The Rod and Greg Show: Anti-Disciplinary Policies in Schools Aren't Working; The Left Can't Replace Moms and Dads
Showing mention at 4:41 — highlighted below
Transcript
122 segmentsHey, it is Ryan Seacrest here. Want to bring a little Hollywood excitement to your day? Take a few spins with Chumba Casino's brand new game. Ryan Seacrest's 10K ways. It's free and features 10,000 ways to play, giving you nonstop action, including thrilling bonus re spins and cascading reels. Every spin brings something new. So step into the spotlight. Enjoy the excitement. And play today at chumbacasino.com. No purchase necessary. VGW Group. Voidware prohibited by law. CTs and Cs, 24, sponsored by Trumpa Casino. Welcome back to the Rod and Greg Show on Fundy Friday, last day of July on Utah's Talk Radio 105.9 K&RS and everywhere on the IHeart Radio app. I'm Citizen Hughes. And I'm Rod Arquette. Coming up at the bottom of the hour, we'll have a conversation about the left just can't seem to let go of this effort to erase mom and dad from our daily discussions. Apparently they don't like the word mom or dad. Isn't that something? Yeah. I mean, shouldn't surprise us, but yeah, here we are. Didn't it all. All right, you know, there's a real struggle going on within the Democratic Party as these radical left socialists have moved in and are scaring the daylights out of the establishment. But as we've talked about on the show before, there's one person behind all of this, and it started when he was elected president of the United States back in 2012. We're talking about Barack Obama. He may be the one who has fathered the Democrats' socialist movement. And joining us on our Noonsmaker line to talk about that is Joshua Montington. He is an assistant editor of the Federalist, Joshua. Thank you very much for joining us. We shouldn't be surprised maybe that Barack Obama's name comes up when you talk about the roots of socialism now in the Democratic Party, should we? No, I mean, I think so many times you see Barack Obama sort of in the background and you're wondering what he's doing. And I think the thing that he's done is created this new Marxist Democratic Party. You look at his policies. You look at so many of the things that he did. Regardless of whether or not his rhetoric sounded moderate, I think he laid the foundation and what we see with the Democratic Socialists of America and people like Zohran Mamdani, they're simply walking in the footsteps of Barack Obama. I agree. I mean, Obamacare is the socialization of our medical, of medicine, and prices have gone up at least 80% since the Affordable Care Act passed. He also has radical friends, just like Zohran Mamdani does. But, you know, when he throws his arm around Caitlin Clark, he says, hey, don't believe the hype. Was he just better at hiding his agenda than the socialists of today? Was he cut from the same cloth but knew how to disarm people so he could get away with more? I think that's exactly. I mean, when you think about politicians on the left, Barack Obama's got to be easily the most talented politician. And so he knows when to dial it in and sound moderate. But you look at what he did during his presidency to sort of weaponize issues of race or really normalize the use of the Marxist oppressor versus oppressed matrix. I mean, he entered inserted himself into situations like
the riots in Ferguson, Missouri. He said it was understandable. He indicated that the police there had acted some wrongly when in the shooting of Michael Brown, which was proven not to be the case. You saw that also the case of Trayvon Martin, where he said, if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon, which had nothing to do with what happened there. He criticized the Cambridge police and issue of a mix-up, and he painted it as a racial issue. And you see it also with his anti-Americanism. He ran on the platform of fundamentally transforming America. He said the Constitution was stained by the original sin of slavery. He criticized America in front of foreign leaders saying we'd been arrogant, that we'd been derisive, we had been dismissive. And most infamously, perhaps, he criticized Americans who, he said, clung to guns and religion. So there was consistent oppressor versus oppressed matrix that he pushed along with an anti-Americanism as well. You know, Josh, what I find interesting, we've all heard the expression, walk the talk. Well, Barack Obama was very good at talking a good game, but the walk was a little bit different. I think many of the socialist candidates out there have learned from that. They can talk, you know, we're centrist, we're moderate, we don't want that radical move. But then in the walk, they're doing something different, aren't they? Absolutely. It's like you can't go a week without Zohran Mamdani doing something even more radical, whether it's the government grocery stores, whether he's entertaining the possibility of reparations or, you know, doxing New Yorkers who have second residences. It's just clearly the – but this is the direction of the Democrat Party, right? It's consistent escalation. consistently becoming more and more radical. And I would argue it's not a dramatic disconnect. It's a logical next step. Some details that get missed in the story of President Obama when they talk about him today or if there's a moment where he's being nice to Kalin Clark, so everyone thinks he's a moderate. A couple of things come to mind. We learned that in his final days of his second term with Susan Rice and others, he was really... weaponizing or preparing an attack on incoming president, President Trump. That was being planned. And then oddly, but I think, and this is my question to you, he stayed in Washington, D.C. There was always talk of, you know, of cabinet members visiting or him living in Georgetown and him staying in close proximity to the White House. Did he ever leave? Did he, was he maybe shadow governments too draconian? But was his presence not just his fingerprints when he was on the clock? But he continued to be an architect even after he left office. Yeah, you know, a lot of it happens behind the scenes. In my opinion, Barack Obama is not the sort of guy who goes away. I think I mentioned the article. There's the interview where Barack and Obama are being, Barack and Michelle are being interviewed. And someone asks him, what comes next? And he says, fun. He's too much of a politician to just move to fun. As you mentioned, it's so critical. You think of law fair. We think of the more recent cases against Trump. We think of Jack Smith, things like that. The case with Stormy Daniels, Barack Obama.
