my worry is that he's going to do to us what Mitt Romney did, and that is just taunt us. He's in for two years. Now we've got four more years. Where I felt taunted by Mitt Romney, and now we're going to get taunted by John Curtis. Now, look, we've had him on the show before. I think he has at times, and we have interviewed him, shared remarkable experiences from inside the House of Representatives. And we've had him on the show a lot. And we have. And I will tell you that he is an incredible. I think the reason he wins is because he knows the audience he's in front of and he can be incredibly inspiring. But these votes right here. These aren't normal votes. These are those extraordinary moments where you have to do something that not every senator's asked to do and not every generation's asked to do it. But right now, we're in trouble. And it's hard times which require hard work. And that voice, that talking filibuster was absolutely essential. And if he is one of the, if he blocks that. Because he didn't want to go there. Because he doesn't want to go there. Not only does he stop us from. preserving our right to vote and ensuring that legal citizens vote, which is so necessary, and it's the only reason when there's 85% of America that supports it, that these Democrats in Congress are opposed to it, it's because what President Trump said in the state of the union, because they want to cheat. There's no other rationale behind not going with 85% of this country on an issue. So they want to cheat. You are enabling that if you don't let this go to a vote and you have the votes as the majority. Why have the majority as Republicans if you can't do the hard work to get that thing passed? So I think you just have to raise your voice. I saw when Mitt Romney did this for so long, it seemed like a steady drumbeat of people just being tired of him. And let's see if he taunts us like Mitt Romney did. Well, let me tell you what? We have a, what, 5347 majority right now in the U.S. Senate, right?

There are three we know for sure. Mitch McConnell, he's going to vote against it. Lisa Murkowski, that's not a surprise. Thom Tillis, but John Curtis, John Curtis is the difference here. Yes. If John Curtis goes along with this, we probably have 50-50, and we're looking at JD Vance. John Curtis doesn't vote for this. It's done. Yep. Just put the numbers together, folks. He's like four years, everyone will forget. You know, we got a great listener that says, I said he's inspiring when he speaks. They say he's deceptive. Yeah. Well, yeah. When you change your speech, depending on the audience you're in front of, you know, that's probably an apt description. We want to hear your comments on our talkback line as well. Let's listen to one of them right now. Hi, my name is Linda. I'm from Provo. And didn't likely say that if we'd bring it to a vote without a filibuster, we will require 60 votes for it. But if we use a filibuster and then bring it to a vote, we'll only require 50 votes to pass it. So that's why the talking filibuster is a really good thing to do. Yeah, it is. He's right. You don't need 60. All you need is 50 on a talking filibuster. If you have the president of vice president of the United States, I mean, do you know how many votes? Kamala Harris came into that Senate and voted. I mean, she had to be there like she couldn't be 15 minutes away from that Senate chamber because they had 50-50 and she'd be the deciding vote on everything back when they went in the last Congress. And I'm telling you that. We have this window of opportunity. We have the House. We have the Senate. We have the presidency. If we can't get these things done, I just don't know when we will get these things done. More calls, more comments coming up. The Rodden Greg Show with you on Utah's talk radio 1059 KNRS. John Curtis on social media right now, scorched, fried, burned, obliterated. He is under attack on social media. So you show me some really funny memes. I did not know a rat's face could be put on Senator John Curtis's body. I've seen it three times already. And it just looks so natural. I mean, I can't really see that it's just, Photoshop's just gotten really sophisticated. Or something. Yeah, it has. Or something. Let's go to the phones and get your thoughts on this. Gary's on I-15 tonight on the Rod and Greg show. Hi, Gary. Hi, Rod. So I wanted to point out that the reason why we have this is because they're trying to push us to a jungle primary and get rid of our caucus system. Our caucus system, if they look at the results, John lost at caucus convention. And he should never been our, even on the ballot. He should never been a candidate. And so we need to go back to the caucus system. It's a tried and true system. It's the closest system we have to a true republic. And.

