The Rod and Greg Show: Dems Need Nanacy; Gen Z's Marriage Fears; Time For Choosing...again

What's going on, everyone? It's Bluff here, and we're driving through the States in the BluffMobile, and the best thing that we can do is play our favorite casino-style games on SpinQuest. They have over 1,000 games, including Live Dealer Blackjack and Crops, with tons of slots and unlimited. You can get a $30 coin pack for just $10 for new users. Sign up today. Go to SpinQuest.com right now. SpinQuest is a free-to-play social casino. Avoid where prohibited. Visitspinquest.com for more details. Voters are hearing more messages than ever. And if you're working for a political campaign, the biggest challenge is making sure your campaign is heard in places voters trust. IHeart helps political advertisers connect through trusted local voices, podcasts, and streaming, reaching voters throughout their day. In a crowded cycle, audio gives campaign scale, frequency, and a real human connection. Make IHeart part of your campaign media plan today. Call 844-844-I-Hart. That's 844-844. or IHeart. Welcome back to the Rod and Greg show on Utah's Talk Radio, 1059, KNRS, everywhere on the IHeart Radio app. I'm Citizen Hughes. And I'm Rod Arquette. Good to be with you this afternoon. You know, Big Day in Michigan and in Missouri, voting taking place in both states. Will the Democratic Socialist candidate. Socialist communist candidate? Yeah, whatever you want, call them. Yeah. win in Michigan, and I think most people are expecting that he will win tonight. I hope he does. I really do. I want him to win. I want the biggest clown show on display for the November election we can find. Now, look, the lady that's running, she's not far behind this guy in terms of being a clown show herself. So it's not like they have any kind of bench or any kind of, you know. real great candidate out of the two of them. So I'll take my chances with Mike Rogers over either one of them. Whatever his name is. But, yeah, Abdul El-Sayed and that woman with that, she must smoke 20 packs a day to get that voice that gravelly. It is such a gravelly voice. I want that voice. If I could just get a little more gravel in my voice. Well, just pick up talking. Pick up smoking. I should. Probably as loud if it's a professional duty. You know, this is a professional. No, that's not going to fly. I was just, you know, trial balloon. I was just throwing it out there. That's not going to fly. Okay, well, I think I'd sound better if I had a deeper gravity place. A lot of people are talking about the disarray within the Democratic Party, right? Because you've got this emerging socialism factor within the Democratic Party and the establishment, right? Yes. Now, our next guest, Jason Schaffetz, former congressman, Fox News contributor, good friend of the show. Wrote an op-ed piece today in Fox News talking about Democrats, why they desperately need Nancy Pelosi now. If we thought that Nancy Pelosi was like worse than any, like, I don't know, evil stepmother or witch in a Disney movie, she is. But she actually might have been better than what we're getting, seeing out of the Democrats right now. Well, Jason is joining us on our N.E.O.R. Newsmaker line to talk about this. Jason, let me ask you, what did Nancy Pelosi ever do or what did she have to keep all those Democrats in line?

You know, I despised her policies. I hated how she could bring everybody along. Like Nancy Pelosi was a master. She raised more money than anybody in the history of Congress. So she had the money. She led out on the message. She kept him disciplined. She wouldn't let the crazies like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez even get a committee assignment unless they would, you know, kind of fall in line. And it made it very difficult. to, you know, to fight against them. She was very powerful. Even though as on the other side of the aisle, you had to respect how much power she wielded within her party. But in her absence, I think Democrats are just flailing. And they don't have anybody who can fill her shoes. They don't rate, they have like literally zero money. The message is more and more about being a communist or a Democratic Socialist of America. And so I think they're just flailing at every level. And that's because they lack the leadership. They lack the money. And they lack the policies. Other than that, things are going swimmingly for the Democrats. So, Jason, you do connect the dots in a way. It does look. The party is a drift. And they are stuck trying to appeal to a base that the normal Americans just don't subscribe to. And it has been a wonder to me. And I see now what you're talking about in terms of Nancy Pelosi's heavy hand and how she kept everyone in line. My question to you is. Why give such good advice to, I mean, I don't know that, I mean, you do it on Fox News, but this seems like it's too good for Democrats to know. I wouldn't want Hakeem Jeffries to read your column here. Don't you worry they're actually going to listen to you? Well, I worry that today's Democratic Party is so adrift to the left that even Nancy Pelosi, if she were to try to run for Speaker, I don't think, you know, if they had the majority, I don't think that she could get from here to there. I just think it's showing the gravitational pull that has happened over the last 20 years where she was more moderate, if you will, on the Democratic side of the aisle, and she would take some tough positions that you and I, the three of us would agree on. But now it's so out of control. I mean, Bernie Sanders, when I first got elected to Congress, let's be honest, he was kind of a joke of a senator. Nobody paid attention to him. Nobody thought he was serious. But over the course of time, these communists, these socialists, have taken root. And they're, I don't want to say they're flourishing because they still think once America looks at them, they reject them. Even Nancy Pelosi, I don't think it's solved the problem. It's just that out of control. Jason, if the socialist candidate wins tonight in the Democratic primary in Michigan, and many people expect he will, what does this do for the movement? Does it slow it down at all right now? Well, look, historically, the party who's not in the White House will win by big, big margins. By most estimations, it's a jump ball. And I think Republicans have the best chance of holding the Senate that I've ever seen and holding the House as well. I think America will reject this. If in Michigan, the socialist gets its nomination.