He was a leader in bringing lawfare into the political realm with targeting people with the IRS. And then, as you mentioned, launching the Russia collusion hoax that launched under Barack Obama's administration, Barack Obama's FBI, Barack Obama's Department of Justice. And, yeah, again, as you said, I don't think he's the sort of guy who ever goes away. Why are Republicans, in your opinion, Josh, a little reluctant to talk about Obamacare? Because that's socialized medicine. What Barack Obama did was take what, about 25% of the nation's economy and turn it into socialism. And it's a disaster. Everybody talks about the high cost of health care. Well, doesn't Obama care play into something like that? And why aren't more people talking about that? Absolutely. And it's so ridiculous. You know, socialists, they're exploiting the issue of affordability. Well, part of the reason we have such a big problem with affordability is because of Obamacare. And this is where, you know, you just wish that Republicans would have had as much spine as the Democrats did when they rammed this legislation through. And they've acted like they wanted to repeal Obamacare. And I think it's just one of those things where it becomes embedded in the system and you really need courage to root it out and come up with a better plan. But that's not really something Republicans seem to have done a good job of. That's right, Josh. Thank you very much. That's Joshua Monington talking about Barack Obama's influence on today's Democratic Party. We're coming up on the Rod and Greg Show and Talk Radio 105-9 Canteris.
Roder and Greg with you on this Friday afternoon, a hot one on the outside. So what's new? We've been hot for like the last three weeks. I know. I'd rather be hot than cold. I don't care what anyone says. I'm with you. So everybody gets excited because, you know, college football is coming up. But that always means the days are getting shorter and the weather's going to get colder. And I love football, but I just love the, I do love the heat. I love the summertime. Yeah. I like the summertime in the evenings when it's a warm evening on the outside. I love that. The other day, you know, I left, I went to that, my niece. Your concert. Went to Post Malone. And it was like 86 degrees, 85 degrees at 10 at night, 10 and 11 at night. which is warm, but without a sun, it felt great. Yeah, it feels good. Absolutely. I used to like to go to a late, late night movie, like it starts at like 1030 or 11. Yeah. And you get out like a one. And it's just nice on the outside. Yeah. I can't do that now because I fall asleep. Yeah, now you'd be, I'd be asleep. You know what? I've tried, speaking of that, I've tried to watch some shows and I've fallen asleep watching them, trying to watch some shows. Yeah. Yeah. Anyway. Life so tough. Yes, first world problems. Hey guys, it is Ryan. For years, Chumba's been set in the bar for online social casino fun, and it just keeps getting better. With new games released every week and daily bonuses to collect, the fun never stops. So claim your welcome bonus now at chumba casino.com. No purchase necessary. PGW. Boy, we're prohibited by law. See terms of conditions, 21 plus. I'm about to say that. All right. Let's talk about this. Defer. What did they call that? They came up with that term a couple of weeks ago, a couple of months ago, Greg. They call it a gestating human or person. To describe a woman, right? Yes, yes. What a ridiculous thing. Well, it's just part of the left in their effort to erase mom and dad from our daily vernacular. Joining us on our newsmaker line to talk about all of this is the executive director of them before us. His name is Josh Wood. He's on our newsmaker line right now. Josh, thanks so much for joining us. Why on earth? It seems ridiculous, though, that the left is trying to erase mom and dad. What is going on? I mean, we should have all seen this coming. I think this is what, I think if anything, teach stuff. We cannot be careful enough right now in making sure words still have real definitions. Let me ask you this question. We have a Mother's Day. We have a Father's Day. Is this a bridge too far? Is this so counterintuitive to the general public without regard to political affiliation that it exposes the nonsense that we're living through right now? Well, I think you've even seen it in Mother's Day and Father's Day celebrations over the last few years. If you do that and you don't acknowledge every mother or father figure, and look, there's like a lot of good things about that. I have had significant figures in my life who are not my mother or father. But what we've also lost is that term being weaponized to try to normalize this child acquisition by the LGBTQ agenda.