I think we need to just wake everybody up to say, hey, you know what? If somebody wins at caucus convention, that's who I'm going to support. Yeah, yeah. You're right, Gary. I am a huge supporter, Greg, of the caucus convention system. I don't like this signature gathering. Get on the ballot thing. I've never liked it. And I love the – by the way, March 17th, it's caucus night. That's right. For the Republican Party here in the state. So March 17th, if you can get there. It's that important. It really is. You know, I look, I have loved, I have participated in that since 1992. The caucus convention system is a volunteer of campaigns as a candidate in many different ways. And I think it's a high information election cycle. It's not always gone my way. I mean, it used to always go my way. And then as of late, those are it didn't but i don't it's not the public system it was me clearly but i would just say i'd take that over uh whoever has the most money and can carpet bomb a district with the most mail and and media buys i don't know that that's a substantive process so let's hear from our yeah i do too let's hear from our talkback line rod gregg why are you guys not putting his number out there for all of us to call and hound him this is ridiculous guy needs to hear from this Everybody in Utah, not just his constituents. He needs to hear from everybody. We all have neighbors and friends who live in his area. I'll respond to that. I know there's some talk show hosts who do that. I don't believe in doing that. I think you can find the number very, very easily. It's not our job to do. That's my opinion. You may agree or disagree with me on this. Hey, you're the boss. And I agree with you too. Because I don't want to be selective in my moments of doing that. And so I don't want to do it all the time. But here's what I will say from the color. Every single Utah is his constituent. He was elected to the United States Senate, which means. There isn't a single voter in the state of Utah who he is not the senator of, who he does not represent. It's not a congressional district. It is a statewide. statewide district. It is every single Utah. This person was elected to represent us. And he is canceling out the vote of the author of the Save America Act, Senator Mike Lee, his colleague. Utah is a state. We only, you know. You're supposed to be unified as a state. Your delegation to the best degree that you can are supposed to vote in a block and look after the issues that we have as Utahans, how you can have two U.S. senators who are so far apart that he is canceling the vote of the sponsor of the Save America Act. As important as that is to all of America, it is, it's a statement and it's not a good one. No, it is not. So we'll have to see how this is going to play out. We'll have to see if he's, you know, I'd love to get him on. I think he's saying it's a procedural thing. If you read what he says, you know, if we do this, something's going to happen. But I agree with you. I think that is a cop-out. It is. Just stand up for what this act is all about, and it's an important act.

It is very important. There is nothing. Don't tell me there's a housing issue that the Senate has to deal with. This is about the integrity of our elections. And you can't tell me the Democrats are so afraid of this act. They are throwing out some of the wildest accusations you can even think of great. Kamala Harris. You know, 40% of Americans won't be able to vote if we have this. That is such a bald-faced lie. Jim Crow 2.0. Married women can't vote. Give me a break. He used to be a Democrat, registered Democrat. One of our listeners observed he would love for the Democrats to get back in power because he was a Democrat. Some would argue maybe still, but that's not a bridge too far for him when he used to be a registered member of the Democrat Party. I can't remember the name of it. Your clock, you got an internal clock. Sciatica or something? Cyanica is a back. That's a back. That's an injury. I know, it sounds like it's a bug. Circadia. Cicadia. Cicadia. Something like that. Yeah, no, I think that's it. Cyanica, circadia, circadia, something. It's either a bug or a nerve in your back. What is it? What is it? What is it? Yeah, that's a nerve in my back. I actually got messed up once too, but my clock, whatever they call that thing, I think he's named after a bug. The internal clock I have, I can't remember which one of these daylight savings are the normal time I, my body never loses track of. So I don't know if it gets better or worse. I can't even remember now. But it's not my back nerve. No, it's not your back nerve. I guarantee. All right, before we talk with John Lott, he'll be on here in just a second. The study finds.com, they do studies, interesting studies all the time, right, Greg? What is the most deceitful state in the country? The state where Americans lie, cheat, and scam the most. Which one do you think it is? I always said like Jersey or New York, but I don't know. What is it? Just think for a minute. The biggest scam? Nevada. Bingo. Yeah. The mob started that state, so it stands to reason. Nevada ranks the, as America's most deceitful state with nearly one in five residents admitting they lie often and almost 60,000 fraud reports filed in 2024. Nevada. Now, what is the honest state? Utah. No. Come on. No. It's not Utah? No, it is not Utah. It is not Utah. North Dakota. Where's John Thune from? Is he from South Dakota or North Dakota? Soon it. I think North Dakota. Well, then it's not the most on the state. If somebody from there's a liar, liar pants on fire. If he's from North Dakota, John Thune, that's not. That can't be right. But then, so what Utah wouldn't either because we had Curtis. I guess I just indicted our own state by that standard. May have. Well, let's move on. Hey, everybody. Lady Luck here. And we're celebrating America's 250th birthday. Now all summer long, I'm going to be celebrating by playing on SpinQuest.com, which is an American.