Then he's running against a guy named Mike Rogers, who was in Congress when I was in Congress. And he'll look so much more reasonable that I think they'll lose the opportunity in Michigan for Democrats to maintain that seat. That's a loss for them. Same thing in Texas, James Talarico. I mean, Democrats spent $20 million to figure out what men think. And they came up with James Talarico. Like, seriously, the guy didn't like beef. And he's in Texas. So good luck with that. You're so right. I just want to switch gears really quick. There's a, our Senator John Curtis is making a lot of national news. There's a big splash. He came out yesterday. It looks like the 2011 Utah Compact. It would allow for states on pilot programs to come up with their own immigration policy, maybe help get legal status for those that have lived in the United States for 10 years or more, maybe set up their own. where it's a federal issue, maybe have states have more latitude in the space. It has gotten a lot of recoil. You have governors like Ron DeSantis. It's a hard no. One of the points being brought up is Blue States, can you imagine what they would do? The refugee programs are already wrought with fraud. Can you imagine what Blue States would do with pilots, the opportunity to, and I'm using air quotes, pilot programs like this? But then you had Governor Cox today come out with an op-ed that does support Governor Curtis's bill. What am I messing? I would think that today with the status of immigration, what we've learned over the last 15 years, the detrimental impact on a lot of different fronts, Jason, I would think someone's not reading the room very well or someone's politically tone deaf to even suggest this in 2026. Am I wrong? I totally reject this. It is amnesty, and it should be rejected at its core. It is fundamentally wrong. Why do so many people spend time trying to figure out how people not born in the United States should come to the United States and work and cheap labor? Like, why is that the priority? Didn't we talk about... affordability for Utahans. Haven't we talked about the 200 plus thousand college graduates that are coming out into the workplace and what are they going to major in? What are they going to do? Let's spend some time on that. And affordable housing in Utah is a real issue. And you want to pour more people into the marketplace. That's going to drive wages lower. That is not going to be beneficial to the people of Utah. When I was in Congress back in 2011, we fought against this. And fortunately, we knocked it back. And I totally reject this whole notion top to bottom. Let the markets work. Let the markets work. You know, there's a proper role of government. And the proper role of government, I'm telling you, they're already. You don't, a lot of people say, well, we have to fix immigration. Okay, let's start what Donald Trump has been doing by enforcing the current law. And I do think there are parts of immigration reform, but it should be that should be addressed. But that does not mean introducing new programs to give people amnesty. That is not that. There are more than 90 different visa programs in the ag sector, in the high tech sector, in all kinds of sectors.

But 90 different forms of visas. They should simplify that, but I feel a higher moral obligation to people that are trying to come here legally and lawfully. And for those people, we bring in more than a million a year. Take every other country on the planet combined. We take more than anybody else. And yet that's not enough. Somehow the senator and the governor, they need more. Why? Do prioritize Utahans and Americans? And it's amazing what we can do. Stop spending all your time prioritizing illegal immigrants, people that are here illegally, and people that are illegal or not U.S. citizens. outside the United States. It just really bothers me to my core. Jason Chafas. It's only a little wound up on that one, doesn't he? All right, more coming up on the Rod and Greg Show and Talk Radio 1059, KNRS. All right, welcome back to the Roder and Greg show right here on Utah's Talk Radio, 1059, KNRS. I'm Rod Arquette. I'm citizen Greg Hughes. Well, just about a week before the presidential election back in 1964, many of you may recall this, Ronald Reagan delivered what many people consider a powerful speech, political speech. It was called the time for choosing. While our next guest, Guy Sharaki, who is a political commentator and a contributor to Real Clear Pennsylvania, now Greg says we've reached that point again. It is time for Americans to choose. Guys, a deep thinker, he connects the dots better than anyone I know in terms of not just culturally but politically. And I think this is an important topic. Well, Guy, thanks for joining us tonight. You raised an interesting question about why the largest political party in this country hates America now. What do you think has happened? Yeah, look, I think. You know, we can debate whether it was purposeful or accidental or a series of bad decisions built on each other. But I think squarely a combination of our education system. As I wrote, I think where many of us were busy, you know, pursuing the American dream and raising our kids, I think we didn't know that gradually over time, over the last generation or two, slowly but surely if you sort of deconstruct what they've been learning. They've been taught to question their parents. They've been taught to question the founding fathers, the suggestion that America is somehow a bigoted or racist or imperialistic nation, that faith is a bad thing, and that something that should be, if you have it, it should be sort of kept in a box and rarely seen. And then we started bubble wrapping kids. So long and the short of it is, guys, is that if we're a generation. you take children and raise them from the age of maybe six to 18, no matter what mom and dad are doing, and mom and dad in many cases do great things. But if you essentially create a generation of people who are untethered, who are taught not to trust God, not to trust parents, and they shouldn't necessarily trust the founding of their nation or the way that the country is going, you then have a group of people that are very nervous, very afraid.

very anxious. And when a Democratic Party or socialist come along and say, the government will protect you, the government will provide for you, the government will be, in essence, your parents, I think the groundwork was laid. And we can debate whether it was intentional or not. I don't know that every fourth grade teacher was in on some sort of conspiracy. But I certainly think that there were forces at play. to deconstruct, and as you know I've discussed in the past, that pull away the pillars of American society. And I think this is the effect. So, Guy, I'm a little more short term in my view of politics. So I see the midterms coming up. I see the disaster that is the Democrats. And I don't think that the normies, the normal people of America are going to identify with this socialist slash communist leaning or lurch that's happened. So I'm like, why interrupt it? Let it go. But you make a really important argument in your column that you said what makes this country strong is having a legitimate and maybe old school Democrat party arise. Come back. We need the debate. We need this diversity of thought. So you're arguing for a stronger or maybe old school Democrat party to a guy like me who wants to see them if they're killing themselves, why, or they're ruining themselves, why interrupt it? Why is it that we need the Democrats of old to maybe step forward and kick out the most extreme element of their party? Well, I would argue there's a short-term and long-term reason. And the short-term reason is there are certain elections, Greg, that are the opposite of what many of yours are in Utah. In other words, there are a number of races where Democrats are clearly going to win. And if they continue to nominate people, as we've seen here in Pennsylvania, there will be two openly socialist members of the Pennsylvania congressional delegation after November's election. So, you know, in the short term, the concern is that, you know, as we're seeing today in Michigan, I mean, there's a chance that the Democratic Party in Michigan is going to nominate an open socialist, perhaps anti-American Islamist. Again, nothing wrong with practicing being Muslim. But when you perhaps talk about that America deserve 9-11, I get a little taken aback. I guess the short term is, Greg, is that if they're nominating radical socialist, if they're nominating people who clearly want to tear apart and tear down the United States and replace it with sort of, you know, Cuban or Venezuela and socialism, that's dangerous because every one of those folks that goes to the senator, goes to the House, pulls the country in a radical direction. And the second is longer term. Longer term, what we need is what Reagan called us to do, what took a generation from the 60s and 70s and 80s. to bring us together to realize that we thought we had put communism on, you know, as Reagan said, the ash heap of history. The way to beat this is not merely at the ballot box. That's critically important. What's more important is to build that sort of supermajority of 70, 80 percent of Americans that relegate those radical ideas to the sidelines. And again, if a random...