which intentionally deprived the child of their mother or father, which is a totally different issue. Josh, your organization put up a series of billboards across the country, and it really generated some controversy because I love the message. No child has two dads, no child has two moms. What was the thinking behind this knowing that you were going to get really attacked, which you did? Well, I think it's important in this day and age to challenge the fact that we are trying to redefine what mother and father mean. And why is that important? It goes beyond just having inclusive mother's days and father's days. Because when we redefine what it means to be a father, right now in my mind, what I believe everybody agreed with the last hundred years, Barack Obama agreed with this. A father is the person that creates a child. and they have obligations and responsibilities to that child they have obligations and responsibilities to the person they created the child with which is always a woman and that's his mother that that definition creates protection and provision for the child now when we redefine all of that suddenly the child gets redefined when father is just a feeling It's just something you can opt into or opt out of. The child suddenly becomes this kind of commodity or asset. It has nothing to do with creation now. So when the child pops out of the womb, we the adults get to decide who are they assigned to. They're an asset. And child, this kind of state mandated child assignment, parents assigned at birth, is a very dangerous concept. You know, the statistics show that there's a lot more children being born to single moms than there used to be. Is this a language just trying to, you know, blur the difference between a mother and a father? Does it in some way encourage or allow for or make more socially acceptable the fact that you may have single parents raising a child all by themselves, which is a lot harder and comes with all of its own challenges? But it might be great for social engineering if the government wants to be a stronger hand or a heavier hand in that child's raising that child. Does these words, and the way it's being described, is it also trying to normalize or justify single parenthood, which is tough on the parent and the child? Well, I mean, go with me here. So if I say to a single mother, all family forms are equal. And the child actually doesn't have necessarily a mother and a father. They have whatever adults we decide. That single mother goes, well, actually, my child, the person that helped me create this child, his father walked out. And I think it's brutal. I think he's, I think he's a deadbeat. I think that the child deserves to be. to feel wronged i think that he that parent opted out of an important relationship i think i've been wronged what this inclusion does it tries to act like it's kind what it actually does is remove this space the context for compassion because if every family structure is equal if it nothing is different when a child has their father walk out because he could just be replaced by any other individual whether there it was his father or not you actually don't give that mother
who was the hero who stuck around any room to feel she has lost something more importantly you don't give the kid who did lose something the father in his life you don't give him any room what is he supposed to complain about you should just be happy you have adults that love you well wait a second you don't have an adult you have a mother and a father Josh, I've always been bothered by one thing when it comes to gay marriage. Gay marriage is fine. If they're old enough, they want to do it, they do it, right? What bothers me is the raising of children in a gay relationship because I think at a certain point, a young man will be very uncomfortable getting on the floor with one of his mothers and wrestling with her. And I think a young girl would be very uncomfortable having one of their fathers explain the maturation process to him. That's what bothers me about the raising of children in these same-sex marriages. And I don't think people talk about that enough. Well, I tell you, we went through the craziness of 2020 to 2025 with we had quotas for everything, including the fact that you had to have a number of women. I believe it was the Boeing board that mandated a number of women that had to be on their corporate board because you just couldn't possibly run a company if you did not have diverse perspectives from different genders. You mean to tell me we need that in our boardrooms, but not in the most important institution in all of society? That mothers and fathers are optional in that, but not in running Boeing. It just exposes the hypocrisy. The two people who create the child are also necessary for their protection and development. You know, Josh, this discussion and your work on this is so critical, and I probably have never heard anyone describe it as succinctly and as well that the mother is wronged and the child is wronged when you somehow try to normalize or pretend that that family is exactly the same as a two-parent family with a mother and a father. My question, and there used to be this emphasis that fathers need to step up and be fathers to these children. Do we ever get there? Can we expect that of our men in this country? Do we demand there be a real thought? Forget these names and these words we're using. A father and a mother with equal responsibility for the child that they create. Can we get back to that as a society? Well, now that's a tough question. Are we pessimistic or optimistic about society? I think that if we could get around as a culture and as a society, demonstrating really positive examples that the most, the happiest couples are those in long-term relationships who are married raising their children. The people who have the most sex, sorry, are married religious people. You are the happiest. You're the most protective of your children. Your children do best. I just don't think that message is getting out because there's a lot of forces. And I'll remind you, these forces, they talk left and live right. They talk about you can do whatever you want, pair with whoever you want, have sex with whoever you want. You don't have to get married. Delay fertility, all these different things. All the people pushing those messages, these elite progressives, have shit.