own social casino. It obviously features over a thousand slot games and live blackjack, live craps, live bubble craps. Head on over to SpinQuest.com. Get yourself a $30 coin pack for just 10 bucks. SpendQuest is a free-to-play social casino. Voidware prohibited. Visit SpenQuest.com for more to tell us. We, you know, we're repeatedly told, Greg, time and time again by the media that transgender identifying individuals are not prone to gun violence. We're told that often, right? All the time, it seems like, right? Well, our next guest, John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, has been digging into that to find out exactly what is going on. He's joining us on our newsmaker line right now. John, is always great to have you back on the show. You've been doing some digging, John. What have you found out about transgender violence? Well, yeah, I mean, there are a lot of problems with the way the media has kind of analyzed this. They say that shootings and attacks by transgender individuals are rare. But they really don't do a very good job of analyzing the data. For one thing, excuse me. You could say that, let's say 10% of shooters are trans, and they'll say that's rare, but you have to compare it. You have to adjust for what percent of the population are trans individuals. And if you take surveys like from the census or other places, you're talking about something that's at most 1% of the population. And so if I told you that they make up... 5 or 10% of the shooters in a particular type, but they're only 1% of the population, you would realize that they're way overrepresented. Well, the media doesn't do that. There are other problems that the media has, for example. They'll use things like data from a place called the Gun Violence Archive, which goes and looks at mass shootings around the country. About 85% of their cases involve gang fights over drug turp. Almost all the rest are involving things like a robbery. Now, those are bad things and nobody wants them to happen, but they're very different from the types of things that you might see, which the FBI collects with its active shooting data or mass public shootings. where they try to focus on a different type of attack where the point of the attack is simply to go and kill other people and those those are much fewer and if you use those you'll find that a much higher percentage of uh of the attacks involved transgender so whether so active shooting by the FBI's definition of active shootings those are shootings that occur in public places not part of some other type of crime like a

gang fight over drug terror for a robbery, anything from one person being shot at and missed all the way up to a mass public shooter. And if you look at that for 2024, for example, even if you take kind of the highest rates from surveys of transgender share of the population, they're still overrepresented by a factor of like 12, more than their share of the population that's there. So that's, you know, a real outlier. John, is it media laziness or media trying to cover up things? What do you think this is? Because you've done the digging. Why is the media doing the digging like you have? You know, I can't get in people's minds. I don't know whether it's just stupidity that they just don't adjust for the share of the population. You know, some of the things like the measure that they have for what type of shooting attacks that they're looking at, you would think. If they thought about it at all, they'd realize that having a measure that is overwhelmingly gang fights over drug turks, they might realize that that's a very different animal there, both the causes and solutions for those things. You know, mass public shootings, active shooting cases that the FBI looks at. There's a reason why. They exclude things like gang fights over drug turfs or robberies because the motivations and the solutions for fixing those things are dramatically different. So, you know, I can't get into people's minds. The best I can do is just try to point out, look, guys, if you're going to, I mean, this isn't rocket science to know that you have to do things like adjust for the share of the population when you want to go and claim that something's rare. John, how do you think the public benefits if they have a greater understanding as to what actually is taking place based on what you have found? How does this help the public understand what is going on in this country? Well, I mean, there's so much misinformation that the media puts out about mass shootings and mass public shootings. You know, everything from kind of one thing you and I've talked about before is like these guys, these murderers, time after time, after time will explain explicitly why they pick the targets. They want to go after gun-free zones. I think that's newsworthy. I don't understand why the media never reports on those. On our website at crime research.org, we have literally dozens of quotes from their diaries and manifestos where they explicitly explain why they pick the target. That's the type of thing that you think would be important. If you want to go and stop this, you have to understand why they pick the targets that they do. And with regard to trans individuals, if there's some type of mental illness type issue that's involved there. It seems like you would care about that. It seems like, you know, you want to try to identify what factors seem to be related to these things. I mean, there's a lot of media attention that occurs when these types of events occur. You would think, you know, one of the amazing things is you look at something like the Rhode Island shooting that we just had. The New York Times, ABC, NBC, CNN, you know, Associated Press, all sorts of parts of the media.