borough councilman, you know, in Vermont or a random member of the state legislature in Oregon as a socialist. That's unfortunate, but so be it. But it really will take a super majority of Republicans, independents, and Democrats to recognize and speak out against the challenge that this is to the United States, to our way of life, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So long term, I don't want crazy people. I don't want socialist elected and longer term. It's going to take a supermajority to really relegate it to the back burner and off to the sidelines and out of mainstream thought. What's going on, everyone? It's Bluff here, and we're driving through the States in the BluffMobile, and the best thing that we can do is play our favorite casino-style games on SpinQuest. They have over a thousand games, including Live Dealer, Blackjack, and craps, with tons of slots and unlimited. You can get a $30 coin pack for just $10 for new users. Sign up today. Go to SpinQuest.com right now. SpinQuest is a free-to-play social casino. Avoid where prohibited. Visit spendquest.com for more details. Voters are hearing more messages than ever. And if you're working for a political campaign, the biggest challenge is making sure your campaign is heard in places voters trust. IHeart helps political advertisers connect through trusted local voices, podcasts, and streaming, reaching voters throughout their day. In a crowded cycle, audio gives campaign scale, frequency, and a real human connection. Make IHeart part of your campaign media plan today. Call 844-844-I-Hart. That's 844-844-Ehart. Guy, are Republicans taking too much of a, well, we'll just sit back and watch the Democrats destroy themselves. Are they being active? Are they taking more of my position? Are they listening to me too much? Are they listening to Greg too much? Should they be more active? And if so, how should they go about this right now? Yeah, look, I don't think you can ever listen to Greg too much. Hey, guys. We try not to. But what about the Republicans right now? What should they be doing? So. So. Again, I think short term and long term, it's important to speak out. Look, there is a political – look, there's an old truism in politics. You know, when your opponents committing suicide get out of the way. When your opponents, you know, falling down, get out of the way. I understand that. I understand that. But what I think we need to do is engage on it because as more and more of these socialists win primaries. For Congress, for governor, for the Senate, I think we need to talk about it. And not simply in the state it happens. I mean, it's critically important to the folks in Michigan. If the Democratic Party nominates an open socialist and someone who thinks that 9-11 was something we deserved, that's an important debate for everybody in Michigan to think about. But it's a debate for the rest of America because I think we then need to ask people running for Congress.

People running for the State House, people running for governor, people running for the Senate in every state, in Utah and Pennsylvania, in Maine and Texas, and say, where do you stand on this? I mean, there's some, you know, in future columns, I'm going to, as I've done in the past, I'm going to sort of walk through questions we should ask candidates. So I don't think the answer is to walk away and just let it happen. I do think the answer is to engage not only in the states, but nationally and elevate the debate and frankly seek out. you know, the Rahm Emanuel, the John Fetterman. Heck, even Jim Carville has suddenly decided that his party's going too far. You know, Bill Maher, I mean, again, look. As you and I've talked in the past about sort of my coalition of common sense. I mean, I think when we find independence and Democrats that are willing to speak out, even if we don't agree with them wholesale, we have to recognize when they're joining with this in this sort of, if I will, this fight to bring politics back to normalcy. So I think don't ignore it. I think engage it, nationalize it, ask every Democrat up and down the ballot where they stand on this. this fight. We can disagree with them on tax rates. We can disagree with them on the death penalty. We can disagree with them on school choice. But if we're fundamentally saying capitalism ought to be thrown out the window, that our medical system, that our industry, that our energy ought to be nationalized, that there ought to be 50, 70, or 90 percent tax rates, that's a debate that every Democrat running for office should have to answer as the party goes in that direction. Because I want to win in 26, but I want to win in 28. And more importantly, I want to relegate this to the sidelines. Look, I think we can beat Democrats, whether they're socialist Democrats or old school Democrats, because I think ultimately freedom and liberty prevail and common sense prevail. But we have to engage them because we have to make people aware because not everybody's paying attention right now. And I think they sometimes will write it off as just Republicans yelling at Democrats. We have to explain this is different. And that's why I say. This is a time for choosing, as Ronald Reagan told us, you know, a lifetime ago, when communism was on the march, when Soviet Union was creeping into our hemisphere, it was a time for choosing. I think we're at that seminal moment again, and we need a coalition of Republicans, independents, and Democrats to stand up and say, this is not your typical party fight. This is about who controls the House. This is about the future direction of the nation. Are we built on liberty? life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or we built on socialism and Karl Marx. That's a radically different vision of America. So I think we need to engage, put the bright lights of politics on it, and make sure the voters make an informed choice, and don't simply pick the radical because they're upset about the price of gas. They have every right to be upset about the price of gas. The answer is not socialism. Guy Sharaki, joining us on our newsmaker line. Let's get a news update now. Here's Abby.