Strong families. They're all married. They all their kids go to nice schools. They don't get divorced. It's insane. There is a hypocrisy built into it. So I think one of the first things we have to do is, man, if you're married and you have kids, we need to stop complaining about it on social media and realize that every single one of our individual lives are a platform to push back on the anti-dad, anti-child propaganda. And there's a lot of it out there anymore, isn't there? Yes, there is. All right, on our newsmaker line, Josh Wood, executive director of the group, then before us. More coming up on the Rod and Greg show. Well, welcome back, our number two of the Rod and Greg show with you on this Friday afternoon. Finally, I think we're close to operating on all cylinders. I feel like we're just kicking out the ghosts out of the machine. We're getting there. A few days of some unique issues with the machine. You know, the machines took over. They did. We couldn't even get into it and stop it. No, it's just, it's ridiculous. And I think that the Chinese are very intimidated by the Rod and Greg show. And I think I'm just going to blame, I'm going to blame the. The foreign intelligence community for trying to shut us down. They try to ban, they try to censor us. Yeah, I think it's socialist here in Utah. I think Ben McAdams is behind it. Like I said, the Chinese, you know, communist intelligence agency. I think that's synonymous with what you just said. Greg, I'm reading this on social media, and I'm not seeing any other reports on this, but there is a posting on social media right now, and it says this, finally. John Thune caved to Maga Pressure and decided to cancel August recess. I am suspect of it. I don't know if you see anything on that, but it says thank you to the nine Patriot senators who refused to take vacation before the SAVAC passed. Now, we did see. Another U.S. Senator has joined Mike Lee in his effort. That's Mike Crapo. He is a Republican from Idaho, so they're close to 20. But this one I don't trust. So just take it. I'm not going to take that one here. But I think we saw a list of up to 20 senators. I want to see Rand Paul's name up there. He's, you know, he fancies himself a bit of a, you know, of a maverick. Rebel. And I would like to see him. By the way, disappointing op-ed by our Senator John Curtis. At the same time, we're talking about this and wanting to see them work, get this done. He wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. By the way, who's your audience in the Wall Street Journal? Would that be the Utah constituency you serve? Wall Street Journal seems like he's speaking to a different audience. But he boils it down to, I don't want to change the filibuster. Well, I would argue that a marathon debate on that Senate floor about an issue that... 70, and I'm being generous when I say 70, it's probably 80%, but 70 plus percent of America without regard to political party affiliation, support the Save America Act to have that marathon debate. Tyler Redick here from 2311 racing.
The rush of racing, nothing beats it. But Chumba Casino comes close. Chumba's got fast spins, fun games, daily bonuses, and all the action you can handle. Now that's a ride. Ready to hit the throttle, get in the driver's seat, and head to chumbacasino.com. Let's Chumba. Sponsored by Chumba Casino. No purchase necessary. VGW Group, voidware prohibited by law, 21 plus, terms and conditions apply. that the American people, by and far, large and all of them, support to stay there and have that debate and pass that is, that is the filibuster, even, it contemplates that marathon debate. It contemplates you sitting there and you staying until you have that debate until. All it takes. Once you've done it and there's not enough opposition to keep throwing out amendments. then you can pass it by a simple majority. That is what the filibuster did. They want to mail it in. They want to be able to call it in. They want to do it ahead of time. That 60 vote cloture without actually any debate. That is not how the Civil Rights Act passed. That's not how it works or it didn't work. It works now that way. But you aren't hurting any Senate precedent by having that marathon debate on something American people cared that much about. Vote for it, folks. I mean, come on, guys. Just get it done. All right, let's move on, talk about another topic that I know you're very well versed in. Yes. And we're talking about school discipline. You had your running with the issue of discipline. I'm on the receiving end of that school discipline. I was never one. I would never work for a school district, never a teacher, but I was a student. And I was subject to, yes, school discipline. Yeah, yeah. Well, we all were. I was too. And it's an issue. But all of a sudden the idea of disciplining a student. who gets out of hand has apparently gone away. Apparently teachers can't do that anymore. Man, I would have ruled that school at my age. When I was going through this and there were consequences to my conduct, which I appreciate. I don't look back at it and wish it any different. But if you get, if you did, if you didn't have consequences, I don't know what. Little Greg would have looked like because, you know, I think I would have enjoyed no consequences. Well, this started years ago with a directive from the federal government warning schools to be careful when it comes to disciplining students. And joining us on our newsmaker line right now to talk about that is Jennifer Weber. She is a K-12 education policy view fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Jennifer, thank you very much for joining us tonight. How did this lack of discipline in the classroom and in the schools begin? Well, I mean, really since 2014, when the federal government really started to treat this as a means of discrimination. So in that initial letter that Obama had written, he had pretty much in his administration had said that if a district suspension numbers differed by race.