refused to even mention that the shooter was a trans individual. I mean, what, you know, I, You know, I can understand they say, well, we don't want to demonize this particular group. But, I mean, it's part of the news story. These guys will go and talk about the type of gun that's used, or they'll go and they'll, you know, get other facts wrong about how the person may have obtained the gun or something like that. I don't know why that's any more or less relevant than some of the things that they decide that they want to focus on. John Lott joining us. John, of course, is with the Crime Prevention Research Center. He took a look at the violent acts being committed by transgender trans people in this country today, and yet the media ignores it. And they have time and time again. Absolutely they have. Hey, you know, when it rains at pores, I'm looking right now, you know, we mentioned this earlier on a show, but I'm just seeing that it's getting some attention now. Utah is one of five states that the DOJ is now suing. So DJ Henderson or lieutenant governor is being sued. Department of Justice has announced that among the five states, that Lieutenant Governor Henderson is one of the named... named Lidians in the state of Utah being sued for Utah's voter registration database. They were asked to turn it over in Utah. The lieutenant governor says that, you know, they offered to give some information, but we have data privacy laws or voter privacy laws that would prohibit her from doing it. So she's saying they were expecting to be sued because they weren't. They saw it coming. Yeah, they weren't cooperating. There are 29 states now that DOJ has filed suit against. I get data privacy and I get voter privacy, but I'll tell you this. I think that the federal government needs to know that everybody's playing on the same level playing field on these congressional and Senate and presidential elections. And so I think they should be able to see that and review that. They know everything else about us. My goodness. How can they not know that? They sure do. All right, more coming up. Rod and Greg on Utah's Talk Radio, 1059, K&R. I'm Citizen Hughes. And I'm Roder K&RK. I've been around you long enough. unfortunately not long enough uh it was like a year and a half year how long we've been together year and a half well we did an hour show for about a year wasn't it before a little while yeah yeah and then we hooked up yeah we hooked up that sounds that sounds yeah thanks you might want to rephrase that well we've teamed up teamed up would probably be better yeah is that better i i think that's more accurate and as long as i've known you yes

Seems like an eternity. You would love it. I've never considered you to be a swear bear. No. No. No. I am. I'm a self-professed one, but I know my moments in my audience. A bullshit. Yes, I try to keep a professional. Yeah. Well, apparently, you know, salty language. Yes. Is everywhere anymore. Yes, it is. Would you agree? I mean, you... See things. I mean, Stephen Colbert looking right at the camera and saying F. Trump. Yes, it's terrible. You know, they bleep it out. And the question was, you know, does I want to. Hanging out at the pool is great. Relaxing and playing Vegas-style games on my phone at the same time. Drink in one hand and a blackjack in the other. It's all at SpinQuest. Over a thousand games including your favorite slots and table games. Be cool with this summer special. New players get $30 coin packs for 10 at SpinQuest.com. SpinQuest is a free-to-play social casino. Voidware prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. I don't know, Greg. I go back and forth on this, but, you know, if a public official swears some public and it's not gross swearing, it doesn't bother me too much. I know I wish they didn't do it, but it's the way the world is today. Can't clean it up, I don't think. I'm not offended by it, but I do think there's a time and a place, and I do think that there's decorum. I think there's... So, and I'm not saying this is the right answer. I know people, and I have friends that listen to the show, one in particular that's hearing me say this, and she's going to be mad at me for saying this because she expects more of me than what I'm saying. But I don't, I'm not offended by the swearing, and sometimes the emphasis seems appropriate to the moment. But I think that, say, this program or on television, or if you're... serving in some capacity professionally, whether it's a public servant or in a place of employment. There is a way to act like an adult. And it doesn't include being the swear bearer, swearing and dropping swear words everywhere. So I think there's that. So that's... I don't get overly offended by it at all, but I do think there's time in place. You know, I think with some comedians nowadays, it's almost a crutch, especially the F-mom. That's right. I tell you, when, oh, who's the guy, Tim Allen, who did, right? My wife and I went to see him. He was in concert here at, not Provinole Hall. What's the other one down to Eccles Theater, right? We're really looking forward to it because I think he's a pretty good guy, right? Every third word. Really? Yeah. And my wife almost said, can we watch? I mean, it really offends my wife. And I totally get that. Yeah. But it just, it just bothered her because I think some community. Now, there are some out there who don't use it anymore that I'm more. One, I keep on. Nate Barquiz. Yeah, Nate Barker. I see him on clips.