Hour number two, Rod and Greg, helping you get home on this Tuesday afternoon here on Utah's Talk Radio, 105-9, K&RS, live everywhere on the IHeart Radio app. Make sure you download it today. I'm Rod Arquette. I'm citizen Greg Hughes. All right. You were saying, we were talking about this earlier before the show today, Greg. Were you in the legislature when they took on the issue of Photocop? So I can't remember. So I don't know if they passed a ban on it right when I got there or just before I got there. But it was still a hot topic when I arrived on the scene. And I'm talking 2003. So when you arrived? Yeah. You were in the legislature back then? 2003 was my first session. Wow. I ran an 02. So. Yeah, don't look so shocked. You know, you don't have to be that shocked. It's not that long ago. I thought it was like 2010 or 2012. No, no, I was a veteran of that institution. I was there for a while. You're there for a long time. Well, I bring this up. But I will say, whether it was when I was there or if it was right after I got there and we're still talking about it, it was still an issue. And I was firmly and still I'm on the side of I'm not big on photocop. I'm not. I don't like it. Yeah. Well, neither do I. And what was the main argument that you couldn't come face to face with your accuser? Yeah, it was that. It was that in Big Brother. So there was in the early 2000s and through the 2000s, there was still this, and I think a legitimate argument of privacy and how much government would know or how much government could surveil. And this was kind of a heavy-handed 1984 George Orwell narrative around photocop. It's just too much government at the intersections, sending you tickets in the mail. Maybe not getting the actual person to commit the infraction because it'll send the ticket to the person who owns a car. All of that. But I think that the argument of surveillance and what is called, I don't think we can say that anymore. I think we've lost all that. I think the cameras, the tablets and the phones and the cameras, I think it's omnipresent now. I don't think we can. So that argument, I. Whether we like it or not, I don't think there's a real argument around the existence of cameras anymore. Well, everywhere you look, there's a camera looking at you. Well, here, and the thing is... I mean, look in this building. Yes. But yeah, cameras all over the place. You know what, government figured out? It's much easier to buy. from the private sector who does all this camera recording buy their stuff than it is to try to legally do it as a government. But you can certainly purchase it or rent it. Here's what I love. When you get an app and it says, we don't sell your information. They don't have to sell it. They rent it. I kid you not. They draw a distinction between sell and you can subscribe or you can lease or you can. They can transact money for that information. They just won't sell it.

Meaning they won't lead, it won't part ways. They're going to say, here's our file, and you can have it for a price. They don't sell it, but it doesn't mean they're not making a revenue from it. Yeah, I did sell it. I did not know it. The word is not sell. It's sell or share is what you better watch in on those apps. And I'm telling you, we have signed, we've hit the yes button on those terms for so many apps that they are sharing with probably great profit, so much of what we use our. technology for. Well, we saw this article today. It was in Axios here in Utah. And apparently the Salt Lake City Council, I think the got a hearing coming up in September, is going to look at expanding the use of automatic license plate readers. Yes. This is an issue because of the so-called flock system. I think that's what it's called, has really stirred some debate around the country. I'm not sure if this system is not the flock system. But it is a license plate reader, and it's got some people concerned. Look, and I do think that it is a worthy topic to discuss. And there's still, even if we think and we know that there's a lot of surveillance already happening, how much of that do we want the government itself doing? And how much of that, how much more of that are we going to tolerate, especially that that we can see and observe? I... You know, I know law enforcement, they'll take every break they can get in this world, this country is soft on crime right now. So it's not like it's easy for them to try and fight the bad guys with the system that we're in and the mindset that people have. So I understand law enforcement wanting every advantage they can have, but I think there's some legitimate concerns around their surveillance of citizenry. and these flock cameras. Well, on our newspaper right now is a law professor from the University of Utah who studies this type of stuff. His name is Matthew Tookson. Professor, thank you for joining us. I want to get your input on this, the debate over these license plate readers. And what is the debate that's going on around the country right now? In some of the cities that have installed license plate reader systems, there's been some pushback from residents who are worried about. privacy issues about sort of being tracked in terms of their location and wherever they go. In other cities, it's been less controversial, so it's sort of a mix. But there are some privacy concerns with a big system of cameras. So is that a perceived concern or a real one? I sometimes think with all the modern technology we have at our dispose, we have our phones, our tablets. I think there's already a lot of cameras out there, frankly. So is this more of a perceived Big Brother fear or is it legitimate? You're not wrong that there's a ton of cameras out there. And to some extent... You know, you can have a license player reader system without there being problems, but there have been real problems. I do think this is a real fear.

Like Flock cameras is a popular sort of system of a license later rear cameras. And there have been a lot of abuses reported from like Flock employees or police officers using Flock to say track, you know, their girlfriend or someone they're interested in romantically and track their location and things like that. So there are real abuses here that people might legitimately be worried about. How do police feel about them? I would imagine law enforcement see this as a very valuable tool. Are they fighting hard in support of this, professor? What's up, everybody? It's Bretzky. And America is turning 250. And I can't think of a better way to celebrate that than playing on an American-owned social casino, SpinQuest.com. With all of your favorite games, live craps, bubble craps, live blackjack, there's no better place to play for free and win real cash prizes. SpinQuest.com. SpendQuest is a free-to-play social casino. Avoid where prohibited. Visit SpenQuest.com for more details. If you're part of a political campaign, you know media plans are under serious pressure right now. TV alone is not reaching everyone. Digital is crowded, and every dollar has to work harder. That's why political advertisers are adding iHeart. With broadcast radio, podcasts, and streaming, iHeart helps get your message in front of voters with trusted voices, efficient frequency, and scale across local markets. If you need to reach more voters before election day, let's talk. Partner with iHeart today. Call 1-844-844-I-Hart. It's a good question. I think they see it as a valuable tool. There have been places where I think they have... discontinued use of these systems because they haven't found them that beneficial. I think there are been other places where they have found them beneficial. I do think it can be a useful tool, you know, putting a license rate reader on a bridge, you know, or like a highway or something like that, you might be able to solve some crimes or apprehend some fugitives that way. In terms of the really pervasive cameras, I think they're probably pretty useful, but... You know, I haven't seen police officers saying they're like a crucial tool or making this their top priority. Professor, are all these license plate readers created the same? Because I've heard, as you've mentioned, flock gets a lot of flak. It gets a lot of grief. People call it out specifically. I don't know that this is the brand. This is the name of the kind that they're going to use. These license plate readers, are they all the same? Or does is flock a little more aggressive and maybe do something different?