even if those rules were being applied evenly to every student, that gap could then trigger a civil rights investigation. So over the last... more than a decade, we've really seen that schools across the nation just kind of learn to manage the numbers. So maybe on paper there were less suspensions, but you would hear within the classrooms there was just so much chaos and misbehavior that just wasn't able to get to get addressed. And then at the same time, there were these alternative approaches that were getting that were becoming very popular like restorative justice social emotional learning trauma informed instruction that we're kind of taking the place of behavior-based discipline So every action should have a consequence, good and bad. Maybe share with us. I know it's in your column, but share with us what does it even mean to have restorative justice practices instead of a suspension when a kid is, when a student is just disrupting the class or it's hit a level where that would have been the consequence. What is a restorative justice consequence? What is that? What is that? Restorative justice consequence is literally creating a mediation circle where the teacher or a counselor and the child kind of talks through what happened. And so it became this kind of conversational approach, but really if you look at it more behaviorally, the kid who was maybe misbehaving or disrupting whatever it may be to get out of doing work still is now getting out of doing work. So it's not a suspension, but the kid is still out of the classroom, but now just engaging in a conversation. Jennifer, how difficult is this for teachers to deal with? We've had teachers call into this show before talking about discipline in the classroom and basically saying there's nothing we can do here. We're told we can't do anything. I mean, that almost makes their job impossible at times, doesn't it? It does. I used to do a lot of work in public schools and charter schools really focused on behavior. My background is in behavior analysis. And you would see there was always so much red tape where there really weren't any consequences being provided. And the kids would see it. And you would just see more of that occur. I remember actually being in a classroom and watching a kid. throw a Chromebook at the teacher. The kids then in the classroom watched the teacher get escorted out like to go to the emergency room by ambulance. And after that, the kid at 20 minutes after the conversive restorative circle the kid had with another staff member was back in the classroom. Teacher was gone, but he was back in the classroom.
So, you know, Rod and I have shared our experiences in school. It was a long time ago, longer for Rod, by the way. But he went to a Catholic school, and he had the nuns, and they had rulers, and he had knuckles, and they used to meet quite a bit. Or he had to stay in a corner. I, in the seventh grade, I got paddled three separate, in a public school, I got paddled three separate times in three different classes for things that pale in comparison to what you just described about throwing a Chromebook at a teacher. I don't think we're going to go back to paddling. I don't think we're going to go back to rulers on knuckles. But throwing a Chromebook at a teacher and having them taken out medically versus a restorative circle. What is the happy medium here? How do you create consequences so that you're not just not just for the student themselves, but for the whole classroom to deliver education successfully? What is that? What should we be striving towards? Absolutely. And I think that's where it all got, I mean, it all got really misconstrued because it isn't, it of course isn't a one-size-fits-all, but it has to be behavior-based and really looking at the why the behavior is occurring. And then providing consequences based off of that. So there are of course, of course there are times when suspension is is most certainly warranted, but that's not, you know, but that's not all the time. And we've got to look at why this, why this happened and then really provide a consistent consequence based off of that. So a kid who is trying to escape. doing a math worksheet, that consequence should be very different than a kid who's disrupting a class to get the teacher's attention, first, a kid who is throwing a Chromebook at a staff member. All of those things are specific behaviors, and they all occurred for different reasons. So they all warrant a different kind of consequence. And that's what I think. that everyone has gotten so wrong, particularly when the federal government really put out the notice and made it so much about race and not discriminating against race. It completely lost consecrating kids based on behavior. Jennifer, why should I not be surprised that I suspect there are some kids who become wise to this and they know they can almost get away with murder in a classroom. And that's got to be affecting them as well, right? I mean, 100%. Like I said, when I was working in schools and more of a consultant role, I would sit in on some of the conversations that... that the principal would have with the students. And some of the responses that the students would give would be because I can. And so they know exactly what they're doing. And they also know that when there are no consequences, they can just keep doing the same thing. And we see that in society all the time. When you don't have consequences, you just get more of the same behavior. And the kids are smart. They absolutely know that.