I think it's on TikTok or he is very, very funny. He's hilarious. He's got a movie coming out, by the way. It's a rip-off of, think, of the old movie with, whom I think of Michael Keaton and Mr. Mom. He's got a movie kind of like that coming out soon. But I'll catch clips of him. He's very, very funny. And, you know, those are just clips from a concert. But my guess says he doesn't do this. So I went, no, I went to his concert in Salt City. What did you think? And so, and it was Pat. He did three shows. I think he added a show because it was, it was at the Delta Center, and it is packed. round stage. Yeah. It's a round stage. Yeah. And it was absolutely packed. And he joked because he's, he's a clean comedian. Yeah. And he's very funny. And so is Brian Regan, who's absolutely hilarious as well. My oldest son, I think, has seen Brian Regan. He was telling me, Dad, if he ever comes, you gotta see him. I've watched his shows, and they are absolutely a riot. And so there are clean comedians that get highly rewarded. In fact, Nate's, one of his lines was, he came and it was, the place was just going crazy. And he said, I was told as a clean comedian. I could expect this in Salt Lake City. This is the place where we would be rewarded for our comedy would be here. And he is a right. He's funny. So I've been to both comedies. You know, I like comedians. And so I've seen the ones that use, you know, the profanity. And I've been to Nate Bargazes. And I laugh at all. I think it's fun. Back in a day when I lived in Provo, there was Johnny Bees. It was a comedian. It was a comedy club. And loved it. You used to love to go and see the guys. And it was clean. And he was, Johnny B. was a comedian himself, opened up this comedy club and was, would bring clean comedians through. And they were just hilarious. I can remember being in pain. I'd laugh so hard that my gut hurt. So I, you know, it doesn't, you don't have to. And I've seen so much success from those that don't, if they're truly funny. But again, I just don't get wrapped around the axle on the words themselves. I just think that you got to. know where you're at and act accordingly. Yeah. And I'm telling you, I would never be swearing from my mom, my grandma. Oh, I would. I would not be saying those things. Did you get the mouth washed out? I never got my mouth washed out. Really? Wow, I did. I've been, you know, I just, my mother and my grandmother, such as she's just disappointed in me, it would gut me as a kid. Yeah, yeah, yeah. If she was just so, and I could see, not just fake it, not just say, I'm just, not just say it, but if I could just see that I had let her down and I could see it in her eyes, man. That's like cutting my heart out with a spoon. Yeah. I couldn't handle it. So that's hard. You know. It's hard. That's for sure. All right. Another half hour coming your way on this Rod and Greg show in Utah's Talk Radio, 1059, KNRS. More coming up. Curtis is good fried. He's every other page. Every other shot I see, and it's not kind. Oh, really? They're saying, meet the man who's killing the Save Act. Yeah. And he's Mitt Romney's replacement. That's how he's going to be known. Mitt Romney's replacement. Republicans across the country will know this man by that term. That's true. When he votes the way Mitt Romney absolutely would have voted the same. When you look just like it, that's...