I think the difference with Flock is that they maybe have more cameras in a given space. Like, my understanding of Flock is they use both public and private cameras. They're using, you know, private surveillance cameras with their software to identify people's licenseways. And I think you just get a lot more coverage there. So it can get a little more intimate, a little more. privacy invading, you know, if you have 500 cameras in a small city, that you can maybe track people a lot more pervasively than if you have, like in one case, I'm familiar with, you know, four cameras in a big region, just tracking whoever goes over a key bridge. So I think that's probably the biggest difference is just like there's so much more opportunity for surveillance when you have hundreds of cameras in a place. Yeah, Professor, you mentioned earlier that there are some communities that have success with this. Are they having success because of the restrictions they place on these cameras and how they can be used and who can access them? Is that important if, say, Salt Lake City adopts something like this? It's certainly something that I would recommend. If Salt Lake City wants to have a good experience with an advanced license plate reader system, putting restrictions in place for who accesses the system, you know, documenting every time they access it so that you can prevent abuses or at the very least detect abuses when they occur, I think if you can eliminate that part from the system, people are going to have a much better time with it and they'll be less concern and less political backlash. Do all jurisdictions municipalities go through a public hearing process, city council mean to review and decide whether to use license plate readers or is Salt Lake City maybe adding a layer of transparency and public input? Is this how all cities decide to use them or can this be unilaterally decided by a city just to have these kind of cameras without any kind of public input? I think it's probably a mix where some places probably just have the police department put these in place without a public hearing. Maybe they get a public hearing later if there's political backlash, but maybe not. And then other places, I've heard of other cities, certainly, going through hearings and getting more community involvement before it goes into place. I think that's a good system to have. With an advanced surveillance program, you might as well get community input. Because there are cities where I think people fully support this kind of thing. And having had an opportunity to sort of weigh in at the front end and maybe put some restrictions in place. I think they'll be more popular in the long term. I don't know if you were here years ago. I know Greg and I were both here. There was a real push act on speed cameras. Photocop. Yeah. Photocop. And eventually I think the legislature passed legislation preventing the use of photocop. Do you expect maybe a public reaction like this to the license plate cameras?

probably not quite as steep. I was just doing some research on backlash to red light cameras and speed cameras. And people, they infuriate people. I've lived in places with red light cameras, and they can be a bit infuriating, in part just because they're so good at catching people. But they, you know, I, in part because it's a lot of money to pay for something that. you know, gets detected so frequently and there's other reasons. You know, people want their sort of day in court or to be caught by a human and not just a machine. But yeah, the pushback on those things are really, tend to be really severe for a variety of reasons. I don't think licensefully reader cameras will likely get as much pushback just because they don't impact people quite as often and they're not as annoying to deal with for just the everyday person. You have you law professor Matthew Tookson talking about these license plate reader cameras that Salt Lake City is considering Greg. And I want to ask our audience a question. I mean, I remember the huge outcry when photo cop came on board. And I think it was West Valley City that was using it at the time. And there was an outcry from people saying, don't you dare. But let's fast forward now. When did you say that was about 2003? Early 2000s? Early 2000s. Fast forward now, 20, almost 30 years down the road. and look at what, are we just conditioned now to accept that people are watching us every minute? I mean, what is it anymore? I think we're conditioned. There was a time where there was a group that wanted to pay for, they wanted to fund our freeways, and then they wanted to toll them and get a return. And so they said, look, if you don't have the money as a state to build, and they had done it in Texas, and there were some other states they had successfully, they were saying they had successfully done it. And so they were saying to enhance your transportation fund and be able to, we will put private money in, but we will ask. And then we'll even do passes for people that live in like immediate proximity of this freeway. So if the off ramp would be near their home. And so my question as a young lawmaker was, well, how will you determine the automobiles that need to be told for driving on it? And those that live close enough that wouldn't be. And they'd say, well, we put this transponder on their car. And then we would know which one. And I'm going, yeah, I'm not really into that. Whoa. So I said no. And we said no. As a legislature, that idea never flew. The toll roads and having private sector toll us for those roads and how they would toll you. But if you look now, my phone, I don't even have it on my calendar. And it says it's this amount of minutes to get to the radio station here. It tells me exactly where I'm going to go. Now it's looking for patterns and I get it. But if we think that our technology that we use every day, as much as we use it,

It doesn't track where we are, where we're going. We're fooling ourselves. I mean, you can look one of the things, UDOT, tell me, go to the, and it's public information, you yourself can look at every square inch of freeway on I-15, 215, I-80, and go look at the map, and you'll see all the cameras that you can watch in real-time live are Utah freeways. So we, I mean, we've kind of, the water's kind of gotten hot. It's kind of a, so. We might hate the concept, but I think we're living in the very concept we say we don't like. Yeah. Well, do you like it? 888-5708010, triple-8-57010 on your cell phone, dial pound 250, or leave us a comment on our talkback line by downloading the iHeart radio app. More coming up on the Rod and Greg show. Here's News Update with Abby. Third hour, Rod and Greg with you on this Tuesday afternoon here on Utah's Talk Radio, 1059, K&RS Live Everywhere on the IHeartRadio app. I'm Rod Arquette. I'm Citizen Greg Hughes. All right, the polls have now closed in Michigan. Everybody's keeping their eye on that Senate race. I think it's a foregone conclusion that the socialist candidate is going to win. Do you know how much money went against Abdul El-Sayed, the socialist that was going to win? I think it's like, what is it, nine to one in terms of how much money went to the female that's in that race. Well, I don't remember her name. The gritty talking one. Yeah, yeah. You know, she's going to come with a little bit of what she'd say. Anyway, whatever she said, I wish I could talk as deep as she does. I'd have a better radio voice if I did. However, she's got all the fundraising. I mean, all the money. I mean, she's spending, like I said, it must be nine to one against him. And he's got the momentum in the ground game with those. Because, you know, socialists slash comedy, they don't have a job. It's one of the reasons they are socialists. They want government to pay everything because they don't, they're not gamefully employed. They don't work. Yeah. So, you know, knocking doors and having a good campaign ground game, it's just, it's right up their alley because they don't, there's nothing else going on with them. Yeah, the gamefully employed people, they're all at work. Yeah. So anyway, if he wins and, you know, the people are saying he's going to win fairly easily. He's going to win. And usually it's been the rule almost campaign elections 101. has been that the higher the more of the money you have the more money you have The more you can afford a good ground game and get out the vote effort, your commercials, your direct mail, you'll win. You just win. If you look at how many races are won by the candidate that has the most fundraising ability or spends the most money, they're connected. But not in that race in Michigan. This guy's going to win, and he's going to win with a fraction of the dollars that the establishment Democrats pumped in for the other candidate. It doesn't look like she's going to.