Jennifer, thank you very much for joining us. Jennifer Weber with the Manhattan Institute talking about discipline in schools today. Greg, you, as I mentioned with Jennifer, you talked to almost any teacher out there. It's an issue in the classroom. It is. And I have spoken to teachers in Utah, and it is an issue. And what can be done about it? Look, I know examples of teachers that have been harmed by the, just like not a Chromebook and an ambulance call, but serious harm to a student, to a teacher, an educator by a student, and there was no consequence to that student. And that's not right. No, no. I mean, there's even hospital bills. And, you know, the consequences to the student did not exist. Yeah. So it is. It's, it's, there's no way that when I know, when she's sharing that. And I can think of an exact example similar in our schools here. That's not the only time it's ever happened in Utah, and I just happen to be privy to it. I think it's happening enough that these stories are common enough that I would know of an example. Why on earth would you want to be a teacher knowing your hands are tied when it comes to disciplining a disruptive student in the class? I don't think it's in the brochure. I don't think they're letting the teachers know that when they're entering this career. I don't know that they know they're at the mercy of these kids who can almost do whatever they want. Now, look, if there's good teachers out there, they're able to show consequences to students' bad behavior, I hope that's happening. But I do know circumstances where the teachers are unable to do anything about it. Sad. All right. More coming up, Rod and Greg, with you on this Friday afternoon right here on Utah's Talk Radio 1059, KNRS. Let's continue with the third hour, Greg. You know, there are so many people who talk about this all the time, but I don't think we talk about it enough. Tyler Reddic here from 2311 racing. Another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with Chumba. Jump in at chumbacasino. Let's Chumba. No purchase necessary. VTW Group. Boyd were prohibited by law. CTNC, 21 Plus, sponsored by Chumba Casino. The importance of the Bible in the founding of this great country and how our founding fathers. use the Bible to kind of influence many of the important documents that were written, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, to which were very important and still are. Yeah, if you want to omit. the relationship of this country, the founding of this country with Christianity, specifically, but even generally faith and freedom of religion, you're missing the story. And so under the banner of separation of state, you cannot omit these things. No, you cannot. Well, joining us on our newsmaker line to talk more about that is Khan Carroll. He's a commentary editor at the Washington Examiner. Khan, thanks for joining us this evening. Let's talk about the Bible and America. Why is it so important and why aren't people talking about it, Enof Khan? Sure. Well, I mean, the Bible is important because it's the foundation of our political thought and the way we understand the world, particularly for our founders, which is something we don't appreciate today's in today's secular world. You know, the Texas...
State School Board recently required certain readings throughout K through 12 of both the Old and New Testament. And the Democratic Party said that this was in contradiction to the freedom of religion. And they're just wrong, and they have a faulty understanding of how the founders viewed Christianity and the importance of it for our nation. You're so right. And so there's a historical perspective. And if you don't share the historical perspective, you're missing a large part of the story, maybe share with our audience. What are some of those historical moments that if you don't mention Christianity, if you don't mention its role, you're missing America's story? Yeah, absolutely. You know, I think when you look at the founding documents, not just the Declaration for Independence, which of course... specifically alludes to a creator in God that gives us these natural rights. But we look to the Federalist papers themselves. You know, Madison wrote in Federalist 51, if men were angels, no government would be necessary. You have to have an understanding of the Bible and understanding what he's talking about there. In Federalist 37, again, Madison describes the Constitution as evidence that there's an almighty hand that has repeated aid of the nation and his reference to the finger of God. you know, draws on public language that readers need to understand. You know, there's just a moral language and vocabulary that we have only if you read and understand the Bible that we need as a nation to have that common culture. Con, I don't think most Americans realize that our founders, and you list them, many of our founders came from different religions. It was Christianity, but they all weren't one religion. I don't think people realize that, do they? Right. So, you know, people say, some people say that, you know, we are Christian nation and we are. But there's also specific parts of the Constitution itself, which as a document does not mention God, you know, but you have those parts of the Bible that you specifically forbid, you know, Article 6, the Constitution forbids religious tests for qualifications for... offices without the United States. And that's because at our founding, there was a wide variety of Christian sects that were thriving with the United States, congregationalists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, Lutherans, Methodists, Arabians, Mennonites, Catholics, even. So there's this wide variety of people. And all of these groups had very different understandings of theology and everything else, but at the same time, they still shared a belief in God. And like I said before, a moral vocabulary in a shared conception of human nature. And it's not just those who those who. belonged to those sex. You also had Benjamin Netanyahu Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, who were deists, you know, who did not necessarily believe in the divinity of human Christ, but still at the same time, believed in the necessity of having that same shared cultural language of the Bible and that there was a higher power that we answered to. So I'm curious your thoughts.