What you get. This is a big vote. Look, I know. It's an important vote. It is so important, Greg, that if we don't stop the silliness and the fraud that is taking place, what it's going to be, what's the history for this country? Right. And I got to tell you this, it's statistically impossible to agree with everyone on everything. Oh, sure, sure. I'm going to tell you that when you have so many bills that you vote on in committee or on the floor from. experience i can tell you that even queen b would tell me don't come home if you don't vote a certain way on a bill that she really liked and i didn't really like it and so yeah you're getting that weird spot and in fact if you ever meet someone who's a who's an elected official and they happen to agree on every single thing you think of you should be staring at that person because that's just not going to be the case that's true so i acknowledge and that there are times where we're just going to have differences even amongst republicans but the save america act is not one of those moments It just fundamentally isn't. It's not a Republican issue. It's not a conservative issue. It is a voter integrity issue. It is making sure that Americans vote that their votes are not canceled out by people that have no right or legal right to vote. There's nothing. There's no downside to ensuring that legal U.S. citizens are the only ones voting as already is the law. And to vote against that when there is such wide support, bipartisan support to vote against it. And to find an excuse is unacceptable. It's crazy. It's crazy. Well, let's move on to another topic. Let's talk for a few minutes about climate change. Isn't that funny, Greg? how things are starting to change. The Democrats are trying to rebrand their message. And joining us on our newsmaker line to talk about that right now, our any hour newsmaker line is Gary Abernathy. He's an author, an editor, also writes for real clear or real clear energy. And he's on our newsmaker line right now. Gary, you write about this, about how the Democrats are changing their branding. I want to start off and ask you, first of all, do you think those on the far left, the climate zealids, have really ever believed their own rhetoric when it comes to climate change? I think I would say some of them did. I question whether a lot of them were just playing a game of follow the leader. And, you know, not to be too cynical, but I've worked in politics and journalism, both back and forth a little bit. And I see, you know, you see some people who are more sincere about what they believe in than other people. And you see some folks kind of go the direction where it looks like I can raise the most money. with this message or i can fund my campaign the best with this message so let's hitch our wagon to that message and i think a lot of people who you know never really fully bought into climate change to begin with are starting to say look at election results you know and say it's not working that well anymore i point out in the 2024 election you had Kamala Harris and the democrats campaigning hard on the usual climate rhetoric the usual climate doomsday talk and trump was saying drill baby drill And, you know, how did the election come out? Trump won. Republicans kept control of Congress. Republicans continued to dominate at the state level. And a lot of Democrats are finally saying...

Our doomsday talk about climate maybe not is not working as well as we thought it was. So I'm bipolar on this issue because some days I wake up and I think, you know, the American people just figured out this was a scam. Nothing they've said works. This is paper straws or for the insane. You know, and they just, the American people kind of turned away from this aggressive agenda. Other days I wake up and say, you know, they all realize with AI and everything else, they need more power generation than known demand. And now they've got to be bullish on any kind of generation of power. So they're abandoning it for the money they'll make on the need for more power that we just don't have on the grid. Which of those stories that run around in my head do you think is most accurate? Well, I think that the reality shows that, you know, especially with the emerging data centers that are coming up that need a tremendous amount of power. A lot of people are just starting to realize. the alternatives aren't going to do it. You know, solar, wind, so on. They just don't supply the juice, so to speak, that we need to power the things that are coming online, particularly the AI data centers. And, you know, some of these data center people are even financing the building of their own grids and their own gas-fired plants because really natural gas is really more than anything, the source that gives you that generates the electricity that you need. And, of course, you know, gas is cleaner all the time. And a lot of people call it the natural green energy or clean energy. So, you know, I just think there's a reality happening here when people want... People want their Internet. People want their, you know, AI is a controversial thing right now, but there's no getting around that that's, you know, we're going to develop