Now, look, quality of candidates matter, and I don't think you got great quality with either one of those two. Either one of them, no, you do not. You do not. By the way, remember the woman, she's chairman or co-chairman of the Democratic Socialist Party, and she was on, it was Fox News, and I think it was Shannon Breen, who listed all the things in their platform. Remember this soundbite, and she said, do you believe this? Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. Well, someone asked her last night, Are you getting any calls from established Democrats asking, can we work something out? Can we do something? Here's our response to all of this. She hasn't had one call. No. Not one call. Why would a Democrat? They see, I mean, John Fetterman will have a very, very difficult time keeping the Democrat nomination in his reelection in Pennsylvania because he has spoken up against the bizarre socialist, anti-Semitic, all the things that are going on. He has, I don't like how he votes on issues, but as far as common sense goes and calling out the absurdity of the extreme left. He's really the only one that does it. But if you look at the polls in Pennsylvania, he's suffering amongst Democrats because of it. They don't like them. So, I mean, you can speak up. But the reason she's not getting any calls or I would assume those Democrats that are in office would like to stay in office. Well, earlier today, we had a chance, Greg and I did, to talk with Utah Senator Mike Lee about a number of issues that are out there. And one of them, of course, is he's trying to convince senators to join him and trying to convincing John Thune. not call for a recess, even though John Thune today said, sorry, we're going to have a recess. But before we learned of that, we did talk to the senator, and we did ask him about his efforts to stop the recess. Yeah, we've got about 20 Republican senators who have agreed with me that we need to get to work on the Save America Act. We need to either pass the Save America Act itself. or alternatively pass something that would accomplish the same things that it does through budget reconciliation. It doesn't matter as much to me which version of that we undertake, but we've got to do one of them. And if we haven't done that, or if it happens in budget reconciliation, if we haven't made significant progress toward getting the job done, then there are about 20 of us so far who are saying that... We will object to August recess unless or until it gets done. So again, we can do this either by enforcing the talking filibuster that is taking up the bill and announcing that we're going to debate it until it passes. That would probably take a few weeks, but I'm confident that that could result in a very clean victory. Or alternatively, we could pass provisions.

through a little bit more of a complicated process known as budget reconciliation, something that can take place without the 60 vote cloture standard, even playing a role. That takes a few weeks to complete, but we could complete the first step of it within the next few days if we get going on it right away. We are making significant progress. in coming up with different theories on which we can make this budgetary and therefore passable through budget reconciliation, just in a different form, and remain resolute that we have no business just recessing for August until the core of this is taken care of. So, Senator, congratulations, too. That number 20 didn't come yesterday. I've watched this grow from 2 to 7 to 8 to 10. And I think America, social media, we're watching you collect the votes through great leadership. So thank you for you doing. 20 is the new number today. It was really 18 or 19 yesterday. So you're getting that kind of momentum with your colleagues. Tell me, there was a time where you were not supportive of or you were suspect. to a budget reconciliation approach. And I know that you have said that you've seen some avenues that you're more interested in or you think are more viable. Maybe share with us, what's the difference between a clean vote on the Save America Act versus an approach through budget reconciliation? And I'm really interested if you have a Senate parliamentarian that will agree with you. 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. Avoid where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. Voters are hearing more messages than ever. And if you're working for a political campaign, the biggest challenge is making sure your campaign is heard in places voters trust. IHeart helps political advertisers connect through trusted local voices, podcasts, and streaming, reaching voters throughout their day. In a crowded cycle, audio gives campaign scale, frequency, and a real human connection. Make IHeart part of your campaign media plan today. Call 844-844-I-Hart. That's 844-844-I-Hart. Yeah, okay. So I have been suspicious of it in the past. It is still something that is fraught with, you know, some potential pitfalls along the way because a million things can come up where we end up finding ourselves at the mercy of some obscure precedent that is sometimes subjectively interpreted by the Senate parliamentarian. And that comes out in the forward advice to the presiding officer and the presiding officer blindly follows it. So there are a lot of concerns with it.

One of the reasons I was skeptical of it is because I felt like it was a dodge. It was an effort to dodge what I still think is probably the cleanest, best way to pass this, which is put it on the floor and announced that we're going to debate it until it passes, just like they did with the Civil Rights Act of 64. Now that that appear is less and less likely, I've been compelled to do a deeper dive into how we can do this through budget reconciliation. There are a combination of things we can do with mandatory funds, channeled through budget reconciliation that would alter mandatory outlays and or revenues flowing into the U.S. government that can be used primarily through the Department of Homeland Security to compel compliance with election security. priorities that we've identified in the Save America Act. There are multiple permutations in that language, and while we're still negotiating it in committee, not inclined to air each one of those already, but I can say this. There is a path there that while still fraught with some potential pitfalls, does hold some promise. for what we could get done through reconciliation. A combination of budget reconciliation and executive action under existing statutory authority, some of which I've discovered just in the last week or two, it has me feeling increasingly optimistic. Senator, let's talk about Dr. Anthony Fauci and his appearance last week. Senator Rick Scott says that he may hopefully get before his committee tomorrow a vote on possibly holding Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress for his refusal to answer any questions. What's your take on this? Where do you think this may go? Well, you know, Anthony Fauci inflicted a measurable harm on the American people. All while misleading Congress deliberately, as it appears, about funding for gain of research, gain of function research, and shaping the narrative against the lab-link hypothesis and directing taxpayer dollars to risky coronavirus experiments. The American people were forced to go through these endless lockdowns, towards vaccination mandates, isolation from family, missed educational opportunities, and we deserve answers. The American people deserve answers. Meanwhile, Anthony Fauci appeared with an army of lawyers, one of whom couldn't keep his mouth shut, so we had to be chipped out in the room. But he still had an army of lawyers standing behind him, encouraging him not to answer. 111 Fifth Amendment invocations in a single hearing for a man granted blanket pardon preemptively by President Biden does seem to stretch the imagination a little bit. Even when my colleague Josh Hawley asked questions like, what day of the week is it today? What color of tire are you wearing? What's the color of the carpet in front of you? He pled the fifth, and he still refused to answer every single time.