Is this an overstatement or do you think this is relevant? I've heard this said before that if you want to talk about America, you don't go to the Tea Party, Boston Tea Party, you go to Plymouth Rock. And I know that's pre, you know, the founding of our country, but is that the critical moment that we should talk about more than even the Tea Party, the Boston Tea Party? Well, I mean, yes and no, right? Because Plymouth Rock was... a theological enterprise that explicitly excluded and kicked out people who weren't Puritans, right? Religious freedom con. Religious freedom. No, right, right. And so you want to have a federalist religious freedom where you can go and participate in communities that are like that, but under a larger... federal umbrella of protecting each man's right to a conscious of faith. And that's the balance that the founders found within the Constitution and the Declaration, that we are a nation that is under God, but that we can't allow sectarian tests. to affect who is in the government and who is deciding what policy is. Con, how important is it do you think that we bring the Bible back into the classroom for kids to study? I mean, I notice the state of Texas is moving in that direction, in no way trying to convert people to Christianity, but to be able to study its importance in the founding of this great country, how important is that do you feel? I mean, I feel it's exactly essential, right? I mean, I mentioned that the Democrats, you know, really complains when the Texas School Board announces these things. And they said that, you know, Texas is home to millions of people of countless fates and beliefs. And that's why Texas shouldn't teach the bottom of school. But I would argue it's the exact opposite. It's because there are so many faiths and because there are so many different beliefs that we need to teach in our public schools, what is the... the common belief that we're founded on so that we have that common moral language to talk to each other and to relate. And, you know, to be perfectly honest and upfront, you know, I was raised in a secular household. I was never a Christian. I'm not a Christian. But at the same time, I was first taught the Bible. in English class, you know, as literature in the sense that if you're going to go on and read, you know, Chaucer, Milton, and Shakespeare, and Shelley and Keith, and even American authors, Melville, and Twain and Faulkner, you have to have an operating understanding of the narratives of the Bible. Otherwise, you're just not going to know what anyone's talking about. And so that is why it is so essential, now that we are so fragmented, now that we are so diverse, that we need to have that teaching of what the Christian Bible is in our public schools.
Con Carroll joining us on our Any Hour Newsmaker line talking about understanding America, trying to do that without the Bible. What a unique perspective from Con himself. I mean, he's looking at this as he described his life in a very objective way. He says he's not a Christian, so he was raised in a secular household. So, I mean, when he's talking about you need the Bible in there. No one's putting their thumb on the scale. No, sure. All right. When we come back, we'll begin our Listenback Friday segments right here on Utah's Talk Radio 1059. KNRS. CEOs, you should know, it's a conversation with some of the top business leaders here in Utah. We love to explore the ups and downs of creating and running their business. And it's so great to have Scott Katie Porter, the owner, the founder of San Diablo. Artists and Churros with us today. Scott, welcome to CEOs. You should know. It's great to have you here. Now, we want to get to know you a little bit better before we talk about the success of your business. So what we do is throw a lot of quick questions at you. These are simple choice questions just to get to know you a little bit. Okay. And we like to put a stopwatch on it. You in 60. Driving or riding. Riding. Salty or sweet. Salty. Superman or Batman. Uh, Superman. All right. Favorite song. Oh, my gosh, there's so many. That's my answer. There's too many to choose. All right. Sunrise or sunset? Beetles or stones? Beetles. Chocolate or vanilla? Beach or mountains. Oh. Um, these aren't supposed to be that hard, Scott. I just love both. Okay. Beach. All right. Star Trek or Star Wars? Coke or Pepsi? Uh, neither. Skateboard or snowboard? Okay. Listening to music or playing music? Listening. TikTok, Instagram or X? Instagram. Cats or dogs? Time's up. Cats or dogs? Neither. Neither. Okay. Well, I'm not a pet guy. You're not a pet guy. Let's talk. I like animals. I just don't want them around me all the time. Okay, that's fine. Yeah, there are people who are animal people, and people are not animal people. I get that as well. All right. Let's talk about your career itself. I was writing your bio. You're a serial entrepreneur. I love that title. Why go into all the different things that you've been into, Scott? That is a... Really great question. I mean, I've had a really eclectic career path and been involved in a lot of different industries. I am, the entrepreneurial gene is so strong in me, and I just, I can't. I can't deny it. It's something that has always been a part of me ever since I was a kid. I mean, I started my first venture when I think I was about...