it or the Chinese are going to develop it. Who's going to leak away with them? We need to corral it. We need to control it. But it takes a tremendous amount of not just electricity, but it turns a tremendous amount of water to cool these things. And this is the future. It's coming whether we like it or not. and to keep up or not just to keep up to really be the world leader is going to require us to power these things sufficiently and that's just that happens much better with traditional energy energy resources so i think a lot of it is just economic reality hitting them in the face and then also you look at the weather you know the weather we've had i think it was just a year ago the new york times i think had an article saying why how can we don't have snow anymore What happens in this? They're worried about that this week. So, you know, reality sometimes has a way of interfering with your political narrative. Gary, when do you think this started to a fade among the American public? I mean, I think we've always been quite skeptical of what they've been telling us about, you know, the icebergs melting and oceans rising. But when did it start to fade? Has it been gradual or has it been a sudden change? Where do you see happening? Well, when you say when did it start to fade, I don't think it ever reached a great crescendo. I don't think it was ever a dominant. It was never in anyone's top five things, here are the issues I'm voting for, or at least not when you did a poll of the general public, for some people probably, yes. But it was never one of those top issues, you know, along with the economy and so on, that people put as their top reason for voting for someone or for a party. But I think just over time,

You know what? It sucks to be bored. But when I get on my phone and play real casino games on SpinQuest.com, the time flies by. That two-hour wait at the DMV seems like 10 minutes. Play your favorite slots. Live blackjack, live craps with a live dealer. New players, $30 coin packs are on sale for $10.00. Play SpinQuest.com and you'll never be bored again. SpinQuest is a free-to-play social casino. Avoid where prohibited. Visit spendquest.com for more details. lives start to, you know, add up. I mean, people start to see for themselves, well, you know, this city was supposed to be underwater by now. And we weren't supposed to be able to grow any crops this year. And, you know, they just see these wild, you know, and the ice was supposed to all be gone by now. There's no glaciers supposed to be left, according to what they said 20 years ago. And I just think over time, and in some cases, you know, I'm exaggerating some of this, but you can go back and look at some of, these very specific predictions that we're supposed to have come true by now and the fact that they don't i'm sorry you lose people and that's why i think a lot of democrats i wrote another column a few weeks ago saying that you know some of these folks who firmly believe in the climate change uh narrative you know they believe man-made climate change is a real thing even they're starting to say we need to admit we don't know what we don't know we need to get away from just this alarmism and trying to scare people all the time and admit we don't know what's going to happen we think it's bad but we let's quit trying to pick a date and predict it by here by this date you know we're going to see the solid result of climate change i think that's a smarter way to go about so a lot of these people made a lot of money carbon credits they just there there was an economy there was some kind of you know there was some cottage industry that came with this whole cause i don't think these people just go and find new causes somewhere i think they're going to try and repackage it re re bring it to the american people maybe in a different form what does that look like if they don't go away but and they're still wanting to make their money inside this little cottage industry what would they tell the american people this time around about this topic Well, I think instead of blaming, you know, instead of trying to point at ice melting and cities being covered with water, we're already seeing what they're changing it to. They're morphing it to this affordability argument. And they're basically saying climate change is the reason that your electric bills are higher. Climate change is the reason that food prices are higher. And I think they're trying to bring it more to this micro level than the big macro level. That's, I think, what they're shifting to is to say the reason that cost are going up is because of climate change. And I think it's just as tough of a cell as their other argument. But we already see that kind of, you know, they come up with a word affordability. And very sadly to me as a journalist, it's sad to see so many in the media just jump on, you know, like lap dogs jumping on. The Democrats say the message is affordability. Let's go write a bunch of stories about affordability. So that's what they line up to do. But I think that's what you're seeing. They're going to try that. Every reason that something costs you more is because of climate change. That's the next approach, right?