So look, he disgraced himself in front of the United States Senate, and I look forward anxiously to seeing how Senator Paul and the committee decides to proceed with this one. Senator, does the blanket pardon, though, kind of shield him from any contempt charges, or is that a constitutional question that the courts may have to decide? I don't think the blanket pardon shields him from being in contempt of Congress, but whether or not he could be convicted of that might turn on whether his invocation of the Fifth Amendment in any given circumstance was defensible. I suppose that the best argument that he's got lies in the fact that a presidential pardon preemptively or prospectively doesn't immunize him from charges that could be brought in state court under state authority. And so I have a feeling that some of this will be driven into that line of reasoning, and that will end up determining the appropriateness or lack there of his repeated invocation of the fifth. But all that said, I still don't understand why he couldn't answer a question of what color is the carpet in front of you. There's no planet on which that answer to that question would prove incriminating. Our conversation with Utah Senator Mike Lee talking about a number of issues. My question was, Greg. As Anthony Fauci took the fifth, what, 111 times. Yes. If he answered one question, would that open the door for other questions? I don't know. I'm confused. I'm wondering if he just had to say no to everything because if he opened a crack to the door. And I was hoping, watching that, that someone would actually ask him his name. Yeah, he wouldn't answer it. And he wouldn't answer it. So would that open the door that they could then ask him other questions? And he could be held in contempt since he answered one but refused to answer others. I don't know how it works. I don't. I don't either. But what's supposed to happen in Senator... Josh Hawley brought this up is you don't have the right. Oh, I've had no luck lately. Wait, lady luck? Brett Stee, 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. SpenQuest is a free-to-play social casino. Avoid where prohibited. Visit spendquest.com for more details.

These days, it's getting harder and harder to trust what you're seeing. Who made it? Is it real? But with iHeart, everything you hear is guaranteed human. That's why 78% of listeners trust their favorite radio hosts product recommendations. And if you own or manage a business here or need to drive sales, that trust goes a long way in creating your future customers. Make iHeartMedia a part of your 2026 plan today. Visit iHeartadvertising.com. Again, that's iHeartadvertising.com. The Fifth Amendment is so that you don't self-incriminate, but if you've been pardoned... I think you're compelled to testify. Well, that's what we're going to find out tomorrow. Because there's no consequence. The only reason that you're allowed to not testify is that you have a right to not incriminate yourself. Once you've been pardoned. How can you incriminate yourself? Then I think you are compelled to answer honestly because you have been given immunity. You've been given the pardon. I don't know if this outlives the pardon. I don't know if someone thinks that the, you know, the auto pen pardon isn't valid. But I haven't seen any, there's been a lot of auto pen pardons. I haven't seen any of them nullified. So I don't know. If you've been given a pardon, I thought Senator Holly said, you don't have the right. to stay quiet because you're already immune. Legally, you are immune. You are not incriminating yourself. So you can, there is no protection against self-incrimination if you are enjoying blanket immunity from, from President Biden. Well, how did he get a presumptive pardon? presuming that you would be charged with a crime down the road. I mean, that sounds, do you ever see the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report? Yeah. We're going to arrest you before you commit the crime because we know you're going to commit it. What the Democrats would say is that, you know, after committing lawfare for four straight years against President Trump, what they say is, and they're always guilty of what they accuse others of doing, they are saying that, you know, Trump is going to go after his political enemies and to protect people like Anthony Fauci who... could be a political, be seen as a political enemy. We're going to pardon him so that he is not attacked. And that's, that's their justification. But you're right. I think it looks guilty as sin. And it's always been considered when you saw the mob guys get up and they'd ask them questions and they would plead the fifth, everybody roll their eyes and go, that means he's guilty. But I guess. I don't know. I think that the media protecting or trying to even double down on Anthony Fauci being right or Anthony Fauci not being wrong or why or trying to make a victim out of them, it just makes them look worse because I just think his plain language, his own words have incriminated him beyond description. I think it's... For sure. And so, you know, just I guess the media can keep doing what they're doing, but they're making our point.

Coming up on the Rod and Greg show, A Lesson in Reading a Word salad. That's next on Talk Radio, 1059, K&RS. And here's Abby with the news update. Which I think your son is. He is. He is. Yes, he is. Are not getting married. You know what? I honestly think that this is a national trend, but I think we're lucky in Utah. I think we're seeing the same trends in Utah, but we're not in the throes of it. I think we still have young people that are getting. You know how I know this? Why? Go book a reception hall on the weekend if you hadn't decided 18 months ago to get married. Every weekend, and an entire month has been completely booked, and then you've got to get married on a Wednesday. So here we are. Yeah. So, you know, someone's getting married in the state. So we have a little, I think we're a little better. then maybe the national average there, but we certainly are seeing that happen here, even on our state here. And, you know, young people are. They're becoming more hesitant and maybe even less socially apt at the art of dating and getting married. Yeah. Well, here's a little tip. It's totally different from what we're about to talk about, right? I had someone tell me weeks ago, I learned this, I don't know where. If you die, have your funeral during the week. It's cheaper than having it on the weekend. Did you know that? I didn't know that. I did not that either. Well, I think that'll have a chilling effect on attendance, don't you think? Apparently, Undertakers do not like working on Saturday. Well, if you're still going to work Saturday, they're just trying to get a little more on the week. Yeah, as I get closer to that time. Yeah, that's very morbid. I'm not planning that. I refuse to plan it. I'm just bringing it up. All right, let's talk about why Jen Ziers are not getting married. Joining us, this show's just been. Weird today. Because of you. Probably because of me. Leanna Graham, she is a research assistant in domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation. She's been looking into this. Leanna, thank you for joining us. Why is it that, you know, Jen's ears are staying single? Yeah, I mean, it's a very shocking landscape. First of all, thanks a much for having me on. I write a lot on marriage and family culture. I myself got married at the age of 21, which was a very countercultural decision in my age group and cohort, especially given the kind of narrative that I received a lot growing up and that a lot of young women and young men do. One in three, Gen Z, are expected to never marry, which is, I think, the lowest projected number in American history for this age group. truly a historic time that we are in. But I would say that there are a lot of factors that have influenced this sort of marriage skepticism in Gen Z, in particular with young women. I would say that there are a lot of social media influences that have been consequential. There was a NBER. paper that came out recently that actually found causal evidence that the iPhone has led to a decline in fertility. It's led a lot of people to start asking, like, what is it about the introduction of the iPhone, that decreased fertility? And I think that it's twofold. Number one, the iPhone and the structure of the technology and social media itself just discourages in-person interactions and crowds those out. So you have...