Eight or nine years old, we did a, we did a, uh, a neighborhood newspaper. So I was the, I wrote about, and I interviewed my friends and their families and their parents like what their jobs were, where they went on vacation, wrote up little articles and sold it back to everyone in my neighborhood for like 25 cents. So it was, um, it's just, it's something that is in me. I, at, I've asked my mom, was I always like that? And, and yeah, it's just, I think my, my dad's an entrepreneur. And so that was, I, I learned by, by, uh, experience and watching him. And it's, it's really hard. But I've also just always gravitated toward things that were hard and difficult. And like something that no one had ever done before and starting something from scratch. And all right. Tell me a little bit about San Diablo. Artists in Churros. Yes. Where did that idea come from? Why did you venture into that area? Totally. It's so fun because I just got back from where this idea was born in Mexico City. I got back just a couple days ago. I went to the very place where I had my first fresh filled Churros when I was an intern there for the summer one year. And I was like, wait a second, these are so insanely good. I hadn't, you know, apparently hadn't lived before that moment. And this is like, I, it really became just this. mission, responsibility. I even said, like, I've got to take something this good to back home. We have, you know, mostly mediocre churros here in the United States at that point. And I'm like, we got to do something about this. It was an idea that I had way back then. And then fast forward several career lives later, 10 years ago was when I decided it was the right time to bring that. bring all that goodness and that happiness. Yeah, yeah. During Utah, we have a lot of entrepreneurs. You certainly are one. It's an amazing environment for that. What recommendation, or if you have someone come to and say, I've got an idea, I want to turn it into something, what do you recommend they do? Because you've been through it. You've done it. Yeah, I mean, like, join the crazy crew that all these crazy people that want to start their own business. And so first of all, take a get ready for a wild ride. So just like sign yourself up for that. One of the things that's been really successful for us and helpful for us is is real time. testing of whatever it is. Like you ask any of my friends and family, like I'm always bringing new stuff to family gatherings, to parties and stuff. Hey, do you guys want, let me try this. Or, you know, I brought churros to parties for a year or so before I actually launched the business. Because I wanted to get real time feedback from people. Have we nailed it? Like getting that real time feedback is absolutely crucial. So final question for you, Scott.
Is there, you're a successful entrepreneur? For those who are successful, and there are a lot of them out there, is there a secret sauce that all you entrepreneurs have? And if so, what is that secret sauce that makes you successful? I mean, I do love sauce, period. So any kind of sauce, right? Secret sauce. I mean, I honestly think there is just an unusually high tolerance for crazy for the unusual. for the ability to continue to push through the nose that you get and the rejection that you get and an unusually high ability to believe in what you're building as well. I mean, that is, that's, that's, uh, that. is probably, I'm just trying to think what the common thread in entrepreneurs that have been successful is, and that to me seems to be something that stands out. Scott, great to get to know you. Thank you so much for the time. Thank you. All right. Bringing you insights from business leaders who are achieving success. We call it CEOs you should know right here on iHeard Media. Hey, it is Ryan Sechrest here. Want to bring a little Hollywood excitement to your day? Take a few spins with Chumba Casino's brand new game. Ryan Seacrest's 10K Ways. It's free and features 10,000 ways to play, giving you nonstop action, including thrilling bonus re spins and cascating reels. Every spin brings something new. So step into the spotlight. Enjoy the excitement. And play today at chumbacasino.com. No purchase necessary. VGW Group. Voidware prohibited by law. CTs and Cs, 21 Plus. Sponsored by Chumba Casino.