If we didn't have climate change, you could afford a brand new car. Yeah, you know, I loved in the state of the union address that after Trump described all the madness at the border, the climate, you know, scam, green, the new green scam or whatever he called. He says, all you Democrats in the chamber caused all this. And then you discovered a word, affordability. And then you just started to say it. Yep. Well, you're the ones that caused it. So that's, that is this issue. They're going to try and now sell climate. The climate scam through affordability. Sure. Yeah. More coming up. Final segment. I'm Citizen Hughes. Jesse Kelly coming your way at the top of the hour. I'm Rod Arquette. We often talk about California losing population people leaving California headed to, what, Texas and Florida. Saneville. Some coming to Utah. There's another, I saw this, the Bay State. You know what the Bay State is? Massachusetts. Ah, that's right. Okay, Massachusetts. All right. That state has lost nearly 200,000 residents in just the last five years. And they say high taxes? housing affordability and regulation is killing that state you know what i'd be curious about is that during covid a lot of the blue states were just shutting down schools and it's such large and then really it was pretty tough that a lot of families if they had the ability they were moving to red states to be able to keep their kids in schools and and not see life interrupted so much i wonder if they ever moved back to their blue states once i don't know good question yeah i just i don't know because Massachusetts would be when you probably wouldn't want to get out of if when COVID hit that place probably was a prison. Yeah. You know, they'd probably lock down. No liquor stores. They would keep those open. Abortion clinics, they're going to, you can go in there any time. But churches, no. You know, you can't go to church. You can, you know, other places. Was it? I think it's the mayor of Boston is a dingbat. Yeah, that would be. I mean, it's a very pro-illegal immigration. Yes, very much so. She tried to say something in Boston that they had like a Somali heritage or something. You know, this is like the cradle of freedom, you know, the bunker hill and everything going on here. And she wants to point to the Somali refugees is Boston's rich history. Well, they're leaving Massachusetts. They're headed to North Carolina, Florida, and Texas. I don't know how many more people Florida and Texas can take. Now, Texas is a very big state. It is. A lot of room in Texas. Democrats keep swearing up and down. They can win a Senate seat in Texas, but every time they do, they don't get close. Florida seems to get more and more Republican. It gets redder. I'm telling you, Desances' first run for governor. He won by, like, 1%. He eaped it out. And then after that, they never looked back. That place is so solidly red now. And I think that's, you can thank the leadership of Ronda Sances for them. Yeah. A reminder, I will be out for a few days.

Taking a little vacation. I know. You know what? You'll be here next week. You'll be here next week. You deserve it. There's a good reasons why. I mean, we were, it was only two months ago. We had two weeks off for Christmas. I know, but this is a family. It's a special family out of you. I'm very happy for you. I've had a daughter-in-law who has a, has had some serious health issues. Yes. She's been undergoing treatment. They apparently have been very, very successful. Yes. And we're going to get away and celebrate a little bit. Yeah, and this is a lot of fun. I was, I've always, this is, this is a momentous vacation for you. And I, yeah, you just don't get on the plane, come back, go Barry White on us. Okay, good. Is that okay? Every time you get on a plane, Barry White comes back. Last time I was gone, I didn't get sick. Yeah, man, it might be true. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Nope. Don't be challenging me. Well, one time you're gone, not last time, but one time you were gone, we got the President Trump on the phone. It was right around the caucus times, too. You better not do it this time. If I'm down, because I'll be checking in. And if I hear Donald Trump on the show. I had called on a Lago. Yeah. You know, he had, when he called, the president talked more to E. Ray. He talked to E. Ray. He was buddy with E. Ray. He didn't want to talk to you. I could see he was on the line. I'm like, why is it taking so long to get on? Because he wanted to ask E. Ray all about being the producer of the show. He didn't care about you. He cared about what E. Ray was doing. It was pretty fun. That's all he came down to. You wouldn't know about it. You wouldn't know about it. That's true. You weren't here. So maybe I can get it again while you're gone. Thanks. All right. We'll have fun. That doesn't for us tonight. Head up, shoulders back. May God bless you and your family. And this great country of ours, Greg is back tomorrow and all next week and four. He'll talk to you there. Have a good night.

Oh, I've had no luck lately. Wait, lady luck? Brett Ski, I got you. I've had so much luck on SpinQuest.com. They have all of my favorite games, slot games, live blackjack craps, and bubble craps. You can even get a $30 coin pack for just $10 bucks. $10 for $30. I'm headed over to SpinQuest.com right now. SpinQuest is a free-to-play social casino. Avoid where prohibited. Visit spendquest.com for more details.