fewer opportunities to meet people in the way that our parents and our grandparents did, and that naturally is going to lead to fewer romantic attraction or like neat cutes as they show in the movies. But secondly, the kind of content that social media tends to platform is increasingly I've noticed hostile towards marriage and family. frames marriage as hostile to women's flourishing as this sort of limitation on your career and your identity. And for that reason, a lot of women delay marriage, and they find that delayed marriage often becomes foregone marriage. So a huge reason why we're seeing this decline in the marriage rate has to do with actually delaying marriage. So there's an argument. It's made in this article that maybe even financial security. Maybe our youngest generation or emerging generation thinks that you have to be able to buy a home. There has to be financial security before you get married, maybe not taking that journey together as young newlyweds. I guess my question is twofold. Do you feel that those financial challenges are playing a factor? And then second, I've been told that homeownership isn't what it used to be for young people, counter to this argument, that... people don't see themselves staying in one place for a 30-year mortgage. And so renting may seem even more viable in some ways. So what is the economic prospects for young people, Generation Z is they're looking to get married? Is it a chilling effect to get married? Or are they taking on maybe different factors? Yeah, I mean, I think it's unquestionable that the affordability crisis is a problem and that that has had a negative impact on family formation and marriage rates in general. But as I noted in the article, there's another factor that's worthy of consideration here that's more cultural. So, for example, an economic reality is, let's say, for example, the cost of homes. and that economic reality can shift depending on policy and different material economic conditions of society. But a cultural factor is the assumption that homeownership is a prerequisite for marriage. Now, that's not to say that homeownership is not relevant. Obviously, it's ideal, and it used to be the case that once a couple got married, homeownership was not a far-out reality, but it was something that they were working towards together. Because our society used to hold to more of a cap or a cornerstone view, excuse me, of marriage, which sought as the foundation of one's life. And so when you got married, you were embarking on this project together of a shared identity, a shared future. You are building capital together and you're working towards a home together. Obviously, it's better for a home ownership to be in the nearer rather than distant future. But changing cultural standards and narratives have made it such that... homeownership and other more, I guess, adult career advancements are considered as prerequisites for marriage. And that's more of a cultural shift that has to do with a changing view of what marriage is.

So instead of the cornerstone view, which saw marriage is the foundation for your adult life, we now have more of a capstone view in modern culture, which sees marriage as this sort of cherry on top. It's like the last thing that you consider after checking off all the boxes of your adult life, you get your degree, you work away at your career, you get a few promotions, and buy a home, do all the things, and then and only then should you consider marriage. So to answer a question, affordability absolutely matters. but what's interesting is that cultural changes and changing cultural norms have made us interpret those changing affordability or economic realities in a different way than maybe my parents would or my grandparents and the generations before us because we no longer view marriage increasingly as a foundation for your life, but something that you do after you've achieved all of these checklist items for your adult career. Leanna, another factor you bring up is the growing ideological divide between men and women. So if a guy is a Trump supporter and wants to marry a woman who is a Kamala Harris supporter, should they even try and get together, Leanna? Wow. I mean, according to the, if, hey, if marriage and family is high on your list of priorities, and if you're dating somebody who doesn't have that high on their list of priorities, naturally it's not going to be a great fit. And I think what you're referring to, yeah, in the article I talk about this very famous NBC poll that was polling Gen Z on a number of different things. But what's interesting is on the question on marriage and family, they divided up the men and the women by their partisan affiliation. And they found that the Trump voting. men voted out of the list of 13. They were asked, what would lead to a successful life? The men voted, the Trump voting men put having children as number one. And the Harris voting women put it at, I think it was 12 or 11, it was near the bottom. So there is a huge ideological divide between men and women, yes. And because women are increasingly moving towards the left, and we're seeing that women on the left are progressive women. tend to view marriage as a limitation on one's life? There is now this ideological divide with women moving to the left and men moving to the right. And marriage and family now becoming this partisan thing as opposed to, I don't know, like part of the good life for like every person who wants it. I mean, it's almost as if most of the generations before us were united, that family is just a good. And it's natural for people to want to be surrounded by relationships and with their loved ones and to get married and to have children. But increasingly, we're seeing that. This is more of an ideological divide now, and that conservatives are the ones having more children and getting married, whereas people on the left tend to have lower marriage at infertility rights. So it's a really interesting dynamic, but yeah, ideological division between men and women is certainly, I think, increasing this hostility and sort of this risk aversion of Gen Z and the skepticism towards marriage more generally.

Okay, Leanna Graham joining us on our any hour newsmaker line talking about Jen's ears not getting married. But you're right. I think Utah is an outlier of that because of our strong family. And we're on a little bit of a lag. I think it's coming down here. I think it's changing here, but not to the extent we're seeing nationally. And we need to turn it around, frankly. All right, more coming up here on Utah's Talk Radio, 105.9, K&RS. Here's Abby again with the news update. Happy birthday, America. It's time to celebrate and play your favorite Las Vegas casino games by American-owned SpinQuest.com. What's better than fireworks than American Pie? Hitting a black deck in the palm of your hand, and you won't lose your fingers. Over a thousand games, including slots and live dealers. And $30 point packs are on sale for 10. SpinQuest.com. Buy American players for American players. SpendQuest is a free-to-play social casino. Avoid where prohibited. This is SpendQuest.com for more details. Voters are hearing more messages than ever. And if you're working for a political campaign, the biggest challenge is making sure your campaign is heard in places voters trust. IHeart helps political advertisers connect through trusted local voices, podcasts, and streaming, reaching voters throughout their day. In a crowded cycle, audio gives campaign scale, frequency, and a real human connection. Make IHeart part of your campaign media plan today. Call 844-844-I-Hart. That's 844-844. or iHeart.